Authority of the Church

[NotWorthy]

There is no valid reason to deny Christ’s personal command. He told us how to handle communion and no one should change it. They claimed it was to eliminate errors, yet don’t say what those errors were. It seems to fit a pattern of the RCC—if they don’t like something, change it…

No, once again, you information is only half-true and what is left out is telling.

It seems the faithful in the 14th century thought that the Host became His Precious Flesh, and the wine became His Precious Blood.

The problem with this thought pattern is that this Separation of the Body and Blood represents Jesus’ death. The Eucharist is participating in His Life!!! This is evidenced in John chapter 6.

Hence, to show the Faithful that they are receiving His Precious Body and Blood in the Eucharist, even if they are not receiving it from the chalice.

Now, the ban has been lifted for the last 30 or so years. I can estimate that I’ve been to around 50 different parishes over the last 10 years for Mass and only once have I seen a Sunday Mass that didn’t offer the Eucharist under both species.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well the early church leaders knew they were not drinking the actual blood of Christ. Irenæus, Theodoret, Athanasius and Augustine all wrote of it. Augustine said:

“**For if the sacraments did not have a certain likeness to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all **…Therefore…**in a certain way **the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ”. **…“You are not going to eat this body which you see, nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament.” **

That’s what it is; a sacrament. I fully believe in the presence of God during the partaking of this sacrament and I believe, as He said, the bread symbolizes the body and the wine the blood. He said do this in remembrance of Me and that’s why we do it. It is not a way to salvation. That is not mentioned but is to be done by believers only because Christ was talking to believers, not because the church has deemed it so.

Christ only gave us two sacraments, the communion and baptism and we should celebrate those as He intended.

You also mentioned confession. I confess my sins daily directly to God and publicly when in church. I confess them to the church however and not to a priest.

Ahhhh, once again, you leave out the half that is telling.

St. Ignatius (where in the world do you get that his 7 letters to the Churches and one to Polycarp are fake?!? Are you thinking of the two other ones that have been found to be false???) writes:

“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

St. Justin the Martyr:

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185

St. Ireneaus:

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,IV:18,4(c.A.D. 200),in ANF,I:486
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body,from which he gives increase to our bodies.”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200),in NE,119
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“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

It should be noted that Ireneaus is writing this to defend against heresies. Its funny how history repeats itelf.

 

[NotWorthy]

The author of the writings attributed to Ignatius and Clement are not known. They are believed to be written by them but it has not been proven and many think they were written much later than they lived. Also, unlike the New Testament we have, they lack the possibility of inspiration and only repeat what has been said in the books chosen as authentic for the Bible.

Where do you get this from, because I get the feeling this again is a half-truth.

Ignatius wrote 7 letters - 6 to churches and a 7th to Polycarp. I know of no scholar worth his salt that claims these are of false origin. There are others, however, that are doubted, but I think you should clarify that when you make claims like the one above. Or else, you can correct me.

St. Clement of Alexandria’s letters are in doubt, but I know of no one who authoritatively claims that St. Clement of Rome’s letter to Corinth is of false origin. Can you elaborate?

 

[utunumsint]

Originally Posted by utunumsint

I have seen you claim several times on this thread that Peter was never in Rome, never preached in Rome, and never died in Rome. Here are two questions for you.

 

[NotWorthy]

Translation: No you cannot. The implications of this is that I have multiple quotes from the early church fathers that claim Peter was in Rome and was martyred there, and you have none for to support your theory that he died in Jerusalem.

What you also have is COMPLETE SILENCE on anyone questioning that statement that Peter was in Rome. Nobody asked Ireneaus, “where in the world did you get this from?”

This would lead the honest scholar to understand that people already knew that Peter was the head of the Church in Rome.

 

[utunumsint]

…OK. One more.

You also claim that Christians worshiped on Saturday, not Sunday. Can you provide any evidence from the first three or four centuries of Patristic writings that also claims this?

God bless,
Ut

I’ll do better than that; I’ll give you Scriptures that show Christ and the apostles observed the Sabbaths and that it was Christ’s custom and Paul’s custom to do so:

MR 1:21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he(Christ) entered into the synagogue, and taught.

MR 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he(Christ) began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?

LU 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his(Christ) custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

LU 6:6 And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he(Christ) entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.

LU 13:10 And he(Christ) was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.

AC 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

AC 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

AC 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither

AC 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

***I never disputed that Paul and Jesus were not Jews. I was asking you about the early church where many things started to change under the leadership of Peter and the Apostles, including Paul. For example, Peter said it was OK to eat impure things. Paul says that no one should be judged based on Sabbath observance. Why? Because they were no longer under the old law, but under the new law. ***

There are others but these came to mind quickly. you will find many more and I am sure if you will take the time to read the early church leaders, you will find they also observed the Sabbath. It was done faithfully until the 4th and 5th century.

