An Exegetical Refutation of the Protestant Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (1)

[larkin31]

I urge all those who deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to read the beliefs and words of the early Church Fathers themselves. St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatious of Antioch, St Clement of Alexandria, etc. All of whom were alive during or were direct studyers of the Apostles. You may be shocked what you actually find.

I would also like to point out that it wasn’t until the years around 1500 that the symbolic view came to be. Even the Orthodox and Coptics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - and this still took 1,000 years for them to break off from the Church.

The fact is that all Christians believed in the Real Presence up until the 1500’s (minus probably a few who rejected it like the apostles in John 6 who had no faith in what Jesus was teaching them).

Yes, this view has been around for a long time.

Many still believe that Noah really got all those animals onto one boat.

The length of time that a “fact” has been held to be true is not sufficient testimony to its truthfulness.

 

[KathleenGee]

Larkin,

There were followers of Christ who later rejected HIm…the apostles were already dealing with heresy at the beginning of their ministries…

I would recommend you go back, like the rest of us, to sincerely and objectively study early Church history, especially in the basic, common gathering.

 

[larkin31]

Larkin,

There were followers of Christ who later rejected HIm…the apostles were already dealing with heresy at the beginning of their ministries…

I would recommend you go back, like the rest of us, to sincerely and objectively study early Church history, especially in the basic, common gathering.

I have.

It is quite interesting, but unpersuasive personally.

 

[KathleenGee]

I can’t help the personal part.

 

[larkin31]

I can’t help the personal part.

I know you can’t. Nor am I asking you to.

 

[Mike2010]

Yes, this view has been around for a long time.

Many still believe that Noah really got all those animals onto one boat.

The length of time that a “fact” has been held to be true is not sufficient testimony to its truthfulness.

Hi Larkin,

Reasoning will help here. So, based on the fact that the Apostles and their immediate successors believed in the RP, and this belief is actually documented in their writings, we should just start believing in people’s opinions of rejecting this doctrine 1500 years later? That makes no sense at all.

See the difference in in the RP compared to Noah’s Ark, is that we actually have proof of what was True from the beggining.

 

[larkin31]

Hi Larkin,

Reasoning will help here. So, based on the fact that the Apostles and their immediate successors believed in the RP, and this belief is actually documented in their writings, we should just start believing in people’s opinions of rejecting this doctrine 1500 years later? That makes no sense at all.

See the difference in in the RP compared to Noah’s Ark, is that we actually have proof of what was True from the beggining.

You are actually asking for my faith, not my “reasoning.”

Which “proof” is that?

Many doctrinal opinions are discarded after thousands of years.

 

[Radical]

You mean “I want His bread”, is per John 6, and “I want His blood”, is per the Institution.
Wouldn’t that be a little curious since the Institution has both blood and flesh ? Moreover if I remember you explain that John 6, which is about having faith, is not connected with the Institution.

John 6 is about having faith, but the passages are all connected through Christ and the cross. John 6 looks to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. The Last Supper looks to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

For NRP, all the more for purely memorialists, a realist language does not make a lot of sense.

“Realistic” langauage makes a lot of sense for no other reason that Christ used graphic words in his figures of speech over and over again. Some think Christ used “realistic” language when in fact he was utilizing a figure of speech. Likewise, the ECFs often followed Christ’s example and used what could be mistaken as “realistic” language…even though they were speaking figuratively. As Augustine would say, we should look past the carnal understanding to the spiritual meaning.

Nevertheless the expressions we use depend IMHO on the environment we live in. On the why a realist language is not used or welcome in many contemporary congregations we could give plausibly some motivations I suppose:

1. they have departed so far from Sacred Tradition, that such expressions would sound simply alien, or meaningless, to them.
2. They are afraid they could be equivocated: suspicions could be raised against the author or preaching pastor, or, worse, someone in the fold could remember the view explained by some RPers and, Heaven forbid, could even suspect they have a point.

agreed and I would add:
3) they have departed so far from ancient manners of speech and thought, that such expressions would sound simply odd or meaningless, to them;
4) they are not inclined to go beyond what is actually said by Jesus with regard to this contested matter.

Consider now that realist expressions can be found in any age from the sub-apostolic time. Without discontinuity. Whereas I strongly suspect that those more faithful to the supposed original orthodox NRP at least would have turned to a more careful language in such a changing environment.

