G
GodIsGracious
Guest
No. You can read it all. Your lack of wanting to read it shows a disinterest in the Church’s teachings but a continued belief on your ignorance.
- Status
G
GodIsGracious
Guest
Not true. This is just an indication of where Protestants and Catholic understand the bible differently. Must be nice to be your own pope.
It’s difficult to explain with a literalist pick-and-choose Protestant. I have found that if you’re not Catholic, you just don’t get it. It is something uniquely Catholic (although I am learning the Lutherans believe in the real presence… though I’m still not sure.)
Kindly keep in mind this is a CATHOLIC forum that happens to have a “non-Catholic religions” area. Which doesn’t mean you get to come in here and try and disprove the Catholic faith with your heresies and false interpretations. I have learned a lot about what Protestants believe, andit is nearly as different for each protestant who responds.
Doesn’t mean I’m going to agree just becuase I’ve learned wha they believe.
Kindly leave a CATHOLIC forum if you don’t want a Catholic to tell you what they believe and go to a forum that is more inline what makes you feel good. I’m not on one of YOUR forums (and I know there are Protestant message boards) trying to “disprove” your faith.
Hi Radical,
Actually, this argument sounds more like one that is made for sacramental union. St, Paul’s words, “the bread which we break”, “this cup of blessing which we bless”, also alludes to s.u. What these words don’t allude to is a symbolic presence. As the Lutheran Confession says: “For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ.”
Jon
R
Radical
Guest
Greetings JonNC
*Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.
15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. 22 Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he? *
From this I get:
a) (v. 16) Drinking from the cup is a participation in the blood of Christ;
b) (v. 18) Eating a portion of the sacrificed bull is a participation in the altar;
c) (v. 20) Eating meat sacrificed to a pagan god is a participation with demons.
Now demons do not possess a body for a real bodily presence to be involved at v. 20 (nor is there reason to believe that the demons are actually present in a non-bodily manner). The altar is present under the bull but is not present within the bull. So if a real bodily presence is not involved at (b) or (c), why should one think that that a true presence/real bodily presence is involved at (a)?
If you are saying that it is easier to reconcile those words from Jesus with the Lutheran view that the wine remains whilst the blood also becomes present, then I agree.
Jon, I don’t think Paul’s use of “communion” requires a real bodily presence. 1 Cor 10: 14-22 reads:
*Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.
15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. 22 Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he? *
From this I get:
a) (v. 16) Drinking from the cup is a participation in the blood of Christ;
b) (v. 18) Eating a portion of the sacrificed bull is a participation in the altar;
c) (v. 20) Eating meat sacrificed to a pagan god is a participation with demons.
Now demons do not possess a body for a real bodily presence to be involved at v. 20 (nor is there reason to believe that the demons are actually present in a non-bodily manner). The altar is present under the bull but is not present within the bull. So if a real bodily presence is not involved at (b) or (c), why should one think that that a true presence/real bodily presence is involved at (a)?
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi, Rad. The answer to all yoiur Questions are here, if you are willing to be diligent in your research.
The Didache (Did-Ah-Key), or teaching of the Apostles, 9:1-5
Let no one eat or drink of the Eucharist with you except those who have
been baptized in the Name of the Lord; for it was in reference to this that
the Lord said, “Do not give that which is Holy to dogs.” Matthew 7:6
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 7:3, 106AD
I desire the bread of GOD, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans, 6:2, 106AD
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 the Father, in His goodness, raised
up again. THEY WHO DENY THE GIFT OF GOD ARE PERISHING
IN THEIR DISPUTES.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22(Mystagogic 4)6, 350AD
Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they
are, according to the Masters declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ.
St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37, 383AD
Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the Word of GOD
has been made over into the Body of GOD the Word.
St. Ambrose of Milan, The Sacraments, 4:4:14, 390AD
You may perhaps say: “My bread is ordinary.” But that bread is bread
before the words of the Sacraments; where the consecration has entered
in, the bread becomes the Flesh of Christ.
