Fruit of the Vine

[Randy_Carson]

And what you do not get is that not all early Christians were literalists in regard to the Eucharist. You speak as if your point is a perfectly unassailable conclusion.

It is not.

If one wants to make arguments that something is true merely because “my church says so,” that is fine.

But let us not confuse that with making any kind of argument from God’s Word.

…

By your own words then, you admit that at least some of the early Christians did believe that the Eucharist was literally the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Boy, how did that error ever happen? After all, the Bible is really clear in John 6 that Jesus was speaking purely symbolically and the Bible is so clear that even a plowboy can understand it…

Oh, wait…the Bible didn’t even exist in the early days and most people couldn’t read…so I guess they were TAUGHT that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Gee, that doesn’t make any sense at all. Paul wrote his letters to the Corinthians 20+ years after the resurrection, and he says that Jesus personally taught him about this doctrine.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

My goodness, if all this error had crept into the Church early on, why on earth didn’t Jesus clarify to Paul that he was only speaking symbolically that night in the upper room? Paul went on to say:

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

How can someone “eat and drink judgment on himself” by not recognizing the body of the Lord if the body of the Lord isn’t really there? Only if it really is there and one fails to acknowledge that can one be guilty.

Boy, oh boy, Paul really left us in a pickle. And he’s not the only one!

John wrote his Gospel near the end of the first century more than 50 years after the Ascension. Surely John could have corrected these early Christians who had so completely misunderstood the pure symbolism of Jesus’ Bread of Life discourse in Capernaum. Funny, but neither he nor the Holy Spirit who inspired him never thought to add a word or two to John 6 which could have cleared this up once and for all.



Perhaps you might provide some quotations with sources of those early Christians who absolutely and unquestionably denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Keep in mind, the ECFs often spoke of the Eucharist in both literal and symbolic terms - and this is perfectly acceptable to the Catholic position - because there are powerful symbolic aspects to it. Therefore, it will not be sufficient to pull an isolated quote from a Father that speaks of symbolism if that same Father speaks of the literal presence elsewhere. No, we need source material of those ECF’s who believed in a symbolic meaning only.

I’m on the edge of my seat in anticipation. :coffeeread:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“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]).

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology *66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He 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 unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] 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” (*The Instructor of Children *1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (*The Resurrection of the Dead *8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper *” (Fragment from *Commentary on Proverbs **[A.D. 217]).

(cont.)*

 

[Randy_Carson]

Origen

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (*Homilies on Numbers *7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (*The Lapsed *15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (*Catechetical Lectures *19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan

“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (*The Mysteries *9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (*Catechetical Homilies *5:1 [A.D. 405]).

(cont.)*

 

[Randy_Carson]

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (*Explanations of the Psalms *33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (*Sermons *227 [A.D. 411]).

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

Council of Ephesus

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, *Letter of Cyril to Nestorius *[A.D. 431]).

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hey, Atemi-

I was shocked :yawn: to see that quote by Justin Martyr on the Eucharist that I just posted.

After all, he denied infant baptism, right?

So, he should be a “Protestant Poster Child”, shouldn’t he?

As I said in another thread (to which you have never responded), I encourage you to embrace all of Justin’s theology that you possibly can.:dancing:

This is very significant.

 

[El_camino]

ATEMI:

VociMike and I would like to see the following question answered, which I posed to you in a previous post (VociMike posed a similar question):

I WOULD LIKE to see ONE EARLY CHURCH FATHER, who was not excommunicated (some ECFs were excommunicated such as Tertullian and Origen), who was not a “literalist” on the Eucharist as you call it.

Also, please do not cite any ECF calling the Eucharist bread and wine, as we Catholics TODAY still call the Eucharist as such and that does not mean we consider it simply bread and wine.

You would have to cite something similar to what Ignatius Antioch said about the Eucharist but saying the contrary, such as: “Those who believe that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ are heretics” or something of the sort.

Thanks,

E.C.

 

[Atemi]

I’m sure he’s a big disappointment to you and many other anti-Cathlics, but God seems pleased with him.