This (IMHO) is where the example of Augustine comes into play. He is not about to abandon the use of graphic words wrt the Lord’s Supper b/c Christ used graphic words. Instead Augustine continues to use graphic words, but explains them in figurative ways. In that manner “eat my flesh” is interpreted as “share in my suffering”. Augustine specifically states that one should understand such graphic words figuratively and not literally (or spiritually and not carnally). Further, for Augustine there were a number of aspects to the Lord’s Supper. The congregation becomes the bread which is offered. The congregation is called the “body of Christ” and so to bring that point home, Augustine continued to use “the bread is the body of Christ” terminology b/c that is the biblical terminology. One does not abandon biblical terminology, but explains it figuratively and spiritually rather than literally or carnally.

Sorry, you have just said that Ignatius here was referring to both John 6 and the Institution. Now you’re explaining that we have blood and not wine because ……wine is not mentioned in John 6.
I am afraid you lost me here.

I hope I have already clarified this concern…if not please ask again. I think that was the last of your unanswered posts…your serve.

And may He bless you, your wife and all yours.

PS How old are the boys ?

Thanks,…my two girls are 14 & 18.
Sorry to have taken so long, your patience is greatly appreciated. God bless you.

 

[Radical]

I urge all those who deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to read the beliefs and words of the early Church Fathers themselves. St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatious of Antioch, St Clement of Alexandria, etc. All of whom were alive during or were direct studyers of the Apostles. You may be shocked what you actually find.

Hello Mike. You are not being very accurate here. Neither Justin or Clement of Alexandria were born by the time the last of the apostles died…so if they are direct studiers of the apostles, then it would have been in the same way that I could be said to be direct studier of the apostles, namely by studying their writings. Further, Clement of Alexandria is hardly a good example to produce for a early belief in the Real Presence. Third, it is questionable if Ignatius ever met or heard the Apostle John. Finally, as pointed out, it isn’t certain that Ignatius believed in a Real Presence. When someone such as Catholic historian Garry Wills studies the ECFs, he does not see what you claim.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello Mike. You are not being very accurate here. Neither Justin or Clement of Alexandria were born by the time the last of the apostles died…so if they are direct studiers of the apostles, then it would have been in the same way that I could be said to be direct studier of the apostles, namely by studying their writings. Further, Clement of Alexandria is hardly a good example to produce for a early belief in the Real Presence. Third, it is questionable if Ignatius ever met or heard the Apostle John. Finally, as pointed out, it isn’t certain that Ignatius believed in a Real Presence. When someone such as Catholic historian Garry Wills studies the ECFs, he does not see what you claim.

Your protestant tradition does not compare with the Catholic Apostolic Tradition, because what got handed down was heard, taught and read by letter from the Apostles in the hearing of those ancient Catholic Saints who taught and interpreted these writings and oral teachings for 2000 years now unchanged.

Here’s a quote by Theodoret to Florentius a patrician, " I have ever kept the faith of the Apostles undefiled… So have I learnt not only from the Apostles and the prophets but also from the interpreters of their writings, Ignatius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, John, and the rest of the lights of the world; and before these from the holy Fathers in council at Nicaea, whose confession of the faith I preserve in its integrity, like an ancestral inheritance (styling corrupt and enemies of the Truth all who dare to trangress its decrees)."

I think you may have St. Ignatius of loyola confused with St.Ignatius of Antioch? Here is St. Igatius of Antioch refuting heretics (unbelievers in the Eucharist) “the docetics” in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, He records his faith in the Eucharist.

“The Docetics abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His graciousness, raised from the dead. And to denying the gift of God, these men perish in their disputatiousness”…

See “The Teachings of the Early Church Fathers” by John R. Willis, S.J.

 

[KathleenGee]

Radical,

St Justin the Martyr was born just so many years after the death of St. John the Evangelist and I consider his description of the Mass clear and reflective of the Mass we witness today.

There are writings of pupils of the Apostles that we can refer to, again holding to common faith of one bread and one body.

You will never find perfection of any Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant church in themselves. Human beings in use of reason can only explain so far…the rest is mystery and requires the grace of faith.

The rules and regulations, the legalism in the Catholic Church can only make sense in believing and experiencing Christ first. If you do not believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit working and the presence of God in the sacraments, you will see the Church as such.

If people want to study the erudite tradition, then we have St. Thomas’ Summa Contra Gentiles.

 

[Mike2010]

Hello Mike. You are not being very accurate here. Neither Justin or Clement of Alexandria were born by the time the last of the apostles died…so if they are direct studiers of the apostles, then it would have been in the same way that I could be said to be direct studier of the apostles, namely by studying their writings.

Thanks for pointing that out, I had the wrong Clement. The one I was thinking of was not of Alexandria, but was a disciple of Peter and converted under Peter.

Further, Clement of Alexandria is hardly a good example to produce for a early belief in the Real Presence. Third, it is questionable if Ignatius ever met or heard the Apostle John. Finally, as pointed out, it isn’t certain that Ignatius believed in a Real Presence. When someone such as Catholic historian Garry Wills studies the ECFs, he does not see what you claim.