St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the First Corinthians, 24:4:7, 392AD
When you see the Body of Christ lying on the altar, say to yourself,
"Because of this Body I am no longer earth and ash, no longer a prisoner
but free…This is that Body which was blood-stained, which was pierced by
a lance, and from which gushed forth those saving fountains, one of
blood, the other of water, for all the world. This is the body which He gave
us, both to hold in reserve and to eat, which was appropriate to intense love.
St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermons, 227, 393AD
The 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.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew, 26:27, 428AD
He states demonstratively: “This is My Body,” and “This is My Blood,”
lest you might suppose the things you see are a figure. Rather, by some
secret of the all-powerful GOD the things seen are transformed into the
Body and Blood of Christ, truly offered in a sacrifice in which we, as participants, receive the life-giving and sanctifying power of Christ.
Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia, Apocriticus, 3:23, 400 AD
Christ took the bread and the cup, each in similar fashion, and said,
“This is My Body and this is My Blood.” Not a figure of His Body nor
a figure of His Blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His
Body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth.
Holy Eucharist. The True Presence of Our Lord…
Many more references from the Early Church Fathers:
*Didache, 9:1. J6
*Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 7:3. J54a
*Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians 3:2. J56
*Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 6:2. J64
Justin Martyr, First Apology 66. J128
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:18:4. J234
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:33:2, 5:2:2. J240,249
Tertullian, Prayer 6:2, 19:1. J300a,301
Tertullian, The Crown 3:2. J367
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition 21. J394i
Clement of Alexandria, Instruct Children 2:2:19:4. J410
Origen, Homilies On Exodus Hom 13:3. J490
Origen, Homilies on Numbers Hom 7:2. J491
Cyprian, The Lapsed 15. J551
Aphraates, Treatises 12:6. J689
*Ephraim, Homilies 4:4,4:6. *J707 J708
Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized J802
*Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Letters 21-23 Mystagogic 1:7,4:3,6,9 J840-846,848,850,853j
Hilary, The Trinity 8:14 J870
*Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism 37. J1035
*Gregory of Nyssa, Day of Lights Jaeger Vol 9, p225. J1062
*Theodore of Mopsuestia, Comment on Matt 26:26. J1113e,f,n
Chrysostom, Homilies on Penance 9. J1137
*Chrysostom, Homilies on Judas 1:6. J1157
Chrysostom, On Matthew 82:4. J1179
*Chrysostom, On First Corinthians 24:4:7. J1195
*Chrysostom, On Second Timothy 2:4. J1207
Ambrose, The Faith 4:10:124. J1270
*Ambrose, The Mysteries 9:50,58. J1333-1334, *J1339-1340
Jerome, Commentaries on Matthew 4:26:26. J1390
Augustine, Letter to Boniface 98:9. J1424
*Augustine, Sermons 227+. J1519-1520, *J1524, J1633, J1716
*Augustine, Homilies on John 26:13. J1824
*Cyril of Alexander, Commentary on Matthew 26:27. J2101
*Macarius the Magnesian, Apocriticus 3:23. J2166
Damascene, Source of Knowledge 3:4:13. J2371
May the Lord open your heart to the truth !
God bless !
onenow1
opcorn:
The Didache (Did-Ah-Key), or teaching of the Apostles, 9:1-5
Let no one eat or drink of the Eucharist with you except those who have
been baptized in the Name of the Lord; for it was in reference to this that
the Lord said, “Do not give that which is Holy to dogs.” Matthew 7:6
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 7:3, 106AD
I desire the bread of GOD, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans, 6:2, 106AD
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 the Father, in His goodness, raised
up again. THEY WHO DENY THE GIFT OF GOD ARE PERISHING
IN THEIR DISPUTES.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22(Mystagogic 4)6, 350AD
Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they
are, according to the Masters declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ.
St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37, 383AD
Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the Word of GOD
has been made over into the Body of GOD the Word.