Call him what you will, Atemi, but people are coming into the Church in droves on the basis of his testimony, his writings and his talks.

In Protestant parlance, he’s what you might call “powerfully used of God.”

But I don’t think he considers himself and apologist at all. His ministry seems bigger than that.

Like I said, a very good salesman.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Like I said, a very good salesman.

Kind of like Billy Graham, eh?

 

[Oblaidon]

LOL.

I was a Catholic for most of my life, so I have no fear of becoming Catholic. I am actually more Catholic than most Catholics I know.

I have read Rome Sweet Home and many other segments of Hahn’s works. He is quite disappointing, really.
He is a horrendous apologist, IMO, but a great salesman.
…

Hahn makes a good point. Why did Christ let the multitude go if he was only speaking figuratively?

Don’t attack the person, atack the argument.

He says, “My flesh is food indeed, my blood is drink indeed” and they all depart. Thousands of disciples leave Him. If Jesus had intended that language to only be figurative, He would have been morally obligated as a teacher to say, “Stop, I only mean it figuratively.” But He doesn’t do that; instead, what does he do?

I have been Baptist, Methodist, and part of other protestant churches. I thought I would never be Catholic. The Protestant churches taught me how to ward of other religions. Now, I am more Catholic than most Catholics. I don’t know how you can claim that. You are not Catholic if you don’t believe in the real presense in the bread and wine. That to me is the most important reason to be Catholic - The Eucharist!!!

 

[Atemi]

Kind of like Billy Graham, eh?

Exactly.

Except one man “sells” Jesus Christ and another “sells” Roman Catholicism.

But I know full well that you equate the two.

 

[Atemi]

Hahn makes a good point. Why did Christ let the multitude go if he was only speaking figuratively?

Don’t attack the person, atack the argument.

Christ almost always taught using metaphor, simile, hyperbole, figures, and stories.

Our Lord was more than happy to let people walk away. He never chased after anyone in unbelief.

Mat 13:11 “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them”

He admitted that one of His uses of parables was to hide His teachings from certain folks:

Mat 13:13 “This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’”

I have been Baptist, Methodist, and part of other protestant churches. I thought I would never be Catholic. The Protestant churches taught me how to ward of other religions. Now, I am more Catholic than most Catholics. I don’t know how you can claim that. You are not Catholic if you don’t believe in the real presense in the bread and wine. That to me is the most important reason to be Catholic - The Eucharist!!!

Sorry if you did not have the Eucharist elsewhere.

…

 

[El_camino]

Atemi, please answer the question that VociMike and I had asked you, please don’t ignore it

I WOULD LIKE to see ONE EARLY CHURCH FATHER, who was not excommunicated (some ECFs were excommunicated such as Tertullian and Origen), who was not a “literalist” on the Eucharist as you call it.

Also, please do not cite any ECF calling the Eucharist bread and wine, as we Catholics TODAY still call the Eucharist as such and that does not mean we consider it simply bread and wine.

You would have to cite something similar to what Ignatius Antioch said about the Eucharist but saying the contrary, such as: “Those who believe that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ are heretics” or something of the sort.

I guess another way that would showed validly that ECF rejected the real presence is if he says: “The bread and wine ARE NOT the body and blood of Christ”

Atemi, if you cannot answer such question, then be a good Christian and acknowledge that

Thanks,

E.C.

  NEVER MIND ABOUT THIS POST saw that you answered below!..

Thanks

 

[Atemi]

I WOULD LIKE to see ONE EARLY CHURCH FATHER, who was not excommunicated (some ECFs were excommunicated such as Tertullian and Origen), who was not a “literalist” on the Eucharist as you call it.

We can start with the Didache.

No literalism at all.

No talk of any flesh or blood.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

What devout Catholic would write about the Eucharist and never mention a single word about Christ’s presence or any flesh and blood?

Not any I know.

Also, please do not cite any ECF calling the Eucharist bread and wine, as we Catholics TODAY still call the Eucharist as such and that does not mean we consider it simply bread and wine.

