tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post5268715149779046390..comments2023-10-20T06:41:31.943-07:00Comments on Visits to Candyland: Early Church Fathers and the Catholic ChurchElena LaVictoirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comBlogger184125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-3401486906527347392009-08-30T07:59:52.487-07:002009-08-30T07:59:52.487-07:00And those apostles went on to celebrate Eucharist ...And those apostles went on to celebrate Eucharist in the early church.<br /><br />On that note, i think this thread is done.Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-78911239500718675022009-08-29T18:10:02.467-07:002009-08-29T18:10:02.467-07:00The ones who departed didn't understand that t...The ones who departed didn't understand that there is a deeper spiritual meaning to what Jesus was saying. They thought of it only in a literal way. Even the Apostles didn't really understand yet, but they trusted Him and remained, 'because only He has the words of eternal life.'Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-19804799288921301202009-08-29T17:50:41.585-07:002009-08-29T17:50:41.585-07:00Interesting. Because the disciples that didn't...<i>Interesting. Because the disciples that didn't like the literal words of eating and chewing were the ones that left. Interestingly that was in John 6:66.</i><br />To phrase it another way, the ones who thought He was talking about literal eating and drinking departed in unbelief.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-85009495229062932762009-08-28T17:48:04.523-07:002009-08-28T17:48:04.523-07:00In any case, no matter how you translate the word ...<i><br />In any case, no matter how you translate the word 'indeed' as found in the KJV and the NKJV, what Christ is saying is that His flesh and blood are true nourishment for the soul and spirit.</i><br /><br /><br />Except that the actual word for this in the Greek means actually, literally to eat, chew, gnaw. So it's very corporal and not just spiritual.<br /><br />You guys feel free to wrap it up but I think we've just about beaten this horse to death. I'm gonna probably close this thread down tomorrow.Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-33019504227685161552009-08-28T16:37:26.036-07:002009-08-28T16:37:26.036-07:00Dr. Mike said:
"'My flesh is real food; ...Dr. Mike said:<br /><br /><strong>"'My flesh is real food; my blood real drink.' John 6:55<br /><br />Why would Jesus stress the fact that his body and blood were real food if he didn't mean for people to literally eat it? "</strong><br /><br />Oh come on Dr. Mike. I don't fault you for your beliefs, but there is a spiritual message here that Jesus is teaching, which if we get it, will help us understand the type of relationship He is seeking with us.<br /><br />For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink (John 6:55, NIV and Message).<br /><br />An alternative translation is found in the NLT, NASB, ESV, Young's Literal Translation and Darby's Translation.<br /><br />For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink (John 6:55, NLT, NASB, ESV).<br /><br />For my flesh truly is food, and my blood truly is drink; (Young's Literal Translation, Darby's Translation).<br /><br />In any case, no matter how you translate the word 'indeed' as found in the KJV and the NKJV, what Christ is saying is that His flesh and blood are true nourishment for the soul and spirit. How is the soul and spirit nourished? Is the soul and spirit nourished by eating physical food, or by ingesting through the digestive system? Hey, did not Jesus preach a sermon about that saying that what goes into a person's mouth has no effect on the purity of one's soul? He said that food does not enter into the heart, but enters into the belly (Mark 7:19). Check out Matthew 15 also. The spirit and soul of man is not nourished by physical eating, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. That is why when we fast we also put away physical food.<br /><br />Christ is offering to us spiritual nourishment, to nourish our souls. He is offering Himself, as the Word made flesh. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life" (John 6:47-48).<br /><br />Another reason why some of the disciples turned away from Him is because He had performed the miracle of feeding the five thousand, and some were following because they received physical food (John 6:26). They were now disappointed that Jesus was not offering them physical food, but spiritual food, and so some of them left because of that.<br /><br />Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” <br />But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.(John 6:67-68).<br /><br />I am just glad people have not left the church just because we are not in full agreement on the meaning of this passage, as some of the false disciples did. Even if we do not understand, we can still draw on our faith, knowing that our belief is in Him.<br /><br /><br />Peace.Daughter of Wisdomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01565795173054909961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-2504403350679494232009-08-28T09:12:20.599-07:002009-08-28T09:12:20.599-07:00continued:
