Of course. Thank you for agreeing with me that my statement is, at a very minimum, bizarre.Tone it down!
Upvote
0
Of course. Thank you for agreeing with me that my statement is, at a very minimum, bizarre.Tone it down!
I try very hard to use the standard rules for interpreting Scripture. The clear passages of Scripture interpret the less clear or obscure. The clear passages for interpreting the Eucharist are Mark 14, Luke 22, Matthew 26, I Cor 10 and 1 Cor. 11. According to the historic western tradition these passages of Scripture are considered sedes doctrinae. All other passages of Scripture are subservient to these passages.?? The Eucharist is never mentioned, and neither is communion, yet the reference is obvious??
From a literary stance, that makes no sense whatsoever. How can something that is not there be obvious?
From a proper exegetical stance it is incorrect
In the respect that for the first 16 years of my life, my family was very active in the Roman Catholic Church. When I was an altar boy, and the priest asked me to bring him to Eucharist. I brought him the bread. He never corrected me. He never said anything, but thank you. if you have a different view, I understand. But that’s why I see a difference between the Eucharist and the Lords table.No, this is not my opinion: in your post, you wrote, and I quote, “ Way too long to read. However I skimmed it and could not find a direct reply to the simple FACT that Peter make NO reference to the Eucharist, nor the Lords table in either of his espistles.”
In what respect would you say the Eucharist is different from the Lord’s Table? And if they are not, in your opinion, different, why are you enumerating over them as two separate entities using the word “nor”?
Thank you for the history, lesson, But what does that have to do with the fact that Peter not in first Peter and not in second Peter ever mentioned the Lords table the bread, or the Eucharist?For the record, the word Eucharist means “Thanksgiving” and is one of four terms commonly used to refer to this sacrament (or “ordinance” as some insist on calling it), the others being “Holy Communion,” “The Lord’s Supper” and “The Lord’s Table.” The terms “Divine Liturgy,” “Mass”, “Divine Service” “Missa” “Gottesdienst,” “Qurbono Qadisho” or “Raza” and “Soorp Badarak” in English, Latin, German, Syriac and Armenian respectively, refer to the service where the Eucharist is celebrated, and not to the actual sacrament, although occasionally some churches, particularly Anglican churches, will refer to the service as “the Eucharist” or “Holy Communion,” (which is also technically the name given for the service in the Book of Common Prayer).
Is he “pious” because he agrees with you? Or is he pious because he leads his life a certain way?
Alright, but you asked in post #15 how the passage in 2 Peter and St. Cyril's writings were connected. Your question was answered twice, first in post #18 and again in post #50 since you didn't engage with the answer you were given the first time.Quoting what someone wrote 400 years years later about what they thought does not change the simple fact it is not there.
Don't you think that the understanding of Scripture held by the early Christians, especially given their languages' proximity to Koine Greek, should hold some weight in determining the proper interpretation of a disputed passage? Doing so doesn't require treating their writings as scripture.Either the reference is in the Scripture or it is not.
This is a perfect example where Tradition is raised to the level of Sacred Scripture to the point of making a point on something that is just not there.
There's a middle ground between "no debate" and what is happening here. Even Zwingli was willing to engage with the Church Fathers, something modern memorialists would do well to emulate.These threads would be better off in the correct forum for them. Then there would be no debate
Let's try to raise the level of dialogue. Surely you've read a biblical commentary before and found it useful, even though it wasn't divine.Cryl’s writing is not Divine
I try very hard to use the standard rules for interpreting Scripture. The clear passages of Scripture interpret the less clear or obscure. The clear passages for interpreting the Eucharist are Mark 14, Luke 22, Matthew 26, I Cor 10 and 1 Cor. 11. According to the historic western tradition these passages of Scripture are considered sedes doctrinae. All other passages of Scripture are subservient to these passages.
The historic Eastern tradition will sometimes also include II Peter 3 and John 6 as a defense of the Real Presence.
I used to hold that John 6 was Eucharistic as Martin Luther did. Then it became an open question. At this point in my life I don't see John 6 as Eucharistic at all. As for II Peter 3, I see it was an obscure passage of Scripture that COULD be referring Eucharist. I believe II Peter 3 COULD be used as a secondary verse to Paul's "participation" terminology in I Cor. 10. Beyond that not too much more.
Having said that, I would never marshall II Peter 3 as evidence for the Real Presence especially debating memorialists here at CF. II Peter 3 is highly integral to the whole of Orthodoxy especially concerning their Formal Principle of Theology....Theosis. And many here at CF don't even know what Theosis means.
IMO, a strong argument for the Real Presence against the Memorialist is the grammatical argument as minutely articulated in post #26.