St. Ambrose of Milan, The Sacraments, 4:4:14, 390AD
You may perhaps say: “My bread is ordinary.” But that bread is bread
before the words of the Sacraments; where the consecration has entered
in, the bread becomes the Flesh of Christ.
St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the First Corinthians, 24:4:7, 392AD
When you see the Body of Christ lying on the altar, say to yourself,
"Because of this Body I am no longer earth and ash, no longer a prisoner
but free…This is that Body which was blood-stained, which was pierced by
a lance, and from which gushed forth those saving fountains, one of
blood, the other of water, for all the world. This is the body which He gave
us, both to hold in reserve and to eat, which was appropriate to intense love.
St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermons, 227, 393AD
The 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.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew, 26:27, 428AD
He states demonstratively: “This is My Body,” and “This is My Blood,”
lest you might suppose the things you see are a figure. Rather, by some
secret of the all-powerful GOD the things seen are transformed into the
Body and Blood of Christ, truly offered in a sacrifice in which we, as participants, receive the life-giving and sanctifying power of Christ.
Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia, Apocriticus, 3:23, 400 AD
Christ took the bread and the cup, each in similar fashion, and said,
“This is My Body and this is My Blood.” Not a figure of His Body nor
a figure of His Blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His
Body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth.
Holy Eucharist. The True Presence of Our Lord…
Many more references from the Early Church Fathers:
*Didache, 9:1. J6
*Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 7:3. J54a
*Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians 3:2. J56
*Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 6:2. J64
Justin Martyr, First Apology 66. J128
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:18:4. J234
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:33:2, 5:2:2. J240,249
Tertullian, Prayer 6:2, 19:1. J300a,301
Tertullian, The Crown 3:2. J367
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition 21. J394i
Clement of Alexandria, Instruct Children 2:2:19:4. J410
Origen, Homilies On Exodus Hom 13:3. J490
Origen, Homilies on Numbers Hom 7:2. J491
Cyprian, The Lapsed 15. J551
Aphraates, Treatises 12:6. J689
*Ephraim, Homilies 4:4,4:6. *J707 J708
Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized J802
*Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Letters 21-23 Mystagogic 1:7,4:3,6,9 J840-846,848,850,853j
Hilary, The Trinity 8:14 J870
*Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism 37. J1035
*Gregory of Nyssa, Day of Lights Jaeger Vol 9, p225. J1062
*Theodore of Mopsuestia, Comment on Matt 26:26. J1113e,f,n
Chrysostom, Homilies on Penance 9. J1137
*Chrysostom, Homilies on Judas 1:6. J1157
Chrysostom, On Matthew 82:4. J1179
*Chrysostom, On First Corinthians 24:4:7. J1195
*Chrysostom, On Second Timothy 2:4. J1207
Ambrose, The Faith 4:10:124. J1270
*Ambrose, The Mysteries 9:50,58. J1333-1334, *J1339-1340
Jerome, Commentaries on Matthew 4:26:26. J1390
Augustine, Letter to Boniface 98:9. J1424
*Augustine, Sermons 227+. J1519-1520, *J1524, J1633, J1716
*Augustine, Homilies on John 26:13. J1824
*Cyril of Alexander, Commentary on Matthew 26:27. J2101
*Macarius the Magnesian, Apocriticus 3:23. J2166
Damascene, Source of Knowledge 3:4:13. J2371
May the Lord open your heart to the truth !
God bless !
onenow1
opcorn:Not exactly the way Lutherans explain it, but ok. Regardless of the human explanation, the fact is the bread and wine become the body and blood.
Paul makes a comparison. I think you’ve turned it into an equality. v.19-20, which I bolded, denies this.
Once again, a comparison, not an equality. Because, Christ said so in the Last Supper accounts, in a way that he does not repeat elsewhere.
Jon
L
Lisa44
Guest
Hi,
I don’t know if that is totally true. You just said a few posts back that they stopped giving communion under the species of wine because of communicable diseases. Yet, the bible says to drink my blood and eat my body. So how is that not picking and choosing?
