Eucharist?

[I_Leatherman]

Didn’t Paul have disciples fall away?

-Tim

Paul must have fallen away…
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

 

[Linkowski]

Tim-

Before a whole bunch of folks tee off on you…

What is your understanding of the Eucharist?

As for the sacraments in the NT:

Baptism - Jesus was baptized, the Apostles baptized
Eucharist - Jesus taught John 6 and Last Supper discourses among others
Confirmation - Jesus sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost
Marriage - Jesus attended the Wedding at Cana (John 2)
Holy Orders - Jesus told the Apostles “do this” Last Supper, see also John 20 (forgiving sins) among others
Reconciliation - Jesus forgave sins and told the Apostles to do the same, see John 20, James 5 (call the elders)
Annointing of Sick - Jesus healed the sick, see James 5:14

What is your understanding of what sacraments are?

Yes but you have turned these things into dead cermonies of which I took part in willingly and with regular learning. They did not do anything for me…to me they were the springboard to salvation - but - adding religious ceremony runs parallel to what the Pharisees were doing - then saying that you must go through these Sacraments to be “in Christ”. That is a works for Christ system.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes but you have turned these things into dead cermonies of which I took part in willingly and with regular learning.

How dare you called these dead ceremonies? Do you have the authority to call them dead? Who are you do make such accusation?

These sacraments are a gift from God. Jesus instituted these sacraments.

They did not do anything for me…to me they were the springboard to salvation - but - adding religious ceremony runs parallel to what the Pharisees were doing - then saying that you must go through these Sacraments to be “in Christ”. That is a works for Christ system.

I would be careful what you write in here. Take yield this this forum rule.

CONDUCT RULES

1. Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
2. Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.
3. Do not use character substitutions in proper names, such as “Amerikkkans” or “Demonrats” or “Repubicans” etc.
4. Inappropriate or offensive graphics, links, or profile entries are not permitted.
5. Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (especially replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).
6. Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
7. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

Timmy Z ask this out of charity, but you Link show no charity.

 

[KennC]

Yes but you have turned these things into** dead cermonies** of which I took part in willingly and with regular learning. They did not do anything for me…to me they were the springboard to salvation - but - adding religious ceremony runs parallel to what the Pharisees were doing - then saying that you must go through these Sacraments to be “in Christ”. That is a works for Christ system.

Dead??? … works system??

… so would that be like your religious ritual of walking down the isles to read off the three line sinners prayer, which is required!!!

 

[Mannyfit75]

I find Linkoski’s comments **extremely offensive **by calling them dead ceremonies.

 

[st_lucy]

Yes but you have turned these things into dead cermonies of which I took part in willingly and with regular learning. They did not do anything for me…to me they were the springboard to salvation - but - adding religious ceremony runs parallel to what the Pharisees were doing - then saying that you must go through these Sacraments to be “in Christ”. That is a works for Christ system.

So can you tell me when exactly did they become died? Do you know something that none of the Apostles didn’t know? Because they certainly did not considered them dead. Jesus, sure thought they were important.

I am really uncertain to your term dead ceremonies. Please come back and explain.

Thank you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes but you have turned these things into dead cermonies of which I took part in willingly and with regular learning. They did not do anything for me…to me they were the springboard to salvation - but - adding religious ceremony runs parallel to what the Pharisees were doing - then saying that you must go through these Sacraments to be “in Christ”. That is a works for Christ system.

Like so many others - Hahn, Ray, Staples, Armstrong, Akin, Howard, etc. - I am so grateful to God for calling me into the Catholic Church, and enabling me to see the Biblical basis and Godly wisdom behind each of the sacraments that God himself has established as channels of grace for His people.

 

[wanner47]

Timmy -

I would recommend that you read Sacramentum Caritatis, the apostolic exhortation just released by Pope Benedict. It is a lovely treatise on the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Best of luck to you in your journey to Truth!