The author of de Sacramentis shows a si...continued:<br /><b>The author of de Sacramentis shows a similar hesitation, when faced with the implications involved in this teaching of a miraculous change effected in the elements by consecration. Though he does not affirm so clearly as Ambrose the spiritual character of the Eucharistic food, he is alive to the materialistic conclusions which may be drawn from his teaching, and in this connexion speaks of receiving “the likeness of the death” and “drinking the likeness of the precious blood” (iv. 4. 20), or again he refers to the sacrament as being received “in a likeness” (in similitudinem), though this likeness bestows the “grace and virtue” of the reality (vi. 1. 3). Here again, as in Ambrose above, we see how naturally the older language current in the West reasserts itself. (See further, Introd. p. xviii, above.)<br /><br />The train of thought opened up by Ambrose and his successor, the author of de Sacram., exercised a profound influence on later Western teaching. It encountered a rival influence in the more spiritualizing teaching of St. Augustine. In the Eucharistic controversies of the ninth century aroused by the “conversion” doctrine of Paschasius Radbert, and again in the controversies of the eleventh century, in which Berengar combated the growing belief in Transubstantiation, the rival schools of opinion appealed to the teaching of Ambrose and of de Sacramentis, as well as to that of Augustine, and attempted to harmonize their language in the fuller and more explicit treatment which was given to the subject during the period. Both treatises are appealed to as authorities by Ratramn (cent. ix.) in his opposition to Paschasius, by Berengar and his opponents Lanfranc and Witmund of Aversa (cent. xi.) and by Alger of Liège (cent. xii.). The teaching of Ambrose is the starting-point of those who maintain the identity of the elements with the body and blood of Christ in virtue of the conversion miraculously effected by consecration—the teaching finally formulated in the doctrine of Transubstantiation at the Council of the Lateran in 1216. Augustine is the authority appealed to by those who distinguished the visible sign from the invisible reality, and who tended to maintain a spiritual presence of power and efficacy—a view which passes in its more extreme forms into a purely figurative or commemorative idea of the sacrament.</b><br />source:<br />http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=219&chapter=39616&layout=html&Itemid=27<br /><br />I won't post any more of this commentary. But you can follow the link to read the rest if interested.Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-83373406675049380692009-08-28T09:04:19.743-07:002009-08-28T09:04:19.743-07:00Please understand that "de sacramentis" ...Please understand that "de sacramentis" which is discussed here was not written by Ambrose but a successor to Ambrose.<br /><br /><b>But in Cyril of Jerusalem in the East (a.d. 347) and in Ambrose in the West, a new terminology appears, and the consecration of the Eucharist is represented as effecting a mysterious change in the elements by which they become the body and blood of Christ. Cyril of Jerusalem had already appealed to the miracle of Cana as affording a parallel to this change.1 By Ambrose such teaching is much developed. With him the consecration, effected by the words of Christ recited by the priest, is a miraculous act of God, to which parallels may be found in the miracles of Moses, Joshua, Elisha, and in the Virgin Birth, as well as in the act of creation itself. The word of Christ “which was able to make out of nothing that which was not,” is capable of “changing things which exist into that which they were not” (de Myst. ix. 51, 52). The author of de Sacramentis (iv. 4. 15-18) uses similar language. Like Ambrose, he appeals to the original act of creation, to the Virgin birth, to the crossing of the Red Sea, the waters of Marah, and the incident of Elisha making the axe-head to swim.