Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord's Supper/Eucharist?

[jmcrae]

Why would the early church fathers have their stuff together anymore than the churches in Revelation that had serious doctrinal errors? Did they all of a sudden start gettings things right??

We don’t go by each individual Father, but by their general consensus. Each of the churches in Revelation was wrong in a different way, but on the things where all seven of them agreed, they were all correct.

Each individual Father can make mistakes (and some of them even were outright heretics at various points in their lives), but he makes his own mistakes; not other people’s. Where they agree, though, we find sound doctrine - and we find that all of the Fathers (or at least a sufficient number of them) agreed on the Eucharist being the Real Presence of Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1;6202105:

Eat together, wait on one another. That contradicts each other.

Lets handle this first. No it does not. Do you start eating when you sit down or do you wait for everyone?
It does not say wait ON
It says wait FOR
Is that your confusion?

Wait for, wait on…don’t leave anyone out, make sure all have the body and blood. When they treated it as a meal, some ate like it was a meal leaving others out.

1Co 11:22 What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Oh, but he does, though - keep in mind, when John was writing this, the Christians had been celebrating Mass for more than 50 years already - they knew the words to the Mass. So when they read, “You must eat my flesh and drink my blood” they would have immediately remembered that in the Mass, Jesus tells us, “This is my flesh (the bread); this is my body (the wine)”

It also ties together the other way, too. Obviously, the disciples at that time didn’t know what he was talking about. But, when they came to the Last Supper, and Jesus said to them, “This (bread) is my body; this (wine) is my blood” they would certainly have remembered the conversation that took place earlier that same week.

Or John is correcting an early church movement towards this practice by omitting it because it has been misinterpreted.

 

[jmcrae]

Or John is correcting an early church movement towards this practice by omitting it because it has been misinterpreted.

How do you get that out of the text?

If John was wanting people to see the Lord’s Supper as a merely symbolic, meaningless action, he would never have written this:

50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;6202117:

Prodigal Son1;6202105:

Eat together, wait on one another. That contradicts each other.

Wait for, wait on…don’t leave anyone out, make sure all have the body and blood. When they treated it as a meal, some ate like it was a meal leaving others out.

1Co 11:22 What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not

? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.

Not what it says. It says to wait for each other. To do it together. Yes, they did leave each other out but not starting to eat at the same time. You see in your interpretation, eating and drinking, which the Eucharist as you understand it includes, seems to be precluded? No obviously they did eat and drink but its how they eat and drink. Thats what Paul addresses. Some are getting drunk. Thats the wrong way to do it. Look at teh way the NASB describes it

for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.

See people are not waiting on one another. He says so right here. They are leaving someone hungry why they eat first. So his final solution, or part of it, is to wait for one another. See they are still supposed to eat together but to wait.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why would the early church fathers have their stuff together anymore than the churches in Revelation that had serious doctrinal errors? Did they all of a sudden start gettings things right??

Let’s see John was written around 60 AD and Revelations was written around 100 AD…

John was not correcting a Church with His Gospel relaying a story of Christ…

Paul’s was clearly a letter of correction.

St. Ignatius wrote the following around 110 AD.

**Ignatius of Antioch

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (Letter to the Ephesians 20 [A.D. 110]).**

But, 2000+ years later, someone finally got it right?

Now, those doctrinal errors you speak of, are you saying such men defined the canon of the New Testament some 300 years later? Those men had to have an interpretation of the scriptures to decide which letters, epistles and Gospels would be included in the Bible. I side with them over someone of today, especially in light of some trying to justify the reformation of the 1500s.

 

[SteveVH]

He tells them to eat together and to wait on one another. The meal component stays the same; its how they are doing it. If it is just a matter of eating, stay home he says. I absolutely believe that Christ explained himself in John 6 to the disciples and it has nothing to do with the Eucharist. Absolutely nothing. John is mindful of this and if John 6 had anything to do with a Eucharist it is odd he does not tie it to the Last Supper. We are sticking with Corinthians I hope. I
But my John 6 link will come up regardless so here it is just to get it out of the way. While I do not agree with everything, it beats retyping the same old stuff
ntrmin.org/images/questions/John6Eucharist.html

Rightlydivide, you bellieve that Christ explained himself in John 6 to his disciples and it has nothing to do with the Eucharist? It is amazing to me how preconceived notions tend to blind us to truth. Not only is the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 plain from a literal sense but the Church has taught this doctrine from the beginning. Obviously the quotes from prior posts concerning the early Church Fathers have made no impression on you. There is a certain arrogance in my mind in ignoring and rejecting out of hand something the Church has always believed. In fact, it is the central, most important doctrine that the Church possesses. For someone to come along today (or even 500 years ago) and assume that their interpretation of this passage (John 6) trumps 2000 years of scriptural interpretation and teaching by the one who gave you the Bible to begin with (the Catholic Church) should at least give you pause.