R
Radical
Guest
Thanks for response JonNC,
verse 19 and 20 deny that idols are anything, but confirm that the asssociated demons are indeed something. I would say that Paul (in verse 21) also equates the action at (a) with the action at (c) when he said: You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.
But it doesn’t equate the Lord’s cup to any cup of idol or demon. And it doesn’t compromise Christ’s words, or Paul’s, that His body and blood at truly present, not symbolically, and more than spiritually.
One additional thought I’d like to offer you to ponder. I know you are not Lutheran, and I have found that many non-Lutheran Protestants hold Luther in no higher regard than do Catholics, but I’d just ask you to consider that, even though he had every reason to break with Rome on this issue (a finger in the eye, as it were) and side with Protestants from other movements (Zwingli, etc.), he couldn’t bring himself to do so, the real presence being that important to him.
Maybe looking into that might be food for thought. Either way, I respect your strong opinion in this matter, and the charitable way you discuss it. Not easy to do when even Protestants are taking whacks at what you believe.
Jon
R
Radical
Guest
I am still searching Jesus’s and Paul’s words for that use of the words “truly present” just as you have likely searched those same words for “symbolically representative of”.
I married one…attend a conservative Lutheran service every now and then (but they are not so conservative as to insist that all accept a RP
I have the utmost respect for Luther…sure he was rough around the edges and said some very regrettable things…but he was a brave soul interested primarily in discerning the true teaching of the Lord.
I am familiar with his reaction to Zwingli’s position and attribute it to the fact that he was embedded in Roman Catholicism for so long that he wasn’t able to fully extract himself from their error…and here again we see the strength by which he held to what he believed to be the true teaching of the Lord.
Either way, I respect your strong opinion in this matter, and the charitable way you discuss it. Not easy to do when even Protestants are taking whacks at what you believe.
Thanks Jon. I have been accused of trying to prove the faithful wrong with my words…The reality of the situation is that tens of millions hold to each of the various views wrt the Lord’s Supper and within those millions are very brilliant and righteous minds representing each view. I can offer what I view to be a reasoned perspective, but I don’t pretend that anything that I can offer has not been dealt with (by a brilliant Lutheran theologian or a brilliant RC theologian) in such a fashion that allows the RP view to maintain its rationality/coherency…It would be nice if more folks around here would simply recognize that the symbolic view can also be defended with reason. As for the whacks, my plan is to repay each with a friendly “I told you so” in heaven.
Cheers.Actually, I think that will be Christ’s line.As for the whacks, my plan is to repay each with a friendly “I told you so” in heaven.
Either way, pray we all get there to hear it.Jon
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Hi Jon,Hi Scott. Hope you are well.
The link here is to an Anglican site about the very issue of infection resulting from Eucharist.
anglican.ca/faith/ministry/euc-practice-infection.htm
And while one can’t trust those Anglicans (
But actually, Scott, I was really responding to the way Bill, who is clearly a good Catholic Christian who loves his Church and his Lord, worded his OP. He said, in part:
And I just wanted to point out to him that all of us can find a way to criticize the other, based on practices or even belief. How we do it can make a big difference.
And to finish, while I support distribution in both kinds, I believe that HIs sanctifying grace is made available to those who receive under one. If, for example, I were unable to receive wine, I would receive under the bread only and know His body was sufficient for me to receive sanctifying grace.
Jon
I once again find that I must apologize, as I know your feeling on the Eucharist. I tend to add my two cents when not needed. It had been a long weekend and I was surround by Protestants all weekend so my Catholic defence mode was on full force.
Family what you going to do?
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Dear Friend,But it doesn’t equate the Lord’s cup to any cup of idol or demon. And it doesn’t compromise Christ’s words, or Paul’s, that His body and blood at truly present, not symbolically, and more than spiritually.
One additional thought I’d like to offer you to ponder. I know you are not Lutheran, and I have found that many non-Lutheran Protestants hold Luther in no higher regard than do Catholics, but I’d just ask you to consider that, even though he had every reason to break with Rome on this issue (a finger in the eye, as it were) and side with Protestants from other movements (Zwingli, etc.), he couldn’t bring himself to do so, the real presence being that important to him.