<br /><br />Ambrose does not hesitate to speak of the change effected as a “change of nature.”2 But a closer examination of his language shows that he has not clearly thought out all the implications of such teaching. Occasionally he falls back into the language still current in the West, as when he says that the flesh of Christ, which was crucified and buried, was certainly real flesh, and that therefore the Eucharist “is truly a sacrament of that flesh” (ix. 53), nor does he clearly face the question, to which the Schoolmen of later days paid so much attention, what becomes of the bread. On the other hand, he conceives of the body of Christ as a “spiritual body,” “the body of a divine Spirit, because Christ is Spirit,” and therefore capable of becoming “the ‘spiritual food’ of our souls” (de Myst. ix. 58).</b><br />source:<br />http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=219&chapter=39616&layout=html&Itemid=27<br />continued:Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-78762837566865266322009-08-28T08:50:49.004-07:002009-08-28T08:50:49.004-07:00Sue Bee, I am looking at this portion from Ambrose...Sue Bee, I am looking at this portion from Ambrose. I put some of the "types" that Ambrose used from the O.T in bold.<br /><br />51. Moses was holding <b>a rod</b>, he cast it down and <b>it became a serpent</b>. Again, he took hold of the tail of the serpent and <b>it returned to the nature of a rod</b>. You see that <b>by virtue of the prophetic office there were two changes, of the nature both of the serpent and of the rod</b>. The streams of Egypt were running with. <b>a pure flow of water; of a sudden from the veins of the sources blood began to burst forth</b>, and none could drink of the river. Again, at the prophet's prayer the blood ceased, and <b>the nature of water returned</b>. The people of the Hebrews were shut in on every side, hemmed in on the one hand by the Egyptians, on the other by the sea; Moses lifted up his rod, the water divided and hardened like walls, and a way for the feet appeared between the waves. Jordan being turned back, returned, contrary to nature, to the source of its stream. Is it not clear that the nature of the waves of the sea and of the river stream was changed? The people of the fathers thirsted, Moses touched the rock, and water flowed out of the rock. Did not grace work a result contrary to nature, so that the rock poured forth water, which by nature it did not contain? Marsh was a most bitter stream, so that the thirsting people could not drink. Moses cast wood into the water, and the water lost its bitterness, which grace of a sudden tempered. In the time of Elisha the prophet one of the sons of the prophets lost the head from his axe, which sank. <b>He who had lost the iron asked Elisha, who cast in a piece of wood and the iron swam. This, too, we clearly recognize as having happened contrary to nature, for iron is of heavier nature than water</b>. <br /><br />Now, what's interesting is that of the O.T "types" that Ambrose uses. Some of them resemble claims made by Trent, that a change of "nature" occurs. However with some of these a change of "accidents" (also) occurs. Now, I am not sure how that works with Lutheran theology but with the official understanding of "transubstantiation" it would be somewhat inconsistent. <br />Historian J.N.D Kelly explains the development in the West regarding "real presence" and the influence that Ambrose had on this as far as a "physical" change. He also points out that at this same time Augustine went in a differant direction . <br />Early Christian Doctrine pp 445-446. <br />I found an on-line source that is very similar to J.N.D Kelly's asessment that I won't have to transcribe.<br />continued:Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-86583660116690608002009-08-28T08:44:01.010-07:002009-08-28T08:44:01.010-07:00It is (despite Moonshadow's unjustified commen...<b> It is (despite Moonshadow's unjustified comment) a matter of love.</b><br /><br />Well, I apologize. I was trying to get attention by saying something sharp. <br /><br />But if you haven't noticed, in comparison with these other ladies, I'm not the self-assured one. <br /><br />Peace.Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-62401110409494059422009-08-28T08:12:49.326-07:002009-08-28T08:12:49.326-07:00Elena wrote: "I mean why do you care about th...Elena wrote: "I mean why do you care about the people in the church."<br /><br />It's an interesting question. I never really felt like I needed a reason to care about other people. I could point to the commands to love our neighbor as ourselves, but it's not just a matter of obeying a command. I suppose I feel a connection on account of sharing (at a minimum) ancestry via Noah. It is (despite Moonshadow's unjustified comment) a matter of love.<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-33938185354928159742009-08-28T07:28:44.855-07:002009-08-28T07:28:44.855-07:00Sue Bee wrote:
"Back to Ambrose of Milan...