Anna, great thread. We can always depend on you to be intellectually honest and open to truth, even when you may not understand it. Thank you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1;6202152:

Rightlydivide;6202117:

Not what it says. It says to wait for each other. To do it together. Yes, they did leave each other out but not starting to eat at the same time. You see in your interpretation, eating and drinking, which the Eucharist as you understand it includes, seems to be precluded? No obviously they did eat and drink but its how they eat and drink. Thats what Paul addresses. Some are getting drunk. Thats the wrong way to do it. Look at teh way the NASB describes it

See people are not waiting on one another. He says so right here. They are leaving someone hungry why they eat first. So his final solution, or part of it, is to wait for one another. See they are still supposed to eat together but to wait.

Yes, treating the bread and wine as a normal meal, some went without and others were drunk…

No, not going to look at a modern day translation. I use the Douay-Rheims, Greek interlinear, even the King James Versions, I rarely go for the new modern age translations. Yes, it can be harder, but with prayer the answers are always answered for me.

You see, I was a Protestant and didn’t understand many things in the Bible. Only as a Catholic has the Bible come to life for me.

I’m not trying to change your view and you’re certainly not going to change mine. I trust the Church, the Bible and the early Church fathers.

Have a good evening and continue seeking the fullness of His truth. That’s sincere as I don’t believe anyone will know the fulness of His truth in this life.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The churches in Revelation, with the exception of Philadelphia, had at least some doctrinal errors. Some very serious. So no, I do not trust them if they contradict scripture.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide, you bellieve that Christ explained himself in John 6 to his disciples and it has nothing to do with the Eucharist? It is amazing to me how preconceived notions tend to blind us to truth. Not only is the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 plain from a literal sense but the Church has taught this doctrine from the beginning. Obviously the quotes from prior posts concerning the early Church Fathers have made no impression on you. There is a certain arrogance in my mind in ignoring and rejecting out of hand something the Church has always believed. In fact, it is the central, most important doctrine that the Church possesses. For someone to come along today (or even 500 years ago) and assume that their interpretation of this passage (John 6) trumps 2000 years of scriptural interpretation and teaching by the one who gave you the Bible to begin with (the Catholic Church) should at least give you pause.

Anna, great thread. We can always depend on you to be intellectually honest and open to truth, even when you may not understand it. Thank you.

The entire history of the Bible from Genesis is the story of a stiff necked people. First it was Israel and then it continues to Revelation. So things started going smoothly in 100 AD? No way. Ignatius has an opinion. Of course the shorter recension is the valid one. The longer recension is clearly filled with interpolations and nonauthentic writings. But the shorter one…no one added to that…so yeah…maybe Ignatius said that…and maybe he did not. If people have the audicity to make up words in one form, why not another form?

 

[SteveVH]

The churches in Revelation, with the exception of Philadelphia, had at least some doctrinal errors. Some very serious. So no, I do not trust them if they contradict scripture.

Don’t you mean contradict your “interpretation” of scripture? Otherwise you must claim infallibility.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;6202185:

Prodigal Son1;6202152:

Yes, treating the bread and wine as a normal meal, some went without and others were drunk…

No, not going to look at a modern day translation. I use the Douay-Rheims, Greek interlinear, even the King James Versions, I rarely go for the new modern age translations. Yes, it can be harder, but with prayer the answers are always answered for me.

You see, I was a Protestant and didn’t understand many things in the Bible. Only as a Catholic has the Bible come to life for me.

I’m not trying to change your view and you’re certainly not going to change mine. I trust the Church, the Bible and the early Church fathers.

Have a good evening and continue seeking the fullness of His truth. That’s sincere as I don’t believe anyone will know the fulness of His truth in this life.

Amen. Thanks for writing.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Don’t you mean contradict your “interpretation” of scripture? Otherwise you must claim infallibility.

That people have different interpretations is true. Peter warns us that even in the time of Paul they attempted to twist scriptures. I am not infallible. I have made a fallible decision like the fallible decision of any other person

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The churches in Revelation, with the exception of Philadelphia, had at least some doctrinal errors. Some very serious. So no, I do not trust them if they contradict scripture.

See, there was one Church from then and up to the 1500s. The easy way to convince me otherwise is produce writings of the Church that was doctrinally correct, as you claim there was one.

God inspired the Bible and He inspired it be written that the Church of the living God was the pillar and ground of truth and that the manifold wisdom of God could be made known through the Church. He did not inspire it be written that the Bible was the only authority.

Christ built a Church and He said He would be with us until the consummation of the world. That means no gaps without His truth. The early Church fathers were a part of His Church.

