tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post1110225706223755562..comments2023-11-05T01:28:27.551-07:00Comments on Theology of Andrew: The Sacraments: Are They A Lie?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-14466124696953413122008-09-12T18:44:00.000-07:002008-09-12T18:44:00.000-07:00point taken Jared, I'm not Christian enough...(j/k...point taken Jared, I'm not Christian enough...(j/k) but the liturgies still say let the Holy Spirit make it the body of Christ, but that doesn't mean He (Holy Spirit) is not making it literally or objectively the body of Christ. <BR/><BR/>I guess it all goes back to Easter and whether it is his physically raised crucified body, or if it is a spiritual/resurrection body.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02752373297874435269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-1587083532620176612008-09-12T18:42:00.000-07:002008-09-12T18:42:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02752373297874435269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-34852372222610810562008-09-12T15:20:00.000-07:002008-09-12T15:20:00.000-07:00According to the Liturgies of Chysostom, Basil and...According to the Liturgies of Chysostom, Basil and the Clementine liturgies (some of the earliest in the church) The priest asks "thy Holy Spirit...to make this bread to be the body of thy Christ and this cup to be the blood of thy Christ." I always cringe when people say that a "spiritual presence" is not a "real presence." Such a person needs conversion since if they do not believe the spirit is real, then they do not believe God is real, for God is spirit.<BR/><BR/>Modern categories of "objective" or "literal" do not help. For if one truly feeds on Christ, one shall never die. Therefore, only the faithful may feed on Christ and truly live.Jared Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18445783451815077626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-33465603751426714162008-09-12T11:34:00.000-07:002008-09-12T11:34:00.000-07:00St. Augustine also said that when Christ held the ...St. Augustine also said that when Christ held the bread at the last supper that 'he held himself in his hands'. Showing his belief in some form of the Real Presence, and not of his resurrection body, as he has not yet been resurrected.<BR/><BR/>So that is my attempted argument for Transubstantiation/Consubstantiation, against the Zwinglian or Calvinist 'spiritual body' argument.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02752373297874435269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-21587026315610090342008-09-12T11:33:00.000-07:002008-09-12T11:33:00.000-07:00I think the problem I have with the sacraments is ...I think the problem I have with the sacraments is that I believe in universal objective reality. Not rationalism, or empiricism, but when the 'presbyter' says the prayers over the elements, they either are, or are not Jesus. <BR/><BR/>The idea that if I went to Westminster Abbey and took communion and for me it was Jesus but say Richard Dawkins it would be bread, it's non-sensical - unless you hold to consubstantiation at least and that it is actually transformed at the moment the christian eats it. But I don't hold to that, it must be an objective reality. <BR/><BR/>Of course we can speculate on the nature of how it happens, but to say for some it is, for some it isn't, borders on relativism. <BR/><BR/>I asked a reformed pastor 2 weeks ago if baptism confers grace and he said no, so I should have read the WCF again before generalizing.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02752373297874435269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-64859445732711929122008-09-12T09:13:00.000-07:002008-09-12T09:13:00.000-07:00Catholics are not scientific about the Eucharist. ...Catholics are not scientific about the Eucharist. To say such a thing shows a misunderstanding of the doctrine of transubstantiation. There is nothing scientific about it. Technical, perhaps, but so are the doctrines of the Trinity and the hypostatic union.<BR/><BR/>If people don't want to be technical about something, I have no beef with them. Our faith is not about technical definitions. But, to be frank, to say "NO!" to a technical clarification (born out of clarity in response to dissent) is to be <I>equally</I> technical.Philiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07488676865887585143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2970772341265505777.post-16639662035891324242008-09-12T07:50:00.000-07:002008-09-12T07:50:00.000-07:00The problem with the sacraments is there are about...The problem with the sacraments is there are about as many perspectives on them as there are traditions. However, every tradition, not just Catholics, believe the sacraments are means of grace (except Anabaptists). The Westminster is anti-Zwinglian in that it affirms that baptism "confers" grace and that Christ is "truly and really present" in the Eucharist. It is just that they are made operative through faith. You can have a good baptism (as the Isralites did at the Red Sea) or a bad one (like the Egyptians), and drink the Eucharist feasting on Christ (by faith) or heeping up condemnation on yourself. I think the Reformed perspective is a mix of Augustine and Orthodox perspectives (Augustine-by faith, distinction between inward reality and outward sign / Orthodox - presence by operation of the Holy Spirit, is a mystery and mystical, not rational, scientific like the Latins) I like that mix, partly because I like the Orthodox and Augustine. :)Jared Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18445783451815077626noreply@blogger.com