...Sue Bee wrote:<br />"Back to Ambrose of Milan...<br /><br />I was ready to concede the point to Paul and accept being wrong as a peril of proof texting but, I wondered what Ambrose wrote between paragraphs 50 & 58 so I did some reading and decided I do NOT concede the point. To be fair to Paul (& Ambrose) here is all of section IX of the Mysteries (it isn’t very long). No special emphasis on any part. Tell me, what do you think Ambrose is really saying?"<br />-----------------<br />Thanks Sue Bee. <br />I'll look this over and get back to you.Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-71498522142815108402009-08-28T05:24:57.995-07:002009-08-28T05:24:57.995-07:00Quickly...
I think Ambrose is saying that yes, the...Quickly...<br />I think Ambrose is saying that yes, the bread is the body (he talks of the ability of the prophets to change natural objects & so why wouldn't Christ have that ability?)<br /><br />And that this bread/body feeds us and the whole church spiritually not physically.Sue Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13342939305850558827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-18456443807012167642009-08-28T04:57:33.531-07:002009-08-28T04:57:33.531-07:00Ambrose ends his discourse by citing figurative ex...<i>Ambrose ends his discourse by citing figurative expressions found in the book Songs of Solomon, which signify Christ's love for the church in a spiritual way. I am sure no one literally thinks God is eating the fruit of the trees in the church, or that God is smelling the breasts of the church!</i><br /><br />It sounds like you are trying to say that since one part of the Bible is being taken symbolically, another part of the Bible is also to be taken symbolically.Dr _MikeyMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789639272046760719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-24379635147370958602009-08-28T04:54:23.269-07:002009-08-28T04:54:23.269-07:00And Dr. Mike, this is what baffles me about "...And Dr. Mike, this is what baffles me about "bible Christians." Their mantra is "check the scriptures," and "a plain read." But then they ignore exactly what is written and go through all sorts of contortions to avoid what is right in front of them.Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-52460544714360447242009-08-28T04:51:25.690-07:002009-08-28T04:51:25.690-07:00By correctly using scripture, we see that Ambrose ...<i>By correctly using scripture, we see that Ambrose was able to verify that the teaching of Christ pertaining to His body and blood was spiritual, and not literal - which was what His TRUE disciples understood in John 6! <b>We do not eat literal flesh and blood</b>, as some of the false disciples who turned away understood.</i><br /><br />Correctly use scripture, then, right here:<br /><br />"My flesh is real food; my blood real drink." John 6:55<br /><br />Why would Jesus stress the fact that his body and blood were real food if he didn't mean for people to literally eat it?Dr _MikeyMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789639272046760719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-17289561309616891712009-08-28T04:15:31.392-07:002009-08-28T04:15:31.392-07:00which was what His TRUE disciples understood in Jo...<i>which was what His TRUE disciples understood in John 6!</i><br /><br />Interesting. Because the disciples that didn't like the literal words of eating and chewing were the ones that left. Interestingly that was in John 6:66.Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-42482043231113402762009-08-28T03:46:59.940-07:002009-08-28T03:46:59.940-07:00Sue Bee, let me just leave a parting thought on yo...Sue Bee, let me just leave a parting thought on your quote by Ambrose.<br /><br /><strong>52. We observe, then, that grace has more power than nature, and yet so far we have only spoken of the grace of a prophet's blessing. But if the blessing of man had such power as to change nature, what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? You read concerning the making of the whole world: "He spake and they were made, He commanded and they were created." Shall not the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.</strong> <br /><br />The discourse which you published from Ambrose is an interesting one. He starts off with an erroneous view, then finally ends with a correct view after using scripture. He had employed a method of testing of doctrine which I myself advocate, i.e one must verify all statements with scripture for veracity. Let me start first with the errors, then go for the truth of what he said. He spoke about the miracles of Moses, Elisha, and Elijah as "the blessing of man had such power as to change nature" (#52). First of all, the miracles performed by Moses, Elisha and Elijan were not through any power inherent in those men, but by the power of God. There is no such thing as "grace of a prophet's blessing." God is the only one who gives grace, and it was through the miraculous power of God that those men performed those miracles.<br /><br />Ambrose also said, "It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body" (#53). This is totally correct! We need to also remember that the resurrected Christ now has a new, spiritual, and glorified body in heaven, which was never broken. