1st Century Church

[w_stewart]

One such example of this might be communion.

The Council of Lambeth in 1281 forbid the laity from receiving the cup. Later, at the Council of Constance in 1416, the rule of communion under both kinds was officially abolished

Jesus commanded both bread and wine.

Gospel According to Saint John
Chapter 6

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Bread is enough to attain eternal life, Jesus says.

In 1 Cor. 11:27, Paul states that:

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

Clearly Paul is suggesting that either of the two would suffice to attain salvation.

 

[Ginger2]

Bread is enough to attain eternal life, Jesus says.

In 1 Cor. 11:27, Paul states that:

Clearly Paul is suggesting that either of the two would suffice to attain salvation.

You misunderstood my point. There is a difference between sayinf either will do as well as both and forbidding laity to partake of the wine.

"Furthermore, the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

“…Communion under both kinds was the prevailing usage in Apostolic times. …
… “Whosoever”, says the Apostle, “shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord” i.e. whoever receives either unworthily is guilty of both. …”

Paul was speaking of someone receiving communion in a n unworthy state - whether both kinds or either… That is not the same as say one or the other makes no difference.

The Encyclopedia goes on to say:
We are justified in concluding that the N.T. contains no proof of the existence of a Divine precept binding the faithful to Communicate under both kinds. "

Again, that is not the same as forbidding or withholding.

 

[Ginger2]

Bread is enough to attain eternal life, Jesus says…

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

In John, vi, 54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world”, without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever”. Now the Utraquist interpretation would suppose that in verse 54 Christ meant to emphasize the distinction between the mode of reception “by eating” and the mode of reception “by drinking”, and to include both modes distinctly in the precept He imposes. But such literalism, extravagant in any connection, would result in this case in putting verse 54 in opposition to 52 and 59, interpreted in the same rigid way.

Well, we could talk about this a long time, but the fact is Jesus instituted this sacrament in both kinds saying: “Do this in remembrance of me”.

 

[Arnobius]

You misunderstood my point. There is a difference between sayinf either will do as well as both and forbidding laity to partake of the wine.

"Furthermore, the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

“…Communion under both kinds was the prevailing usage in Apostolic times. …
… “Whosoever”, says the Apostle, “shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord” i.e. whoever receives either unworthily is guilty of both. …”

Paul was speaking of someone receiving communion in a n unworthy state - whether both kinds or either… That is not the same as say one or the other makes no difference.

The Encyclopedia goes on to say:
We are justified in concluding that the N.T. contains no proof of the existence of a Divine precept binding the faithful to Communicate under both kinds. "

Again, that is not the same as forbidding or withholding.

Yet the words of Christ in the institution of the Eucharist do not mandate both. We need to remember that the Eucharist is fully received in the reception of either form. Jan Hus was in error when he said that someone only partially receives Christ unless he receives from both species.

The permitting or forbidding the cup to the laity is a discipline, not a doctrine and is based on the needs of the time. If the people begin to think they must receive both or they only partially receive, it would be permissible to deny the cup so as to break that false understanding.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yet the words of Christ in the institution of the Eucharist do not mandate both. We need to remember that the Eucharist is fully received in the reception of either form. Jan Hus was in error when he said that someone only partially receives Christ unless he receives from both species.

The permitting or forbidding the cup to the laity is a discipline, not a doctrine and is based on the needs of the time. If the people begin to think they must receive both or they only partially receive, it would be permissible to deny the cup so as to break that false understanding.

Exactly why they ceased and desisted. The laity thought the bread brought the Body and the wine brought the Blood. The stoppage of the wine was simply to teach us that we receive His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.

Think about it. Can you divide Christ into pieces? No.

 

[Church_Militant]

We’re kinda getting off topic here aren’t we?

 

[w_stewart]

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

In John, vi, 54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world”, without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever”. Now the Utraquist interpretation would suppose that in verse 54 Christ meant to emphasize the distinction between the mode of reception “by eating” and the mode of reception “by drinking”, and to include both modes distinctly in the precept He imposes. But such literalism, extravagant in any connection, would result in this case in putting verse 54 in opposition to 52 and 59, interpreted in the same rigid way.

Well, we could talk about this a long time, but the fact is Jesus instituted this sacrament in both kinds saying: “Do this in remembrance of me”.

Would you agree with what Jesus says that eating the bread (his body) is enough to attain eternal life as stated in John 5:61?

 

[Ginger2]

Would you agree with what Jesus says that eating the bread (his body) is enough to attain eternal life as stated in John 5:61?

No. Don’t you suppose there might be people in Church who go to confession and communion, just because they are supposed to - but might not be saved?