I have read many church fathers cover to cover. I have never seen one of them claim to worship on Saturday. They all worshipped on Sunday, the Lord’s day in celebration of the resurrection. Or will you reconsider and find me some quotes?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Mea_Culpa]

**The Eucharist is not symbolic. Try reading John 6:

[48] I am the bread of life.
[49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
[52]
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

in light of Luke 22

19] And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
[20] And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Jesus here institutes the sacrament of the Eucharist. He also institutes the sacrament of Holy Orders at this same meal:

[28] "You are those who have continued with me in my trials;
[29] and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
[30] that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

These are two of the seven sacraments that the Protestants deny themselves, because they have no apostolic priesthood. No priesthood, no eucharist. The Lutheran church was started by Martin Luther. The Catholic Church was started by Jesus Christ. I know which one I’ll stick with.**

 

[utunumsint]

What you also have is COMPLETE SILENCE on anyone questioning that statement that Peter was in Rome. Nobody asked Ireneaus, “where in the world did you get this from?”

This would lead the honest scholar to understand that people already knew that Peter was the head of the Church in Rome.

Agreed.

Old Scholar, I think you should conceed at least this point in favour of the Catholic claim that Peter was in Rome. It would go a long way in convincing me you are here honestly searching for truth.

Some of the other claims you make do have a lot of merit by the way.

God bless,
Ut

 

[NotWorthy]

What you also have is COMPLETE SILENCE on anyone questioning that statement that Peter was in Rome. Nobody asked Ireneaus, “where in the world did you get this from?”

This would lead the honest scholar to understand that people already knew that Peter was the head of the Church in Rome.

To further this point, just see how the Church reacted to any teachings that She felt went against Church teachings, i.e. the gnostics.

 

[Old_Scholar]

No, once again, you information is only half-true and what is left out is telling.

It seems the faithful in the 14th century thought that the Host became His Precious Flesh, and the wine became His Precious Blood.

The problem with this thought pattern is that this Separation of the Body and Blood represents Jesus’ death. The Eucharist is participating in His Life!!! This is evidenced in John chapter 6.

Hence, to show the Faithful that they are receiving His Precious Body and Blood in the Eucharist, even if they are not receiving it from the chalice.

Now, the ban has been lifted for the last 30 or so years. I can estimate that I’ve been to around 50 different parishes over the last 10 years for Mass and only once have I seen a Sunday Mass that didn’t offer the Eucharist under both species.

So I was correct in saying it was changed and changed again??? This is the knock you know, changing what you don’t like…You blame the Protestants for many things but you can’t make that claim against them.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Ahhhh, once again, you leave out the half that is telling.

St. Ignatius (where in the world do you get that his 7 letters to the Churches and one to Polycarp are fake?!? Are you thinking of the two other ones that have been found to be false???) writes:
St. Justin the Martyr:
St. Ireneaus:
It should be noted that Ireneaus is writing this to defend against heresies. Its funny how history repeats itelf.

So the next time you take communion, see if the bread tastes like flesh and the wine tastes like blood…You will find no physical change…just symbolic change…as we say!

 

[curtishouse29]

So the next time you take communion, see if the bread tastes like flesh and the wine tastes like blood…You will find no physical change…just symbolic change…as we say!

There is a big difference between symbolic and spiritual…How exactly could a symbol change btw?

 

[NotWorthy]

So I was correct in saying it was changed and changed again??? This is the knock you know, changing what you don’t like…You blame the Protestants for many things but you can’t make that claim against them.

I never denied that it was changed and changed again. You said the faithful are prevented from the cup. I say they are not.

There was a time when they were, and this was explained.

What I also deny is that even when the cup is with-held, the faithful were (and are) still able to partake in His Blood because He is risen again.

Now, let me ask you. Is His Flesh (and only His Flesh) present in the bread and His Blood (and only His Blood) present in the wine? That seems to be what you are claiming.

 

[NotWorthy]

So I was correct in saying it was changed and changed again??? This is the knock you know, changing what you don’t like…You blame the Protestants for many things but you can’t make that claim against them.

Oh, btw, you want to explain your church’s teaching on contraception? Abortion? How about women priests?

 

[NotWorthy]

So the next time you take communion, see if the bread tastes like flesh and the wine tastes like blood…You will find no physical change…just symbolic change…as we say!

That was a nice change of horses in mid-stream, my friend.

A) You claim that the Church Fathers agree with your stance, and even provide an incomplete statement to back you up.
B) I show you where its been taught since the earliest of times that Jesus is really truly Present in the Eucharist.
ergo,
C) You come up with this?!?!?