So you can cite ECFs calling the Eucharist flesh and blood, and that is accurate, but citing ECFs calling the Eucharist bread and wine is not?

That is not how it works.

I refer to the Eucharist all the time as Christ’s flesh and blood, and I am not a literalist. Many churches and Christians do the same. To say the ECFs never did so is a great mistake, IMV.

You would have to cite something similar to what Ignatius Antioch said about the Eucharist but saying the contrary, such as: “Those who believe that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ are heretics” or something of the sort.

Just like in modern-day Protestantism, such thinking was orthodox. One is not a “heretic” merely because they believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist.

Here is the historian Schaff’s record of early church positions on the Eucharist:

ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm

…

 

[Atemi]

Atemi, please answer the question that VociMike and I had asked you, please don’t ignore it

Please don’t be impatient.

Atemi, if you cannot answer such question, then be a good Christian and acknowledge that

And you be a good Christian and be patient.

Your reply is down below.

No need for the schoolyard puffery.

…

 

[El_camino]

Please don’t be impatient.

And you be a good Christian and be patient.

Your reply is down below.

No need for the schoolyard puffery.

…

I was not being impatient. I happened to have just accessed the forums and seen that you have answered other people’s questions but not mine. I did not know you were in forum as well working in the question.

Thanks,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

We can start with the Didache.

No literalism at all.

No talk of any flesh or blood.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

The didache does NOT say ANYTHING about the EUCHARIST not being the body and blood of Christ. It just gives prayers very SIMILAR to the EUCHARISTIC prayer we now use in mass… “The life giving bread and the saving cup…”

On the OTHER HAND, it does say that the UNBAPTIZED cannot partake of it. IF the Eucharist was merely bread and wine (or crackers and grape juice), that is merely a simbolism, then there would not be ANY problem in the unbaptized believers partaking of it!!

SO this just shows that the writter(s) of the Didache considered the Eucharist to be more than just SIMBOLIC!!

SO AS you can see the DIDACHE actually contradicts your belief!!!

Atemi:

What devout Catholic would write about the Eucharist and never mention a single word about Christ’s presence or any flesh and blood?

Not any I know.

You are wrong and you are assuming MORE than what needs to be assumed… If I am just writing prayers regarding the Eucharist, as in the case of the Didache, and not getting into the theological details about it, then I don’t have the need to mention that it is the body and blood of Christ.

Atemi:

So you can cite ECFs calling the Eucharist flesh and blood, and that is accurate, but citing ECFs calling the Eucharist bread and wine is not? That is not how it works.

I refer to the Eucharist all the time as Christ’s flesh and blood, and I am not a literalist. Many churches and Christians do the same. To say the ECFs never did so is a great mistake, IMV.

Atemi, I don’t have to take into account those father that merely call the Eucharist the flesh and blood of Christ and say nothing else. I Have cited an apostolic Father, Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of the apostles Paul and John, who basically CALLS HERETICS to those that do not CONFESS that the Eucharist IS the body of Christ!!!

So in the eyes of Ignatius of Antioch, have you lived in his time, you would have been a heretic.

“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]).

Atemi:

Just like in modern-day Protestantism, such thinking was orthodox. One is not a “heretic” merely because they believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist.

Here is the historian Schaff’s record of early church positions on the Eucharist:

ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm

…

THIS HAS absolutely nothing to do with the question. YOU have left the question UNANSWERED…

YOU STILL have to provide at least ONE quote of an ECF EXPLICITLY denying that the Eucharist is the body and blood of christ, or that it is merely simbolic, or that those who believe that the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ are heretics

 

[VociMike]

We can start with the Didache.

No literalism at all.

No talk of any flesh or blood.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

What devout Catholic would write about the Eucharist and never mention a single word about Christ’s presence or any flesh and blood?

Not any I know.

Argument from silence - no argument at all. Show us a denial of the Real Presence.

And even then, as inadequate as it is, your argument still fails. From the Didache:

“We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant…”

Are we really to believe that “the holy vine” is referring to literal grape vines out on the hillside? Of course it isn’t.

