B
BrianH
Guest
Pax
But like I said, to clarify, it involved a decision?
BH
- Status
But like I said, to clarify, it involved a decision?
BH
P
Pax
Guest
To believe in God involves a decision. To believe that Jesus is the son of God and our redeemer requires a decision. To love God requires a decision. I have no argument with the idea of a decision in any part of our Christian walk.
B
BrianH
Guest
B
BrianH
Guest
P
Pax
Guest
Okay Brian, I’ve read both articles. What is your take on all of this?
I
infj_bookworm
Guest
As a former Protestant who lived in Orange County during the Jesus People movement (Calvary Chapel, Alamitos Friends Church, etc.) I cannot agree with this statement more strongly. Everything from moving to what was perceived as “more scriptural” names (such as elder instead of pastor), to communal experimentation, to changes in music (often adding a Jewish tone), were ways of seeking to become truly Apostolic.
The problem is, without full historical background, scripture is pretty scant on detail, and a lot was drawn from pure imagination. It was by actually reading about the EArly Church history that I was led to Catholicism – most others never bothered with this, since the Bible “should have been enough.”
B
BrianH
Guest
Pax
you ask that question of non-Catholic on a non-Catholic religion board, just to set the context
I think they are a viable option for people who are frustrated with the liberal leadership of mainline denominations and the shallowness of mega churches. I think the earliest church biblically and historically were independent house churches led by a bishop who had no more authority than any other bishop. I believe Acts and the letters of Paul on this and believe that is the standard. I am not persuaded by people writing 100 years after these men.
BH
E
Eden
Guest
I read the articles that you provided, BH, and this quote (among many) stands out
The Early Church Fathers were very clear about Transubstantiation. When you are talking about discernment, BH, this is the clear difference. If a valid Consecration does not take place, it is not Christ’s Church. He said, “Do this in memory of me”.
As far as the Didache and the meeting of Christians in houses, you might enjoy the program that I listened to on BBC Radio 4:
bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml
(I’ts not a direct link. Go down to “First Christian Document” and click on “Listen”)
Firstly, where is the bishop in this scenario? Also, I don’t understand how one can consider themselves to be experiencing the early Church without the Eucharist.
The Early Church Fathers were very clear about Transubstantiation. When you are talking about discernment, BH, this is the clear difference. If a valid Consecration does not take place, it is not Christ’s Church. He said, “Do this in memory of me”.
As far as the Didache and the meeting of Christians in houses, you might enjoy the program that I listened to on BBC Radio 4:
bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml
(I’ts not a direct link. Go down to “First Christian Document” and click on “Listen”)
E
Eden
Guest
Some of the books in the Bible were written later than 100 years after these men. So, what exactly are you saying?
B
BrianH
Guest
I understand and do not disagree.
I doubt they care Eden.
well, actually, he does not say how often in scripture and that is all they care about.
(I’ts not a direct link. Go down to “First Christian Document” and click on “Listen”)
I will try, I have read about it. It is actually, how to say this, very supportive of my own personal view. When you read it again, think in terms of local church with a bishop in charge of the individual church. It cannot be used to support most RC views but we digress too much when we get into the Didache, I have never even heard a house Christian even mention it…besides me and the people you heard about. Rest assuredd, the Didache is not big in this movement, that I have observed.
BH
BH
E
Eden
Guest
Then how do you defend house churches as reflecting early Church practices when there is no bishop (or someone validly ordained by a bishop) present?
I am not asking whether they care. I am asking how you, BH, see these kinds of meetings as authentic early Christian encounters when the centerpiece of the worship is missing - the Consecrated Eucharist. Christ instituted this part of our worship at the Last Supper. It could not have been clearer, yet those who seek the true early Church do not care? Have you ever read the quotes from the early Church Fathers that illustrate the early Church belief in Transubstantiation?
But it doesn’t even happen once in house churches.
As far as the Didache and house churches, I did not enjoy the show at all but thought you may. Not once was the Catholic Church mentioned in all of the discussion of the history of Christianity. It gives the idea that the “bread and wine” are a casual symbol as well. It is a very biased program created for Protestant listeners but it does illustrate that some in the early church movement are interested in the Didache.