It irks me when a Memorialist state our Lord's words are figurative yet never, never, never state what the particular figure of speech it is. Bullinger's, Figures of Speech in the Bible (available free online) list over 200 individual figures of speech found in Scripture. Which one of the two hundred figures of speech is "This is my body?" When I query memorialists, all I get is silence.
These threads would be better off in the correct forum for them. Then there would be no debate
Don't traditional Anglicans believe in the Real Presence? I've heard at least one of them (The Other Paul on Youtube, IIRC) claim that they were actually the ones who coined the phrase "Real Presence." Given the overwhelming historical record of belief in a literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and its universal acceptance by the apostolic churches as well as by traditional Lutherans and Anglicans, I'm really surprised that a rejection of it would be tolerated there.It might surprise you greatly to know, by the way, that a belief in the Real Presence is not required for participation in the Traditional Theology forum. Indeed, considering Anglicans represent a large contingent of the members in Traditional Theology, and several Calvinists have also participated in it, and one of its founding members was a Calvinist, a Presbyterian, a large number of members in that forum do not subscribe to the doctrine of the Real Presence. Indeed, at least three of the most active contributors to that forum do not believe in the Real Presence.
Of course. Thank you for agreeing with me that my statement is, at a very minimum, bizarre.
Don't traditional Anglicans believe in the Real Presence? I've heard at least one of them (The Other Paul on Youtube, IIRC) claim that they were actually the ones who coined the phrase "Real Presence." Given the overwhelming historical record of belief in a literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and its universal acceptance by the apostolic churches as well as by traditional Lutherans and Anglicans, I'm really surprised that a rejection of it would be tolerated there.
We can't be much more plain either about the fact that Jesus also said "this is my body", "this is my blood".I can't be more plain about the fact Jesus said "do this in memory of me."
Ellicot's Commentary: ...
In the respect that for the first 16 years of my life, my family was very active in the Roman Catholic Church. When I was an altar boy, and the priest asked me to bring him to Eucharist. I brought him the bread. He never corrected me. He never said anything, but thank you. if you have a different view, I understand. But that’s why I see a difference between the Eucharist and the Lords table.
It is good to do what our Lord tells us to do. He gives us food and tells us to eat; so we should do. In the garden, there was one food he said not to eat; look what happened when Adam and Eve ate what they were told not to...So, is it perfectly reasonable to dine on human flesh and to drink human blood
For context, might I ask why you seem to have dedicated the rest of your life to defaming universal catholic doctrines and practices; why so angry?In the respect that for the first 16 years of my life, my family was very active in the Roman Catholic Church. <Snip>
We can't be much more plain either about the fact that Jesus also said "this is my body", "this is my blood".
As far as Ellicot's Commentary goes; if you want to start a war of commentary's, there are Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholic and Anglican commentaries that support the more Scriptural position of the real presence.
I assure you, Jesus was fully capable of speaking metaphorically or literally, no one should have to stretch their imagination to believe this. It is curious you believe so. In the case of John 6, his disciples clearly believe he is speaking literally by their question, and they are confirmed in their belief. When Jesus spoke of Himself as a door, the response was not "How can this man be made of wood?"Yes, it is quite a stretch to imagine that Jesus was speaking hyper-literally in that context, but only metaphorically in other contexts where, for example, He claimed to be a shepherd or a door or a vine.
No, I just thought Ellicot provided a good confirmation of the way I was arguing. You can use whatever references help me to understand your position.We can't be much more plain either about the fact that Jesus also said "this is my body", "this is my blood".
As far as Ellicot's Commentary goes; if you want to start a war of commentary's, there are Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholic and Anglican commentaries that support the more Scriptural position of the real presence.
Unconsecrated communion bread is called "the hosts" and unconsecrated communion wine is called "wine" or "communion wine". After consecration the wine is called "the precious blood" and the hosts are called "the body of Christ". Unused yet consecrated "hosts" are kept in the tabernacle and are consumed at the next mass.in the context of the Roman Catholic Church, as our Roman Catholic friends @Xeno.of.athens @Valletta @concretecamper and @chevyontheriver can confirm, would be “the hosts.”
Good grief. If I had a nickel for every time someone claimed for themselves or their family that they were devout, active Catholics who at some point left His Church I could retire tomorrow. NO ONE, who is a devout practicing Catholic would ever leave His Church.In the respect that for the first 16 years of my life, my family was very active in the Roman Catholic Church. When I was an altar boy, and the priest asked me to bring him to Eucharist. I brought him the bread. He never corrected me. He never said anything, but thank you. if you have a different view, I understand. But that’s why I see a difference between the Eucharist and the Lords table.
From what I gather from the LCMS and from my conversations, John 6 being Eucharist is not an issue. Some say it is, some say it isn't.I would also say that I have never met a liturgical Western Christian aside from yourself who does not regard it as being Eucharistic.