St Ignatious of Antioch was a disciple of John. He clearly taught the RP in his writings as the poster above said. In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, he said, “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” That sounds pretty clear to me.

St Justin Martyr wrote a similar message to the emperor at Rome.

 

[Radical]

St Ignatious of Antioch was a disciple of John. He clearly taught the RP in his writings as the poster above said. In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, he said, “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” That sounds pretty clear to me.

Mike, we have already discussed the allegation that Ignatius held to a Real Presence back around page 6 of this thread. I linked an article at post #76 and quoted part of it at post 77 which read as follows:

The article I linked at the end of the last post is a very well written article…I encourage you to read it. The second to last paragraph reads:

I have developed five reasons why we might be able to say that Ignatius could have something short of real presence in mind in his letters. First, Ignatius presents too little information. At no time is he very clear, and when he seems clear he contradicts himself elsewhere. Such is the situation when Ad Smyrnaeans 7.1 is compared with Ad Trallians 8.1, Ad Philadephians 5.1, and Ad Romans 7.3. While the first reference equates the elements of the Eucharist with the flesh of Christ, the others equivocate and relate the elements with faith, gospel, and love respectively.<note: Smyrn. 7.1 “They abstain from the eucharist and prayer, since they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered on behalf of our sins and which the Father raised in his kindess. . .” (Ignatius, Smyrn. 7.1[Ehrman, LCL]) Trall. 8.1 “. . . You should therefore take up gentleness and create yourselves anew in faith, which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the blood of Jesus Christ.” (Ignatius, Trall. 7.1 [Ehrman, LCL]) Phld 5.1 “But your prayer to God will perfect me, so that I may attain to God by the lot that I have been mercifully assigned, when I flee to the gospel as to the flesh of Jesus and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the church.” (Ignatius, Phld. 5.1 [Ehrman, LCL])Rom. 7.3 “. . . I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, from the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is imperishable love.” (Ignatius, Rom. 7.3 [Ehrman, LCL]).> Second, the equivocation mentioned above lends itself to great ambiguity that cannot be surmounted for a clearer understanding. While Schoedel and Kelly may think that all the real presence passages in Ignatius ought to be interpreted in light of Ad Smyrnaeans 7.1, this seems a bit arbitrary especially given its polemical context. Third, the similarity of Ignatius verbiage to John’s means that we have to enough of a difference between John’s gospel and Ignatius to make a distinctively different case. How we understand John will inevitably determine how we understand Ignatius. Fourth, there seems to be too much assumption as to the clarity of Ignatius argument. Roman Catholic ressourcement argues that Docetism in the context supports its assertion that Ignatius speaks rather clearly of real presence. This argument is only valid if we assume that Ignatius was advancing a valid argument. The case may actually be quite to the contrary given the circumstances of travel fatigue, passionate feelings, impending torture, and near death. Fifth, and finally, a definite instance of real presence in Ignatius seems a bit early for such clear statements if we take the development of doctrines seriously. This is by no means a hard and fast rule, but if difficulty is encountered with the Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen. How can we be more certain of Ignatius who predates them? Those who argue for a realistic Ignatius deny both Bauer and any view of doctrinal development. Indeed, they imply a very advanced pristine orthodoxy very early in the history of the church. If they do not allow this for the doctrines of Trinity and atonement, why should they for the Eucharist?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Radical;6762866]The article I linked at the end of the last post is a very well written article…I encourage you to read it. The second to last paragraph reads:

***I have developed five reasons why we might ***be able to say that Ignatius could have something short of real presence in mind in his letters.

I think your author cannot make up his mind on the Saints unanimous faith in the true presence of Jesus body, blood in the Eucharist. For your author subscribes to (FIVE) different opinions of his own conclusion without any support of evidence other than his/her manupulations to the Catholic Saints commentaries on the Eucharist. Your author of late reveals an inconsistancy of interpreting what is clear in all the Catholic Saints faith in the true presence. It takes one Catholic Christian today to know one Catholic Christian from antiquity. Forcing ones own new wind of doctrine (opinions) into what Jesus and the apostles have already set in stone will NEVER change what the ancient Catholic Christians believed, taught and defended against heretics and the such.

THE DIDACHE The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.

