Church Fathers on the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter junostarlighter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn’t what you are telling me about church law just what Cults do and say? You believe what I say or else.
I don’t think so. if we go to your notion, then early Christianity must be a cult as well, since it often would set its foot down against heretics. But if it didn’t, then heresy would be the norm now. To protect the teachings of the Apostles, the Church has to definitively define what it teaches, and that would mean letting the faithful toe the line. Many Protestant denominations also do it, by the way, or else their congregations would split apart uncontrollably. Only they do not enforce it as much as the Catholic Church does. In fact, Jesus also says the same thing: “I am the Way, I am the Truth, I am the Life”. Very rigid, very defninitive. In effect He is saying–believe in Me, or else. The Church then echoes what the Master does.
 
Certainly not, since if that’s the case then He would still be obliged to explain it in spiritual terms to the 12. He didn’t. He was more than willing to let them go as well. This is the only time that Jesus did not even explain it to the 12. His words only? As I have stated in my previous post, such a thing would not be an affront to the Jews nor to His Disciples. Jesus is the Truth, and He was morally obliged to go after them to explain what He meant were He talking about His words as food. It wasn’t just His words that He meant, but something more. The Apostles knew this. The Early Fathers knew this. Are you saying now that the Early Fathers were wrong all along, when they have affirmed Jesus spoke of the Eucharist as not merely spiritual, but actually physical?
You know the only important aspect of us is our spirit. Our spirit united with the Holy Spirit is what sets us apart. Jesus said that the flesh had nothing to offer, why then worry so much about our bodies?
 
You know the only important aspect of us is our spirit.
No, or else our bodies would not be temples of the Spirit. Our physical self is very much important as well. We are not angels, as David Currie is fond of saying, that we do not have bodies. Paul in fact exhorts us to take care of our bodies because it is the temple of the Holy Spirit. To take care of our physical self is to take care as well of our spiritual side.
 
No. Open Scripture for yourself and Jesus Himself says the same.

If you believe differently than others then that means truth is relative. It is Pagan Rome reborn. “What is truth” Pilate said. That was the way of Pagan Rome- everyone could have their own individual beliefs concerning religion and the definite truth was not known.

Jesus said for us to believe EVERYTHING taught to us. Nowhere does He say you can believe differently and get away with it. Nowhere does Scripture teach that some teachings are essential and others are not.

Ken
Scripture does tell us that the Holy Spirit will teach us. (John 14:26) “but the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you.”

(1 Corinthians 2:10-16) “These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depts. Of everything, even the depths of God. After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God. Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from God, to teach us to understand the gifts that he has given us. Therefore we teach, not in the way in which philosophy is taught, but in the way that the Spirit teaches us: we teach spiritual things spiritually. A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything and his own value in not to be judged by other men. As scripture says;’ Who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him?’ But we are those who have the mind of Christ.”
 
You know the only important aspect of us is our spirit. Our spirit united with the Holy Spirit is what sets us apart. Jesus said that the flesh had nothing to offer, why then worry so much about our bodies?
Because the body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Ken
 
Scripture does tell us that the Holy Spirit will teach us. (John 14:26) “but the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you.”
It certainly does; but it does not necessarily mean we do not need preachers and pastors anymore, does it now? Even Protestants do not deny that they still need their pastors. Discernment, however, still needs guidance from the elders; Paul again affirms this, and does not do away with any heirarchy. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to teach; He did not tell them that the Holy Spirit will do it for them.
 
Scripture does tell us that the Holy Spirit will teach us. (John 14:26) “but the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you.”

(1 Corinthians 2:10-16) “These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depts. Of everything, even the depths of God. After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God. Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from God, to teach us to understand the gifts that he has given us. Therefore we teach, not in the way in which philosophy is taught, but in the way that the Spirit teaches us: we teach spiritual things spiritually. A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything and his own value in not to be judged by other men. As scripture says;’ Who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him?’ But we are those who have the mind of Christ.”
If this was true of each individual Christian then all would believe the same way about all things. Notice Jesus said this to his Apostles, not to the individual Christian who 20 centuries later opens up Scripture translated in the Kings English of the 16’th century from books the CATHOLIC CHURCH bound under one cover and declared Inspired Scripture.
 
Scripture does tell us that the Holy Spirit will teach us. (John 14:26) “but the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you.”
Note that Scripture here is saying only what it is saying. You are adding more to it and make it mean something entirely different.