B
BrianH
Guest
there are a thousand different ways that people do house churches. Sure they should have a bishop, but they do not ask me. Realize the diversity we are talking about here.
oh, I did not realize it was my opinion you were seeking. I do not speak for anyone …but me
Eden.
as part of our worship… Give me what verses you think backs that up as part of every worship?
I happen to agree but I do not think you HAVE to, I am very open to this being scripturally proved you have to every time
I can feel a transubstantiation thread coming on here… or not… Yes, I have read them. Eden, I do not think it is scriptural and I can discuss it. What you would have to prove(sugggestion not being bossy),
the scripture teaches it, a Bishop or priest must administer it, and this makes it transubstantiatified(not being flippant you understand what I mean).
If you can prove that, sounds cool, only scripture or direct quotes from church fathers…stay away from links…we have link issues as you know
…and I realize you might have no interest in said thread.that would be bad and biased, you are correct
BH
E
Eden
Guest
There is no need for condescension, BH. I’ve been polite although I find this new movement goofy. A group of people gathering in house in Jesus’ name is just a social organization without the Real Presence in the Eucharist.I can feel a transubstantiation thread coming on here… or not… Yes, I have read them. Eden, I do not think it is scriptural and I can discuss it. What you would have to prove(sugggestion not being bossy),
the scripture teaches it, a Bishop or priest must administer it, and this makes it transubstantiatified(not being flippant you understand what I mean).
If you can prove that, sounds cool, only scripture or direct quotes from church fathers…stay away from links…we have link issues as you know
The Biblical support for the Real Presence is clear:
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.
1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”
Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus’ use of “poured out” in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.
Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses’ statement “blood of the covenant.”
1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.
1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.
1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.
1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.
1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.
1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol. Acts 2:42 - from the Church’s inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the “breaking of the bread”) to fulfill Jesus’ command “do this in remembrance of me.”
scripturecatholic.com
E
Eden
Guest
Early Church Fathers on Transubstantiation:
“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).
“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 (c. A.D. 110-165). *
“[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). *
“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). *
“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). *
“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” *Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202). *
Both Catholic and Orthodox teach that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. It is the Protestants who recreated the Eucharist as symbol 1600 years later. At least Luther believed in “consubstantiation”. The later denominations moved even further from the truth until the teaching reached the lowest point as mere “symbol”. If the participants involved in house churches do not believe in the Real Presence and do not have a valid Consecration, they are as far from the ancient church as any of the Protestant churches they left.
“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).
“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 (c. A.D. 110-165). *
“[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). *
“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). *
“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). *
“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” *Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202). *
Both Catholic and Orthodox teach that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. It is the Protestants who recreated the Eucharist as symbol 1600 years later. At least Luther believed in “consubstantiation”. The later denominations moved even further from the truth until the teaching reached the lowest point as mere “symbol”. If the participants involved in house churches do not believe in the Real Presence and do not have a valid Consecration, they are as far from the ancient church as any of the Protestant churches they left.
B
BrianH
Guest
E
Eden
Guest
Not condescending? “To thine own self be true”.If you can prove that, sounds cool, only scripture or direct quotes from church fathers…stay away from links…we have link issues as you know
B
BrianH
Guest
Well dirty pool because I asked for no links, that took a lot of effor to cut and paste this. If I wanted to debate the person who wrote this, I would have. I will address the direct quotes of the church fathers though.
BH
BH
B
BrianH
Guest
Check your PM Eden.
Out of here.
BH
Out of here.
BH
E
Eden
Guest
If you would like to debate the authors of scripturecatholic.com, please contact them. I have provided the link in the above responses for you to use however you would like.
The passages from scripture that support the Catholic teaching of the Real Presence are provided for you. Surely, you can reference the passages in your own Bible and state why they have been misrepresented in Catholic teaching?
The passages from scripture that support the Catholic teaching of the Real Presence are provided for you. Surely, you can reference the passages in your own Bible and state why they have been misrepresented in Catholic teaching?
E
Eden
Guest
If I receive any offensive PMs, it will be reported to the Moderators.
- Status