 

[heisenburg]

Linkowski…

Why is it that the earliest Christians taught the Eucharist as it is taught today by the CC?
Also, If it were only a few that taught this in the early days as some espouse, where was the outcry?
The Eucharist is a hugely important Sacrament. Anything that important will have its shadow in the OT. The Shadow falls in Leviticus and Exodus, there fore, we have precedent, and a truth that spans all the bible. I see no shadow for a symbolic meaning.

Lets not talk about the misunderstandings of NT verses for your doctrines for a sec, because I know you will believe we are just flat out wrong. But there is another test…

Where is your Dogma in the OT

Where is the Shadow of Faith Only in the OT? If it were true and of such huge importance, where is it? Not there.
Where is the Shadow of OSAS in the OT? Same question. You feel this is the Core belief system. Not even a hint of it in the OT.
Where is the Shadow of Bible Only?
Where is the Shadow of “everyone can interpret scripture properly”?

All Catholic Doctrines have shadows within the OT. This is a key requirement as the Old is revealed in the New.

Do you also have a problem with the Anglican? Greek Orthodox? Lutheran? They claim real presence.

Please… all I am asking is be respectful. Even if you think Catholics are the worst enemies ever to walk this earth, How did Jesus say to treat your enemies?

By the way, there may actually be a shadow of protestantism though…
Numbers 16:1-40

In Christ

 

[Eden]

The Real Presence website is very useful, if you’d like to explore all of the angles of this:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/a.html

 

[Timmy_Z]

Take it easy on Link everyone. I also believe the sacraments are meaningless or hindrances to a relationship with God (just like the rituals of the pharisees). I started this thread because it appears Justin Martyr disagrees with me and I wanted to examine it futher and hear a view contrary to mine (the catholic one).

so would that be like your religious ritual of walking down the isles to read off the three line sinners prayer, which is required

Come on, no protestant really believes that.

More Later,
Tim

 

[heisenburg]

Take it easy on Link everyone

Very true Tim…

I have been corrected…

In Christ

 

[rtconstant]

Yes but you have turned these things into dead cermonies of which I took part in willingly and with regular learning. They did not do anything for me…to me they were the springboard to salvation - but - adding religious ceremony runs parallel to what the Pharisees were doing - then saying that you must go through these Sacraments to be “in Christ”. That is a works for Christ system.

That’s a personal problem Linkowski. The Lord Jesus Christ isn’t dead.

Don’t come in here and try to distract someone who is seeking truth with an open heart with your hate speech and anecdotal misdirection.

Is your own faith so tepid and uninspiring that you must seek out others and attempt to break them down in order to add meaning to your own beliefs?

 

[Timmy_Z]

The canon was not established prior to 70AD. The Gospel of John wasn’t even written until around 95AD.

There are many views on the dating of the gospels (John not being written until AD 95 is usually reserved for atheists with an agenda). I believe the best evidence is for the completion (writing) of the NT prior to AD 70.

Originally Posted by Timmy Z
Didn’t Paul have disciples fall away?

-Tim

Paul must have fallen away

My thought was that perhaps ignatius fell away from John and invented the false view of the eucarist. To have someone fall away from an apostle would not be unprecedented, as in the NT people fell away from Paul (due to circumcision).

These sacraments are a gift from God. Jesus instituted these sacraments.

If only people who agree with your faith debate here, it kind of destroys the point of an apologetics forum

Why is it that the earliest Christians taught the Eucharist as it is taught today by the CC?

Yes, let us return to this topic.

So far we have 4 people in the second century and 4 people in the third century with ignatius acknowleging dissent. Does 8 people during two centuries make a tradition?

Thanks for the replies,
Tim

 

[Timmy_Z]

rtconstant,

That’s a personal problem Linkowski. The Lord Jesus Christ isn’t dead.

Don’t come in here and try to distract someone who is seeking truth with an open heart with your hate speech and anecdotal misdirection.