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)
Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.
Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.
Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.
Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.
Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.
Mark 8:33 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.
Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.
Luke 22:32 - Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly).
John 11:51-52 - some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.
1 & 2 Peter - for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn’t his successors so teach as well?
Gen. to Deut.; Psalms; Paul - Moses and maybe Paul were murderers and David was an adulterer and murderer, but they also wrote infallibly. God uses us sinful human beings because when they respond to His grace and change their lives, we give God greater glory and His presence is made more manifest in our sinful world.
John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.
John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

(Taken from www.scripturecatholic.com)
 
John 16:12 - Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God’s Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.
John 16:13 - Jesus promises that the Spirit will “guide” the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.
1 Cor. 2:13 ? Paul explains that what the ministers teach is taught, not by human wisdom, but by the Spirit. The ministers are led to interpret and understand the spiritual truths God gives them over time.
Eph. 4:13,15 ? Paul indicates that attaining to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God to mature manhood is a process. We are to grow up in every way into Christ. Doctrine (which means ?teaching?) develops as we understand God?s Revelation.
Acts 15:27-28 - the apostles know that their teaching is being guided by the Holy Spirit. He protects the Church from deception.
Gal. 2:11-14 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter’s evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter’s teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile’s salvation in Acts 10,11. With this rebuke, Paul is really saying “Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!” The verse really underscores, and not diminishes, the importance of Peter’s leadership in the Church.
Eph. 3:10 - the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures). This is an incredible verse, for it tells us that God’s infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church. For that to happen, the Church must be protected from teaching error on faith and morals (or she wouldn’t be endowed with the wisdom of God).

Eph. 3:9 - this, in fact, is a mystery hidden for all ages - that God manifests His wisdom through one infallible Church for all people.
Eph. 3:20 - God’s glory is manifested in the Church by the power of the Spirit that works within the Church’s leaders. As a Father, God exalts His children to roles of leadership within the body of Christ.
Eph. 5:23-27, Col. 1:18 - Christ is the head of the Church, His Bride, for which He died to make it Holy and without blemish. There is only one Church, just as Christ only has one Bride.
Eph. 5:32- Paul calls the Church a “mystery.” This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. “Church” does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.
1 Thess. 5:21 - Paul commands us to test everything. But we must have something against which to test. This requires one infallible guide that is available to us, and this guide is the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have never changed.
1 Tim. 3:15 - Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. She also must be the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have not changed for 2,000 years. God loves us so much that He gave us a Church that infallibly teaches the truth so that we have the fullness of the means of salvation in His only begotten Son.
1 John 4:6 ? John writes that whoever knows God ?listens to us? (the bishops and successors to the apostles). Then John writes ?This is the way we discern truth and error. John does not say ?reading the Bible is the way we discern truth and error.? But if listening to mere human beings helps us discern truth and error, God would have had to endow his chosen leaders with the special gift of infallibility, so that they would be prevented from teaching error.
 
Well… just one more-

You said you believe the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ.

Please describe for us what you believe in how this happens…

Who has the power to change the bread and wine? What changes the bread and wine?

What formula or words must be used?

What must the bread contain?

What type of wine must be used?

What actually changes? You said you believe it to be Jesus. Please describe for us all of this.

Also, if the bread and wine change - they are no longer bread and wine and should be worshipped in the same mannar as Almighty God?

It seems you have many questions to answer (they all have already been answered in the same mannar as all else.)

Ken
 
Lets read a little more of 1 John. (1 John 3-24) “Whoever keep his commandments lives in God and God lives in him. We know that he lives in us by the Spirit that he has given us.” Now John said whomever, not just the apostles. Notice he says by the Spirit that he has given us, and he wasn’t talking about again, just the apostles.

(Acts 2:38-39) “Peter answered ‘and everyone of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise that was made is for you and your children, and for al those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God will call to himself.”

You should notice Peter said the promise was made for you and your children.

(1 John 4-2) “You can tell the spirits that come from God by this; every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus the Christ has come in the flesh is from God.”

I know Jesus came in the flesh and he is God, and is also my Lord and savior. So my spirit has to be from God.
 
Because the body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Ken
Yes we are temples of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is united with my spirit, not my body. With out my spirit, my body is just flesh. Bringing that subject up, that we are temples of the Holy Spirit, doesn’t it make you wonder about those Christians soldiers who fight in a war and kill other Christians? How do they justify destroying one on God’s temples?
 
Choosing religion based on your own personal insights and feelings that go against what the Church has always taught. It is the same with practicing homosexuals who need to feed their own desires over what the Church teaches.
I am offended at this accusation. How do you suppose to know that I am going on “personal insights and feelings” and “feed (my) own desires”???

I would say choosing religion based on what other men teach instead of following the God-given spirit within you in all honesty and submission to the Will of God is equally troublesome, but I won’t stoop to compare Catholics with un-godly practices and mention minority groups who might read and take offense.

I read scripture and, as I said in my post, I am pondering these things. I have not totally abandoned the Catholic church or gone against the church in any way. I have not participated in communion in the Catholic Church in almost a year, but I have not received communion elsewhere in the meantime. I am prayerfully considering these things, as I always have, and I am more than willing to follow God’s Will be it back to the Catholic church, the Mennonite church, or anywhere else he leads me. In fact, if I do join the Mennonites, it will be quite the opposite of “feeding” my “desires”, since I really want peace in my family, and considering joining them has caused a lot of division and conflict in my family.
The Church teaches that you can make a spiritual communion if unable to physically receive Holy Communion.
I know this and have often done this. I’ve had a Eucharist chaplet I recited often.
You need to talk to someone concerning your disability, someone in the Catholic Faith who is knowledgable on this issue instead of going off on your own, opening Scripture and interpreting things on your own…when they lead you down the path of heresy and destruction of your soul.
If I am sincere in my search for truth and end up somewhere other than the Catholic Church, I am certain it will not end in the destruction of my soul - even the Catholic Church teaches this.