Maybe looking into that might be food for thought. Either way, I respect your strong opinion in this matter, and the charitable way you discuss it. Not easy to do when even Protestants are taking whacks at what you believe.
Jon
These are my least favorite threads, As often I come across as saying things i ways found to be much harsher than my intent. As we are in agreement that Christ most certainly was being literal we he said this is My body and this Is my Blood. for It was not only at the passover meal that he made this statement. It is also evident from the writings of the Apostles and the Church Fathers that they held to the belief that Christ was making a literal statement when he said this. As to those that hold to the symbolic communion, I agree with them the grape juice and cracker that they receive is no more than a symbol of what Christ was giving us.
It is truly sad. Well, I have probably said more than I should have and in ways I should not have said them. If I have Offended anyone I am sorry.
[/QUOTE]Hi Jon,
I once again find that I must apologize, as I know your feeling on the Eucharist. I tend to add my two cents when not needed.
:stretcher:
When surrounded, dial 311, Scott. Em, 311 would be CCC.
Jon
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
OK, Let us take a look at it for one small second. For all pretense and purpose aside from some small groups of heretics like the Gnostics, the only Christians for the first 1000 years were what we now days and at least starting around 120 were the Catholic Church. These people all taught that the Eucharist was the Real Body and Blood of Christ, not just a symbol. then shortly after the turn of the first millennium ther was the First major break in the Church and the Orthodox Churches came into being. ( this is not the place to discuss who begot who in that fight) both still holding to the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ.
Then we go about another 500 years and in the West come the Protestants. they from what I seem split, but with the majority of these reformers still holding to the Real Presence. I think that it was Calvin and Zwingli, of the major Protestants were the only ones that did not.
Now I for one would have to say that if the Apostles believed it and the Church fathers believed it and everyone for 1500 years but a few reformers believed it, And Christ said it, I i have sat and knelt in prayer in front of the Eucharist and felt it. Then it is enough for me that upon the words or Consecration the Christ does what he did 2000 years ago and gives his Body and Blood to all who come to receive.
Why anyone give up being able to receive Christ just the way he told us to is beyond me.
Then we go about another 500 years and in the West come the Protestants. they from what I seem split, but with the majority of these reformers still holding to the Real Presence. I think that it was Calvin and Zwingli, of the major Protestants were the only ones that did not.
Now I for one would have to say that if the Apostles believed it and the Church fathers believed it and everyone for 1500 years but a few reformers believed it, And Christ said it, I i have sat and knelt in prayer in front of the Eucharist and felt it. Then it is enough for me that upon the words or Consecration the Christ does what he did 2000 years ago and gives his Body and Blood to all who come to receive.
Why anyone give up being able to receive Christ just the way he told us to is beyond me.
R
Radical
Guest
Greetings Scott, you seem like a decent fellow…please correct me if I am wrong.
One sees your rather brief and very confident and bold claim quite often on these threads and rarely is any hint given that the matter might not be as straightforward as the claim suggests.
I note that Irenaeus (heresies 1.10) described the core deposit of faith as:
[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.
Tertullian described the core rule of faith as:
Now, with regard to this rule of faith-that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend-it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.
One sees your rather brief and very confident and bold claim quite often on these threads and rarely is any hint given that the matter might not be as straightforward as the claim suggests.
It will take me quite a few large seconds…here is part one.
With this sort of claim one must realize that legitimate reasons exist for not equating the universal church in the first centuries and what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. To borrow from biological science, one can start with a particular species and through genetic mutations have that species undergo such significant changes and developments that the end result is no longer compatible (from a breeding perspective) with the source species. The same could be claimed wrt the RCC. It has undergone a number of developments where it has seen doctrine produced and expanded. The question then becomes whether the current RCC is doctrinally compatible with the universal church of the first centuries. Would the likes of Martyr, Tertullian, Ignatius, Origen or Augustine embrace or reject the modern RCC? No doubt the mere suggestion of that question will ruffle many feathers…but the fact is that a number of modern RC scholars (historians and theologians) recognize that not all modern RC doctrines are found in the ancient church (causing many of them to reject certain modern doctrines). This should cause one to at least ask the question (unless one is so committed to endorsing the RCC notwithstanding any sort of historical evidence, that asking the question can not even be contemplated).