I don’t see Ignatius, Justin, or Ireneaus claiming symbolism. This is one of the reasons the early Christians were called Canibals.

By the way, the prescription against the drinking of blood, wasn’t it the drinking of any “creature’s blood”?

 

[NotWorthy]

There is a big difference between symbolic and spiritual…How exactly could a symbol change btw?

Or how could a “symbol” bring condemnation if you drink it “unworthily” (according to St. Paul in Corinthians).

That would smack of idolatry, if a symbol could bring condemnation.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Where do you get this from, because I get the feeling this again is a half-truth.

Ignatius wrote 7 letters - 6 to churches and a 7th to Polycarp. I know of no scholar worth his salt that claims these are of false origin. There are others, however, that are doubted, but I think you should clarify that when you make claims like the one above. Or else, you can correct me.

St. Clement of Alexandria’s letters are in doubt, but I know of no one who authoritatively claims that St. Clement of Rome’s letter to Corinth is of false origin. Can you elaborate?

**The writings of Ignatius have been known to have incorrect historical data. Roman Law did not allow for prisoners to be sent from one province to another at the time of Ignatius. Many scholars also are concerned about the ‘false heroism’ shown in Ignatius’ writings. It is a personality issue that seems to be an invention of a later time.

The heresies combated by Ignatius in his letters belong to a later period of time than the early years of the second century. Gnosticism grew to great dimensions but at a later date than the supposed time mentioned as the time of Ignatius’ writings. The heretics described in his letters did not exist in the early part of the second century.

In addition, Ignatius writes of a church organization that did not exist at that time. The episcopate did not exist until much later. The epistles mention three orders, bishops, presbyters and deacons with the second already subordinate to the first and he mentions the function of the episcopate and unity well prior to the actual time. If you take the writing of Polycarp, as verified by Irenæus as accurate, then it is too early for Ignatius’ writings to be authentic. And of course a final blow, the originals are said to not still exist, as for many of the earlier writings.

There is a better argument for the authenticity of Clement’s first letter to the Corinthians. The 2nd letter attributed to him is spurious however as it was written in the second century and Clement was then dead.

Clement does not mention his name either in the opening of the epistle or in the body. It is addressed from one church to another and not from one person to a church. One of the biggest problems with considering it genuine is that it is a very large size, not like an epistle, but more like a book. Also the real reason for the letter does not appear until chapter 44. It seems much more likely that it is a treatise that attempts to display peace and unity in different communities. Whoever wrote it called it an appeal ‘for peace and harmony.’

The author seems to be attempting to mediate problems from Rome but that is unrealistic for the times. He says that the Corinthians had always been in revolt and that goes against Paul’s epistles. The epistle also speaks of great harmony between Peter and Paul and that did not exist at that time. That came much later than this letter purports to be written. If one reads the ending of the epistle and finds the prayer that says: “So let us, in harmony and as best we know, meet in the same place and with one voice emphatically praise the Lord, since we are blessed with his great and magnificent promises.” How could the Corinthians have gone to a sanctuary with the Romans?

The letter also indicates antagonism between priests and laymen. This would have had to be a much later time. Mention is also made of the book of Judith and that was not written until 138 A.D. too long for Clement to have known about it.

One last reason I don’t think it was written by Clement was that it would require uniform leadership, if written by a bishop, that Rome did not have until the time of Anicetus in 156-166 A.D. Many scholars believe the writing is of another person, perhaps named Clement, whom no one knows anything about but who could have been a member of the governing body of the Roman Church.

In defense of Clement as the author, the early church certainly thought it was written by him as it was read and used frequently. The problems with his authorship however have not been explained. In order to be perfectly honest however, I must admit that many scholars make the claim that it is authenticate. There are also many who do not accept it as authenticate.**

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar;4027159:

Originally Posted by utunumsint

The early church leaders were not inspired and until Irenæus, no one made the claim that Peter was in Rome.

Translation: No you cannot. The implications of this is that I have multiple quotes from the early church fathers that claim Peter was in Rome and was martyred there, and you have none for to support your theory that he died in Jerusalem.

I feel certain you will be glad to list them. But make sure they are from the first two or three centuries. I don’t want “proof” from those who were already trying to control the church.

Can you provide any Biblical quote that Peter died in Rome or that he was ever in Rome?

Translation: No. There are no Biblical quotes that show that Peter died in Jerusalem.

From the New Advent site:

“The Vatican Council has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra – that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church – is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent” (Densinger no. 1839 – old no. 1680).”

Now if the pope declared that you must go to church each Wednesday in order to achieve salvation, would you believe him and do just that? Of course you would, even though it isn’t in
Scripture.

Translation:There is no place where the church teaches that the pope can contradict scripture. You read that ability in the doctrine of papal infallibility. Correct?