Furthermore, if opening scripture can be so misleading, then why give it to the laity at all? As a devout, orthodoxed Catholic, I was terrified of reading scripture at all because I saw a very, very different church portrayed there.

Btw, I know of no one within the Catholic faith who is knowledgable on the issue of Celiac disease. My own doctor was unknowledgable about Celiac disease to begin with, and it took my own insistance that testing be done and my own decision to begin the diet which led to my recovery. He basically said, yes the tests confirm you have it, and I hope you can find someone else to help you because I don’t know anything about it.

Anyway, getting back to the topic- as far as the ECF, I don’t see convincing evidence that they believed in or taught transubstantiation. I’m not sure it is essential to our Christian walk to *know *what actually takes place in the Eucharist. What we do know is that Jesus instituted this and commanded us to do it in His remembrance and that we must not go about it lightly, but rather first examine ourselves lest we receive it unworthily… Of course there is still deeper meaning behing the Eucharist, the passover, etc. and those things are good and holy to contemplate, but in the end they do not increase my faith nor do they strengthen me in my daily walk.

KathyH:
Yes we are temples of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is united with my spirit, not my body. With out my spirit, my body is just flesh. Bringing that subject up, that we are temples of the Holy Spirit, doesn’t it make you wonder about those Christians soldiers who fight in a war and kill other Christians? How do they justify destroying one on God’s temples?
I think this is a bit off-topic, but it is a good point, and one of the issues in my ever-growing list of reasons I cannot, in good conscience, consider myself a Catholic (despite my username).
 
My one Protestant friend claims that the Early Church’s thoughts on Real Presence in the Eucharist are not as unanimous as Catholics like to think they are.

justforcatholics.org/a179.htm

Anything I could say in response to him?
From the article:
they prove that some Church Fathers considered the Eucharist as the figure, sign, symbol and likeness of the body and blood of Christ.
Say: amen. This is also what the Church teaches. But it isn’t all the Fathers taught. They also taught it was the body and blood of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches all of what the Fathers taught, even that part about the real presence.
 
Certainly not, since if that’s the case then He would still be obliged to explain it in spiritual terms to the 12. He didn’t. He was more than willing to let them go as well. This is the only time that Jesus did not even explain it to the 12.
But he did, when He said His words are spirit and life.
His words only? As I have stated in my previous post, such a thing would not be an affront to the Jews nor to His Disciples.
It would if they did not have “ears to hear”; if their hearts were hardened. Those who left Him were probably looking for a scapegoat. They were probably waiting for the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Are you saying now that the Early Fathers were wrong all along, when they have affirmed Jesus spoke of the Eucharist as not merely spiritual, but actually physical?
I do not see affirmation by the ECF of the teaching of transubsantiation. I see that they had theories and similar beliefs.
 
This absolutely infuriates me!

From the recommended site:
Because celebrating Mass is central to the priesthood, the 1995 norms added that men who are affected by Celiac Sprue disease or suffer from alcoholism or similar conditions may not be admitted to the priesthood. In his 2003 letter, Cardinal Ratzinger noted a modification to that norm, saying “Given the centrality of the celebration of the Eucharist in the life of a priest, one must proceed with great caution before admitting to Holy Orders those candidates unable to ingest gluten or alcohol without serious harm.” The Cardinal’s 2003 letter also provides norms for the celebration and concelebration of Mass when the celebrant or concelebrant suffers from gluten or alcohol intolerance.
WOOOOOOOOOOW!:mad:
 
Well Jesus said spirit that gives life, the flesh had nothing to offer. Could he have not been saying that his flesh had nothing to offer, but his spiritual self is what gives life? Is not the Eucharist spiritual food, so why, if he said flesh had nothing to offer would he give us his flesh, it was not spiritual?
KathyH,

I think I see your problem in all of this. Please be advised that when Jesus says “the flesh is to no avail” that he is not talking about his own flesh. Jesus is talking about “human ability and effort.” The New Living Bible translation(a protestant translation) makes this very clear. It says:

John 6:63 (New Living Translation)
New Living Translation (NLT)
Holy Bible. New Living Translation copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers.

“It is the Spirit who gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

If we hear Jesus in a “fleshy” way we will not believe him. We need the Spirit to know that he is truly giving us his body and blood. We are born again by way of the Spirit and it is by the Spirit that we are given the supernatural gifts of faith, hope, and charity. Likewise, we receive all other gifts of God by way of his grace and the Spirit.

If Jesus meant his own flesh was to no avail then there would be several problems in his message. The most important would mean that His flesh that hung upon the cross did not provide atonement, expiation, and redemption for mankind. His flesh would literally have been to know avail in our salvation.

Secondly, if Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and blood and did not mean it the way the Church teaches it, then he must have meant it in the only other fashion that the Jews would have understood him. In scripture and Jewish culture any reference to eating flesh and drinking blood in a symbolic sense meant to destroy someone and/or their people and culture. Clearly, this could not be what Jesus meant. Moreover, the Jews listening to Jesus understood him literally and that is why they left.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top