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper reminds us of what He had done for us, while on earth. It should be interesting to note that Ambrose does admit that the 'body' and 'blood' spoken of by Christ, of Himself, was spiritual. <br /><br /><strong>"In that sacrament is Christ, because it is the Body of Christ, it is therefore not bodily food but spiritual. Whence the Apostle says of its type: "Our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink," for the Body of God is a spiritual body; the Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit, for the Spirit is Christ, as we read " (Ambrose #58).</strong><br /><br />Ambrose ends his discourse by citing figurative expressions found in the book Songs of Solomon, which signify Christ's love for the church in a spiritual way. I am sure no one literally thinks God is eating the fruit of the trees in the church, or that God is smelling the breasts of the church!<br /><br />By correctly using scripture, we see that Ambrose was able to verify that the teaching of Christ pertaining to His body and blood was spiritual, and not literal - which was what His TRUE disciples understood in John 6! We do not eat literal flesh and blood, as some of the false disciples who turned away understood. Christ was speaking about Himself in a spiritual manner. Christ said, "the flesh profiteth nothing"(John 6:63). Eating His literal broken flesh will do us no good, but feeding upon His Word will bring us eternal life. "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (vs. 63). To which the apostle Peter testified, "Thou hast the words of eternal life" (vs. 68).<br /><br />Peace to all.Daughter of Wisdomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01565795173054909961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-90202920734566367852009-08-27T21:07:00.746-07:002009-08-27T21:07:00.746-07:00Finished...
56. For which reason, too, the Church...Finished...<br /><br /><b>56. For which reason, too, the Church, guarding the depth of the heavenly mysteries, repels the furious storms of wind, and calls to her the sweetness of the grace of spring, and knowing that her garden cannot displease Christ, invites the Bridegroom, saying: "Arise, O north wind, and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, and let my ointments flow down. Let my Brother come down to His garden, and eat the fruit of His trees." For it has good trees and fruitful, which have dipped their roots in the water of the sacred spring, and with fresh growth have shot forth into good fruits, so as now not to be cut with the axe of the prophet, but to abound with the fruitfulness of the Gospel.<br /><br />57. Lastly, the Lord also, delighted with their fertility, answers: "I have entered into My garden, My sister, My spouse; I have gathered My myrrh with My spices, I have eaten My meat with My honey, I have drunk My drink with My milk." Understand, you faithful, why He spoke of meat and drink. And there is no doubt that He Himself eats and drinks in us, as you have read that He says that in our persons He is in prison.<br />58. Wherefore, too, the Church, beholding so great grace, exhorts her sons and her friends to come together to the sacraments, saying: "Eat, my friends, and drink and be inebriated, my brother." What we eat and what we drink the Holy Spirit has elsewhere made plain by the prophet, saying, "Taste and see that the Lord is good, blessed is the man that hopeth in Him." In that sacrament is Christ, because it is the Body of Christ, it is therefore not bodily food but spiritual. Whence the Apostle says of its type: "Our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink," for the Body of God is a spiritual body; the Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit, for the Spirit is Christ, as we read: "The Spirit before our face is Christ the Lord." And in the Epistle of Peter we read: "Christ died for us." Lastly, that food strengthens our heart, and that drink "maketh glad the heart of man," as the prophet has recorded. <br /><br />59. So, then, having obtained everything, let us know that we are born again, but let us not say, How are we born again? Have we entered a second time into our mother's womb and been born again? I do not recognize here the course of nature. But here there is no order of nature, where is the excellence of grace. And again, it is not always the course of nature which brings about conception, for we confess that Christ the Lord was conceived of a Virgin, and reject the order of nature. For Mary conceived not of man, but was with child of the Holy Spirit, as Matthew says: "She was found with child of the Holy Spirit." If, then, the Holy Spirit coming down upon the Virgin wrought the conception, and effected the work of generation, surely we must not doubt but that, coming down upon the Font, or upon those who receive Baptism, He effects the reality of the new birth.</b>Sue Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13342939305850558827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-81032875931022123502009-08-27T21:06:05.411-07:002009-08-27T21:06:05.411-07:00Continued...