Correct!

Gladly…You can find the entire document on the internet and on a Roman Catholic site. They don’t hide how they changed the Scriptures but do it openly:

The cup was withheld from the laity first at the Council of Lambeth in 1281 A.D., and was allowed in some circumstances when the laity received juice and the priest alone received wine. And then confirmed again and abolished by the Council of Constance in 1416, forbidding the laity from receiving the cup.

The Council of Constance called communion of both kinds an error and said priests who administered both kinds (cup and bread) would be punished. Their statement said: “Whereas in several parts of the world, some rashly presumed to assert that all Christians ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under both species of bread and wine, and that also after supper, or not fasting, contrary to the laudable custom of the church, justly approved of, which they damnably endeavour to reprobate as sacrilegious: hence it is that this holy general Council of Constance, assembled by the Holy Ghost to provide for the salvation of the faithful against this error, declares, decrees, and defines, that although Christ did after supper institute this holy sacrament, and administered it to his disciples in both kinds, of bread and wine, yet this notwithstanding, the laudable authority of the sacred canons, and the approved custom of the church, hath fixed and doth fix, that this sacrament ought not to be consecrated after supper, nor received by the faithful except fasting. And as this custom, for the purpose of avoiding certain dangers and scandals, has been rationally introduced, and that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the primitive church, it was afterward received in both kinds by the officiating priests, and by the people under the species of bread only, it being believed most certainly, and nothing doubted, that the entire body and blood of Christ are really contained as well under the species of bread as of wine; this, therefore, being approved, it is now made a law. Likewise this holy synod decrees and declares, as to this matter, to the reverend fathers in Christ, patriarchs, lords, etc., that they must effectually punish all such as shall transgress this decree, or shall exhort to communicate the people in both kinds.”

The Council of Trent declares: “Although Christ the Lord did in the last supper institute this venerable sacrament of the eucharist in the species of bread and wine, and thus delivered it to the apostles; yet it does not thence follow that all the faithful in Christ are bound by divine statute to receive both kinds.”

“Moreover, the council declares, that though our Redeemer, as has been before said, did, in the last supper, institute this Sacrament in two kinds, and thus delivered it to the apostles, it must neverless be granted, that the true sacrament and Christ, whole and entire, is received in either kind by itself.”

The following canons were also enacted by the council:

1. “If any one shall say that all and every one of the faithful are obliged by divine precept, or as necessary to salvation, to receive the most holy sacrament of the eucharist under both kinds, let him be accursed.”
2. “If any one shall say that the holy Catholic Church had no just and reasonable causes to give to the laity, and even to the non-consecrating clergy, for the communion of the eucharist under the species of bread alone, or that it erred therein; let him be accursed.
3. If any man shall deny that Jesus Christ, the author and fountain of all graces, is received whole and entire under the species of bread alone, because he is not received under both species, according to the institution of Jesus Christ, as some falsely maintain; let him be accursed.

Notice that they curse you if you don’t accept their teaching but follow the Bible instead.

***Nowhere in all of the quotes that you provided do I see the Catholic church forbidding the reception of the Eucharist in the form of wine. All I see is the catholic church saying it is not necessary for salvation to receive under both species. ***

I have taken the liberty of highlighting what you printed for you. How can you make the statement that there is no ban???Read #2 again.

This is how the RCC changes Scripture to suit their own purposes. Why would any church want to change this sacrament? There is no reason except to please some man who thinks he is God.
**
Here is another question for you, can you give me one document, or writing from the catholic church that states that the pope is God?**
Continued

Explain to me what God’s Vicar on earth means…

 

[Old_Scholar]

**The Eucharist is not symbolic. Try reading John 6:

[48] I am the bread of life.
[49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
[52]
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

in light of Luke 22

19] And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
[20] And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Jesus here institutes the sacrament of the Eucharist. He also institutes the sacrament of Holy Orders at this same meal:

Read just a few more verses and you will see He called the cup of ‘His blood’ the ‘fruit of the vine.’**

[28] "You are those who have continued with me in my trials;
[29] and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
[30] that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

These are two of the seven sacraments that the Protestants deny themselves, because they have no apostolic priesthood. No priesthood, no eucharist. The Lutheran church was started by Martin Luther. The Catholic Church was started by Jesus Christ. I know which one I’ll stick with.

What about when Christ said “I am the light of the world?” Was He an incadescent or flourescent bulb?

When He said He was the gate, what kind of gate did He mean?

When He said He was the lamb, wonder what he meant…

He continually said He was the ‘bread of life’. No one thought He meant He was actual bread.

And I know of no Protestant church that does not celebrate the communion as directed by Christ.

 

[anon52328184]

i agree with the reply to old scholar by sodak – post 253.

your arguments are tiresome old scholar.