“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”. Ch. 9:5
“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’” -Ch 14

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope. “Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.” Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.” Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. **They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” **“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.” -“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life.** I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”** -“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons." -Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

cont.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont.
**St. Justin Martyr **was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us.** For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."** “First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

“**God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.” **“Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it." -“Dialogue with Trypho”, [41: 8-10]

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely

Named Gnosis". Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D. “For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.” -“Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis”. Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.

cont.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA of Alexandria studied under Pantaenus. He later succeeded him as the director of the school of catechumens in Alexandria, Egypt around the year 200 A.D.,

“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”, -“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”, -“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D… ,

ST. ATHANASIUS St. Athanasius was born in Alexandria ca. 295 A.D. He was ordained a deacon in 319 A.D. He accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea, where he served as his secretary. Eventually he succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria. He is most known for defending Nicene doctrine against Arian disputes.,
“‘The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:’ You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.”,
-“Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D.,

If you need more witnesses of the Eucharist true presence from antiquity just ask, every Catholic for the past 2000 years since pentecost believe as we Catholics believe today.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Gabriel!!!

Radical, I draw more on Catholic mysticism and spirituality…what I perceive in Protestant posts is this line of thinking that is doubting and subtly protesting while drawing on various sources…they always come from the position of no faith.

You take the position from faith or no faith. If you operate from no faith, no matter the sources, and Gabriel gave you the best… – as well as all the other artifacts and paper trails and historical figures of their local churches in those times throughout the world that support the Eucharist that are impossible to provide here – then if you are in the position to not believe these sources, then nothing will convince you.

 

[larkin31]

Hi Larkin,

Reasoning will help here. So, based on the fact that the Apostles and their immediate successors believed in the RP, and this belief is actually documented in their writings, we should just start believing in people’s opinions of rejecting this doctrine 1500 years later? That makes no sense at all.

See the difference in in the RP compared to Noah’s Ark, is that we actually have proof of what was True from the beggining.

Mike, which “proof” are you referring to here?

 

[Radical]

I think your author cannot make up his mind on the Saints unanimous faith in the true presence of Jesus body, blood in the Eucharist.

I suspect that the author has examined the historic evidence (and like so many other scholars), has found the alleged unanimous consent to be something that wasn’t ever really present. When one is free to entertain the idea that the “unanimous faith in the true presence of Jesus body, blood in the Eucharist” did not exist as alleged, then it is quite easy to see the historical problems with that allegation.

For your author subscribes to (FIVE) different opinions of his own conclusion without any support of evidence other than his/her manupulations to the Catholic Saints commentaries on the Eucharist. Your author of late reveals an inconsistancy of interpreting what is clear in all the Catholic Saints faith in the true presence.

his reasoning is sound…it seems that you have either failed to or refused to grasp the author’s logic

It takes one Catholic Christian today to know one Catholic Christian from antiquity.

or is it that it takes a very devout conservative catholic to find a “unanimous consent” in the ECFs? If so, then the “unanimous consent” that you see is (more than likely) a figment of your faith and not something that actually existed.

Forcing ones own new wind of doctrine (opinions) into what Jesus and the apostles have already set in stone will NEVER change what the ancient Catholic Christians believed, taught and defended against heretics and the such.

and imposing a modern conservative catholic view onto the words of the ECFs is a practice that will only be accepted by equally conservative catholics who must believe that their church has preserved the faith w/o any innovation

THE DIDACHE The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript…

we have moved past merely quoting the text…you must actually analyze what is said and present an argument that doesn’t read into the text that which isn’t there. If you are going to infer a meaning, you must justify the inference and not just draw it b/c it suits your purpose.

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME…

Again, we have moved past merely quoting the text…you must actually analyze what is said and present an argument that doesn’t read into the text that which isn’t there. Just b/c a text mentions “offerings” or “gifts” a RP is not in any way established (given that prayers and good deeds were viewed as offerings and gifts)

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH …

did it occur to you that the author (you discussed at the start of your post) had actually read these handful of quotes that you came up with? Yet again you need to move past merely quoting the text…you must actually address the author’s arguments.

 

[pneuma07]

Thanks

Your daughter (bless her) I trust, gets an actual explanation that involves the idea that Christ is really bodily present in the elements. That is very different from what we see in John 6 and the institution passages. Also, my main point here was and has always been that the RBPers should not be claiming that the plain and obvious meaning is the RBP interpretation. I have given my reasons for that point so often I will not repeat them yet again.

Just so we are clear…I am saying that it was originally unthinkable, not b/c it requires a miracle or b/c it is a repulsive concept (it isn’t IMHO), but b/c it would have been the first time that such a mode of existence was contemplated.

As you can see, I am not in a hurry myself…and I will be trying to keep my answers as short as possible.

Dear Radical,

let’s try and see whether and how long I can remain connected.

I agree there was no Eucharist before the Eucharist.

My main point here is that one should not be claiming that the plain and obvious meaning of the Institution is or was the NRP interpretation…