We don’t know who is and isn’t saved by appearances - God knows the person’s heart.

Jesus commanded a Sacrament that is more than a physical ritual. An atheist could join a church and go thru all the motions and say what he thinks Christians would want to hear. But if he is there to do a paper for school on Christianity, his taking communion means nothing.

 

[NotWorthy]

No. Don’t you suppose there might be people in Church who go to confession and communion, just because they are supposed to - but might not be saved?

We don’t know who is and isn’t saved by appearances - God knows the person’s heart.

Jesus commanded a Sacrament that is more than a physical ritual. An atheist could join a church and go thru all the motions and say what he thinks Christians would want to hear. But if he is there to do a paper for school on Christianity, his taking communion means nothing.

As Paul states in 1st Corinthians:
“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” This is what the Church teaches as well, Ginger.

 

[Ginger2]

As Paul states in 1st Corinthians:
“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” This is what the Church teaches as well, Ginger.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ginger, I meant to post this to show that this has been the teaching of the Church even from its earliest stages:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again”
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif

 

[NotWorthy]

Ginger, I meant to post this as well earlier, but this has been the teaching of the Church since her infancy:

“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord,and the cup His Blood,if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,IV:18,2(c.A.D. 200),in JUR,I:95

 

[Pons]

Also, some people can’t eat the host or drink the wine due to medical reasons.

 

[Lampo]

I joined a thread that asked this
Can you provide proof, from the 1st century, of dogma held by the Catholic Church that is not found in the Bible? Can you prove that it was practiced in the 1st century?

Does the all male priesthood qualify?

 

[Arnobius]

Does the all male priesthood qualify?

Well, I think this comes directly from the fact that Jesus could have chosen women as his apostles but did not, so I don’t think it is non scriptural.

 

[w_stewart]

No. Don’t you suppose there might be people in Church who go to confession and communion, just because they are supposed to - but might not be saved?

We don’t know who is and isn’t saved by appearances - God knows the person’s heart.

Jesus commanded a Sacrament that is more than a physical ritual. An atheist could join a church and go thru all the motions and say what he thinks Christians would want to hear. But if he is there to do a paper for school on Christianity, his taking communion means nothing.

You do not get my point. Jesus said that whosoever eats his body (bread), will have eternal life. Do you agree with him?

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

My own perspective is that if a practice was common and universal among the Apostles and other 1st century Christians, how did it come to pass that this supposedly very common practice was lost for 200, 300 or even one thousand years before someone noticed and re-instituted the practice?

Shouldn’t there be some evidence that Christians actually did the specific practice or held the specific belief before simply accepting the word of someone in high rank within the church? How could something of such importance as to be proclaimed dogma, have been lost to begin with?

The changes after about 100AD were due to one specific reason .
The leadership in the church began to change from Jewish to gentile hands.

The new leaders of the church had one deficiency , they were not jews and therefore did not the jewish old testament background for many of the practices in the church. Also this is a time after 70 AD when the roman army destroyed the temple in Jerusalem . Because the christians did not help the jews defend the city and the temple the jewish / Christian riff only grew .
It grew to the point that some of the gentile leaders in the church began to refer to jews as the wicked race.

The sad result of this is that the CC lost the needed background to many church practices.
an example the communion is based on the 3rd cup of wine in a jewish passover seder. The church by losing it’s jewish part lost the knowledge of the passover seder and therefore didnot fully understand communion.

 

[guanophore]

The audience is the laity.

No. The Didache is a Liturgical and catechetical manual for ministers.

So the bishops are supposed to gather together? The bishops are supposed to come together unless they are not reconciled?

All the bishops were in agreement at the time.

Why would they only hear this at a church service? What proof do you have?

It is not likely they would have heard it read, but only practiced. What was read during Mass is taken from the Jewish synagogue liturgy. It consists of a reading from the OT (moses or the prophets) a psalm, and a gospel and NT letters were added. Then the Lord’s supper was celebrated.

 

[guanophore]

Please do me a favor. Stick to the topic of this thread.

I promise, if you stop trying to take this thread off topic and if you start a new thread on Trinity and send me the link, I will respond.

Fair enough?

Quit dodging, Ginger2. This IS the topic of the thread! It was pointed out to you that the Trinity is one of the beliefs of the early church that is not mentioned in the Bible. The Didache was also given to you as an example of both Apostolic Succession and how baptism is to be done. You have not responded to any of these.

 

[guanophore]

The Bible does not teach the difference between a…what did you call it…a discipline and a dogma.

It most certainly does!

But Ginger2 did not distinguish. She asked for a dogma or a discipline, so the baptismal procedure should be sufficient.