53. But why make use of arguments? L...Continued...<br /><br /><b>53. But why make use of arguments? Let us use the examples He gives, and by the example of the Incarnation prove the truth of the mystery. Did the course of nature proceed as usual when the Lord Jesus was born of Mary? If we look to the usual course, a woman ordinarily conceives after connection with a man. And this body which we make is that which was born of the Virgin. Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body. <br /><br />54. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: "This is My Body." Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks. <br /><br />55. Christ, then, feeds His Church with these sacraments, by means of which the substance of the soul is strengthened, and seeing the continual progress of her grace, He rightly says to her: "How comely are thy breasts, my sister, my spouse, how comely they are made by wine, and the smell of thy garments is above all spices. A dropping honeycomb are thy lips, my spouse, honey and milk are under thy tongue, and the smell of thy garments is as the smell of Lebanon. A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed." By which He signifies that the mystery ought to remain sealed up with you, that it be not violated by the deeds of an evil life, and pollution of chastity, that it be not made known to thou, for whom it is not fitting, nor by garrulous talkativeness it be spread abroad amongst unbelievers. Your guardianship of the faith ought therefore to be good, that integrity of life and silence may endure unblemished.</b>Sue Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13342939305850558827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-79223638104684666062009-08-27T21:05:04.310-07:002009-08-27T21:05:04.310-07:00Back to Ambrose of Milan...
I was ready to conced...Back to Ambrose of Milan...<br /><br />I was ready to concede the point to Paul and accept being wrong as a peril of proof texting but, I wondered what Ambrose wrote between paragraphs 50 & 58 so I did some reading and decided I do NOT concede the point. To be fair to Paul (& Ambrose) here is all of section IX of the Mysteries (it isn’t very long). No special emphasis on any part. Tell me, what do you think Ambrose is really saying?<br /><br /><b>50. Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?" And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed. <br /><br />51. Moses was holding a rod, he cast it down and it became a serpent. Again, he took hold of the tail of the serpent and it returned to the nature of a rod. You see that by virtue of the prophetic office there were two changes, of the nature both of the serpent and of the rod. The streams of Egypt were running with. a pure flow of water; of a sudden from the veins of the sources blood began to burst forth, and none could drink of the river. Again, at the prophet's prayer the blood ceased, and the nature of water returned. The people of the Hebrews were shut in on every side, hemmed in on the one hand by the Egyptians, on the other by the sea; Moses lifted up his rod, the water divided and hardened like walls, and a way for the feet appeared between the waves. Jordan being turned back, returned, contrary to nature, to the source of its stream. Is it not clear that the nature of the waves of the sea and of the river stream was changed? The people of the fathers thirsted, Moses touched the rock, and water flowed out of the rock. Did not grace work a result contrary to nature, so that the rock poured forth water, which by nature it did not contain? Marsh was a most bitter stream, so that the thirsting people could not drink. Moses cast wood into the water, and the water lost its bitterness, which grace of a sudden tempered. In the time of Elisha the prophet one of the sons of the prophets lost the head from his axe, which sank. He who had lost the iron asked Elisha, who cast in a piece of wood and the iron swam. This, too, we clearly recognize as having happened contrary to nature, for iron is of heavier nature than water. <br /><br />52. We observe, then, that grace has more power than nature, and yet so far we have only spoken of the grace of a prophet's blessing. But if the blessing of man had such power as to change nature, what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? You read concerning the making of the whole world: "He spake and they were made, He commanded and they were created." Shall not the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.</b>Sue Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13342939305850558827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-13579770862410661902009-08-27T19:09:16.780-07:002009-08-27T19:09:16.780-07:00I can agree to disagree.