 

[Atemi]

**We can start with the Didache.

No literalism at all.

No talk of any flesh or blood.

earlychristianwritings.co…e-roberts.html**

The didache does NOT say ANYTHING about the EUCHARIST not being the body and blood of Christ.

That silence is deafening.

It doesn’t mention any flesh and blood at all.

What Catholic would do that when speaking about the Eucharist?

It just gives prayers very SIMILAR to the EUCHARISTIC prayer we now use in mass… “The life giving bread and the saving cup…”

Irrelevant.

Also, I find no reference to “life giving” bread and “saving” cup in the Didache.

Can you please cite the text that is so similar?

On the OTHER HAND, it does say that the UNBAPTIZED cannot partake of it. IF the Eucharist was merely bread and wine (or crackers and grape juice), that is merely a simbolism, then there would not be ANY problem in the unbaptized believers partaking of it!!

Really?

You assume what is not in the plain text.

PS - since so many Christians deferred their baptisms until later in life, and some even on their deathbed, are we to assume that they did not partake of the Eucharist all that time?

No.

SO this just shows that the writter(s) of the Didache considered the Eucharist to be more than just SIMBOLIC!!

Actually it does not.

More assumptions.

SO AS you can see the DIDACHE actually contradicts your belief!!!

And yours as well.

PS - you don’t know what I believe. More assumptions. LOL.

**What devout Catholic would write about the Eucharist and never mention a single word about Christ’s presence or any flesh and blood?

Not any I know.**

You are wrong and you are assuming MORE than what needs to be assumed… If I am just writing prayers regarding the Eucharist, as in the case of the Didache, and not getting into the theological details about it, then I don’t have the need to mention that it is the body and blood of Christ.

Dodge.

This is not just about prayers. It is practice and doctrine.

Even in the prayers, no mention of flesh or blood.

No Catholic in their right mind would do that.

**So you can cite ECFs calling the Eucharist flesh and blood, and that is accurate, but citing ECFs calling the Eucharist bread and wine is not? That is not how it works.

I refer to the Eucharist all the time as Christ’s flesh and blood, and I am not a literalist. Many churches and Christians do the same. To say the ECFs never did so is a great mistake, IMV.**

Atemi, I don’t have to take into account those father that merely call the Eucharist the flesh and blood of Christ and say nothing else. I Have cited an apostolic Father, Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of the apostles Paul and John, who basically CALLS HERETICS to those that do not CONFESS that the Eucharist IS the body of Christ!!!

I do not serve Ignatius.

Maybe you do.

I am sorry.

So in the eyes of Ignatius of Antioch, have you lived in his time, you would have been a heretic.

As would you.

Do you think he believed everything you do?

No.

Welcome to the club.

**Just like in modern-day Protestantism, such thinking was orthodox. One is not a “heretic” merely because they believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist.

Here is the historian Schaff’s record of early church positions on the Eucharist:

ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm**

THIS HAS absolutely nothing to do with the question. YOU have left the question UNANSWERED.

YOU STILL have to provide at least ONE quote of an ECF EXPLICITLY denying that the Eucharist is the body and blood of christ, or that it is merely simbolic, or that those who believe that the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ are heretics

I don’t need to provide any such citation to support my position.

That is what you do not understand.

I cannot cite any father explicitly denying that purple hats are to be worn on Easter either.

Irrelevant.

My position is based mainly on what the early believers did teach, not what they taught against.

…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Exactly.

Except one man “sells” Jesus Christ and another “sells” Roman Catholicism.

But I know full well that you equate the two.

Only because the Bible says that we have been baptized into Christ and that we are One Body with Christ as the Head.

 

[VociMike]

That silence is deafening.

It doesn’t mention any flesh and blood at all.

What Catholic would do that when speaking about the Eucharist?

The Didache doesn’t mention the divinity of Christ either, so I guess the Early Church didn’t teach that either. What Catholic would avoid that when speaking about Christ?