Is your own faith so tepid and uninspiring that you must seek out others and attempt to break them down in order to add meaning to your own beliefs?

You need thicker skin. Calm down, he crossed no line.

-Tim

 

[Rawb]

Well let’s look at Ignatius of Antioch then.

He’s the 3rd Bishop of Antioch, and we have writings that say he was appointed to this seat by St. Peter himself. He fought strongly against heresy and was martyrd for his faith when he refused to worship pagan gods. A (rather over IMO) detailed account of his life is here:

newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

Those who are dissenting in Ignatius’s letter are possibly still known by their heretic title, though who he’s talking about I don’t know. If so and we still have some mention of their beliefs you could probably find out what they believed. From what I’ve read though, usually heretical groups had one or two doctrines that we would see as a normal protestant view, but usually something WAY out there.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You need thicker skin. Calm down, he crossed no line.

Timmy

He did cross the line and everything isn’t fine because you believe the same thing he does:

Take it easy on Link everyone. **I also believe **the sacraments are meaningless or hindrances to a relationship with God (just like the rituals of the pharisees).

I am sure rtconstant as well as every other Catholic on this forum respect other people’s faith as long as they don’t walk all over ours.

Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

It was disrespecful, and I don’t care if you agree with him.

God bless

 

[KennC]

Take it easy on Link everyone. I also believe the sacraments are meaningless or hindrances to a relationship with God (just like the rituals of the pharisees). I started this thread because it appears Justin Martyr disagrees with me and I wanted to examine it futher and hear a view contrary to mine (the catholic one).

Come on, no protestant really believes that.

More Later,
Tim

Since when is this not the required ritual??

 

[heisenburg]

So far we have 4 people in the second century and 4 people in the third century with ignatius acknowleging dissent. Does 8 people during two centuries make a tradition

Greetings to you in Christ…

Was there some dissent? absolutely, I’d be lying if i said there wasn’t. Ultimately though, this was the prevailing view with a great deal more minor quotes regarding the Eucharist. The Didache which is dated possibly as early as 70AD contains Hints of the Eucharist. This document was used as a sorta how to for Christians before everything really got off the ground and was widely accepted. It is probably one of the Earliest Christian writing outside the bible letters.

Anyway… As mentioned, If this was a heresy, there would have been a very large outcry. Every other heresy in History was met with stiff documented evidence… this is the contrary with the Eucharist. The outcry is against people that do NOT believe.

Though there are those that disagree on this board, The Eucharist is a continuation of the Sacrifice of the OT… Remember the Law was Not abolished, so the sacrifice is still needed. Obviously Jesus was that sacrifice, through a miracle, we can perform the second part of the sacrifice, the literal eating of the sacrifice. It is from the one time, sacrifice. not a repeated sacrifice. His flesh is simply provided to us by the miracle of Transubstantiation. He is not re-sacrificed, just re-presented.

The NT reiterates this continuation with “this is my flesh, this is my blood” as well as John 6. If the understanding that the law still exist, but that Jesus is fulfilling it, literal eating is the conclusion that is drawn

Hope that helps

In Christ

 

[Timmy_Z]

… so would that be like your religious ritual of walking down the isles to read off the three line sinners prayer, which is required!!!

Since when is this not the required ritual??

Your view simply in no way corresponds to reality. There is never a required ritual to be saved.

It was disrespecful, and I don’t care if you agree with him

How so? (serious question-I do not understand the outrage)

and we have writings that say he was appointed to this seat by St. Peter himself

That would definitely give credence to his view. Can you site the source?

The Didache which is dated possibly as early as 70AD contains Hints of the Eucharist

Quote it please?

The outcry is against people that do NOT believe.

8 people is an outcry?

Obviously Jesus was that sacrifice, through a miracle, we can perform the second part of the sacrifice, the literal eating of the sacrifice.

Is this the official view?

Was there some dissent? absolutely

Is there any surviving records of dissenters on the eucharist?

Thanks,
Tim