What I would like howeve...I can agree to disagree.<br /><br />What I would like however is for other Christians to just respect that we didn't pull these beliefs out of a hat, and give us a little credit for having a biblical, historical, logical and theological basis for the things that we believe.Elena LaVictoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-659448638315645202009-08-27T19:05:52.330-07:002009-08-27T19:05:52.330-07:00Elena,
When I was reverting back to my Catholic fa...Elena,<br /><i>When I was reverting back to my Catholic faith, this is what did it for me - I could see the Eucharist being planned out by God throughout the Old Testament. Through Melchezidak (sp?) and the Passover, through the manna and so many other forshadowing. It just made sense to me that God was planning the Eucharist for a long time.</i><br />That is a major difference in our beliefs. I see these things as foreshadowings of Christ Himself, as High Priest, as the Lamb, as the Bread of life. They are signs and foreshadowings, and the eucharist is a sign and a memorial, as the passover feast became of the first passover.Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17126868703568627388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-72596255088286004912009-08-27T19:05:39.971-07:002009-08-27T19:05:39.971-07:00DrMM quoting Trent: "For neither are these th...DrMM quoting Trent: <i>"For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us"</i><br /><br />Naw, that's good. That helps me. And I bet it can help some others here. So thanks for posting that.Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-26487936745669898072009-08-27T18:50:41.983-07:002009-08-27T18:50:41.983-07:00Erin said:
"What scripture do you get this f...Erin said:<br /><br />"What scripture do you get this from? I always understood his post-resurrection body to be the same one, with the same wounds. In John 20:27, Jesus says to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."<br /><br />This seems to indicate that his post resurrection body was the same one that had been broken, only risen."<br /><br />Ah yes Erin, I kinda threw that out there, but since as you asked let me give you the scripture.<br /><br />1 Corinthians 15: 35-53, NLT:<br /><br /><strong>35 But someone may ask, “How will the dead be raised? What kind of bodies will they have?” 36 What a foolish question! When you put a seed into the ground, it doesn’t grow into a plant unless it dies first. 37 And what you put in the ground is not the plant that will grow, but only a bare seed of wheat or whatever you are planting. 38 Then God gives it the new body he wants it to have. A different plant grows from each kind of seed. 39 Similarly there are different kinds of flesh—one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.<br /> 40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies. 41 The sun has one kind of glory, while the moon and stars each have another kind. And even the stars differ from each other in their glory.<br /><br /> 42 It is the same way with the resurrection of the dead. Our earthly bodies are planted in the ground when we die, but they will be raised to live forever. 43 Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. 44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.<br /><br /> 45 The Scriptures tell us, “The first man, Adam, became a living person.”[h] But the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life-giving Spirit. 46 What comes first is the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later. 47 Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven. 48 Earthly people are like the earthly man, and heavenly people are like the heavenly man. 49 Just as we are now like the earthly man, we will someday be like[i] the heavenly man.<br /><br /> 50 What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever.<br /><br /> 51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed! 52 It will happen in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, those who have died will be raised to live forever. And we who are living will also be transformed. 53 For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies.</strong><br /><br />John 20:27 is dealing with the stigmata. Christ has the imprints of the stigmata in His glorified body, but no one had broken His glorified body. It is like a surgical scar that had healed. A reminder to us of what He went through to save us.<br /><br />Peace.Daughter of Wisdomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01565795173054909961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-39851120900577112922009-08-27T18:29:38.367-07:002009-08-27T18:29:38.367-07:00The pre-resurrection body was mortal flesh, and Hi...The pre-resurrection body was mortal flesh, and His post-resurrection body was never broken.<br />______________________________<br /><br />What scripture do you get this from? I always understood his post-resurrection body to be the same one, with the same wounds. In John 20:27, Jesus says to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."<br /><br />This seems to indicate that his post resurrection body was the same one that had been broken, only risen.Erinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11524239980187609271noreply@blogger.com