Just as you provide writings of Christian men of today, where are the writings of that one doctrinally correct Church from then?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That people have different interpretations is true. Peter warns us that even in the time of Paul they attempted to twist scriptures. I am not infallible. I have made a fallible decision like the fallible decision of any other person

You have also made your fallible decision correct over all others…

 

[Rightlydivide]

See, there was one Church from then and up to the 1500s. The easy way to convince me otherwise is produce writings of the Church that was doctrinally correct, as you claim there was one.

God inspired the Bible and He inspired it be written that the Church of the living God was the pillar and ground of truth and that the manifold wisdom of God could be made known through the Church. He did not inspire it be written that the Bible was the only authority.

Christ built a Church and He said He would be with us until the consummation of the world. That means no gaps without His truth. The early Church fathers were a part of His Church.

Just as you provide writings of Christian men of today, where are the writings of that one doctrinally correct Church from then?

One church. Only if you do not count the Oriental Orthodox. The Orthodox. The Paulicians. The Montanists or other groups that disagree with you. I do not want to convince you.
On the other hand, I will defend my views as both valid and Christian. I have not giving you some trail of blood argument. Please stick to what I actually write. I will not defend what I have NOT (edit !) said.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You have also made your fallible decision correct over all others…

And you have not? You also placed your fallible decision in the hands of a group of people who believe to be infallible. But rest assured, your fallible decision was just that as well…

 

[SteveVH]

The entire history of the Bible from Genesis is the story of a stiff necked people. First it was Israel and then it continues to Revelation. So things started going smoothly in 100 AD? No way. Ignatius has an opinion. Of course the shorter recension is the valid one. The longer recension is clearly filled with interpolations and nonauthentic writings. But the shorter one…no one added to that…so yeah…maybe Ignatius said that…and maybe he did not. If people have the audicity to make up words in one form, why not another form?

Not sure what you just said, but my point remains. It wasn’t just Ignatius, belief in the real presence permeates the early Church and remains today. If you want to believe anything written in antiquity that disagrees with your view is fraudulent, well, whatever helps you sleep. Please show me any early Church writings (other than those condemed as heresy) that support your position.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

One church. Only if you do not count the Oriental Orthodox. The Orthodox. The Paulicians. The Montanists or other groups that disagree with you. I do not want to convince you.
On the other hand, I will defend my views as both valid and Christian. I have not giving you some trail of blood argument. Please stick to what I actually write. I will not defend what I have said.

Provide writing from any Church of those times, one that you are willing to associate your beliefs with.

**Montanists

Schismatics of the 2nd century, named from Montanus, a Phrygian, who, c.156, shortly after his conversion to Christianity, proclaimed himself a prophet of the “Spirit.” He called the people to gather in the plain of Pepuza, there to live a more spiritual life in preparation for the second coming of Christ which he said was near. In his frenzied ecstasies, he spoke not as God’s messenger, but as God, thus, “I am the Lord God Who dwell in man.” Two women, Maximilla and Prisca, were associated with him and had similar ecstasies. At first the innovations were not doctrinal but disciplinary. The “Spirit” ordered three Lents to be observed, and re-marriage and flight from persecution were forbidden. The greatest danger lay in the claim that the Holy Ghost was now supplementing the revelation of Christ, for this tended to overrule the authority of the bishops. The Asiatic Churches were in a turmoil, but the new prophecies were declared heretical, and the Montanists were excommunicated by local bishops. The news of the so-called “new outpouring of the Spirit” traveled all over the Catholic world, to Rome, Africa and Gaul. Pope Zephyrinus, c.202, definitely withheld letters of communion with the Montanists. In Africa, c.206, Montanism won to its side the great lawyer Tertullian; he taught that there were some unforgivable sins. The Montanists lingered in Africa until c.400, when they handed over themselves and their basilica to Saint Augustine. Little is heard of them in the East after the end of the 4th century. Some critics consider that the Montanistic controversy made the Church the Catholic Church; one would better say that Montanism brought out the innate Catholicity, the unanimity of the Church. **

You say you will not give some trail of blood argument, yet you’ve provided writings from some modern day theologians, far removed from any events we’re discussing and casting doubts on the early Church fathers because their writings support the Catholic doctrines.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And you have not? You also placed your fallible decision in the hands of a group of people who believe to be infallible. But rest assured, your fallible decision was just that as well…

Christ told the people to listen to those that sat upon the seat of Moses and do as they say, even though they maybe corrupted. Christ built a Church upon fallible men. He gave them the authority to bind and loose, forgive sins and retain sins, and the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He promised to be with them until the consummation of the world. His Church, His truth is infallible, even though sinful men. Christ knew none would be perfect and I believe in His power to protect His truth through the ages. What I’ve shared are His Church’s teachings and are not my private interpretations. I am no, nor have any, authority.

Thousands of denominations, with slight to great differences in doctrines, all based on someone’s private interpretation and all claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit is not being of the same mind and judgment.