I note that Irenaeus (heresies 1.10) described the core deposit of faith as:
[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.
Tertullian described the core rule of faith as:
Now, with regard to this rule of faith-that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend-it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.
R
Radical
Guest
continuing…
The RCC of today has quite an expanded rule of faith. For example, one must believe quite a bit more about Mary than the virgin birth. The NT and the earliest writings of the Church tend to ignore Mary (except for her role in the virgin birth and a few of her interactions with Christ). Today, one must acknowledge the Pope as the proper successor to Peter and all that detail about Petrine supremacy. The modern trend in church history is to understand that Peter was never bishop of Rome and that the monarchical bishop was an early development (as opposed to a thing instituted by Christ or the Apostles). The status currently claimed for the bishop of Rome is not seen (by historians) to have been claimed at the outset. I realize your point has been made in an extremely brief fashion, but I would suggest that such a difference between the rule of faith in the 2nd century and the rule of faith of the RCC today calls into question whether the same church is involved. (Somewhere a new species emerged) Further, with such a difference between the rule of faith in the 2nd century and the rule of faith of the RCC today one can legitimately wonder if Tertullian or Irenaeus would embrace or reject the modern RCC.
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 have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is (symbolically or spiritually) the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again.** They do not confess such b/c they do not believe that Jesus possessed flesh such that he could suffer in the flesh or die in the flesh. As such, on the basis that Jesus did not have flesh, they deny that he gave us a symbol of his flesh even though we know that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ himself.**
I have added in bold what would have been understood, but not expressed.
The RCC of today has quite an expanded rule of faith. For example, one must believe quite a bit more about Mary than the virgin birth. The NT and the earliest writings of the Church tend to ignore Mary (except for her role in the virgin birth and a few of her interactions with Christ). Today, one must acknowledge the Pope as the proper successor to Peter and all that detail about Petrine supremacy. The modern trend in church history is to understand that Peter was never bishop of Rome and that the monarchical bishop was an early development (as opposed to a thing instituted by Christ or the Apostles). The status currently claimed for the bishop of Rome is not seen (by historians) to have been claimed at the outset. I realize your point has been made in an extremely brief fashion, but I would suggest that such a difference between the rule of faith in the 2nd century and the rule of faith of the RCC today calls into question whether the same church is involved. (Somewhere a new species emerged) Further, with such a difference between the rule of faith in the 2nd century and the rule of faith of the RCC today one can legitimately wonder if Tertullian or Irenaeus would embrace or reject the modern RCC.
This is an overstatement. Of those works known as the Apostolic Fathers, only two make mention of the Eucharist. So when you claim that they “all taught that the Eucharist was the Real Body and Blood of Christ” you are making a grand assumption. The Didache is one of the two that mention the Eucharist and it gives no mention of a real presence, but calls it spiritual food. Ignatius is your best bet, but in the proof text that RCs invariably produce from Ignatius he is criticizing Gnostics (who would deny that Jesus came in the flesh) and so his comment could be taken as a dismissal of that Gnostic belief and not an endorsement of a RP. If so, then his comment should really be read as:
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 have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is (symbolically or spiritually) the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again.** They do not confess such b/c they do not believe that Jesus possessed flesh such that he could suffer in the flesh or die in the flesh. As such, on the basis that Jesus did not have flesh, they deny that he gave us a symbol of his flesh even though we know that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ himself.**
I have added in bold what would have been understood, but not expressed.
R
Radical
Guest
continuing…
If we move on to the next century, then we can look at Tertullian. I have posted most of this bit elsewhere:
Here are the passages that I would use (in the limited confines of a thread) to argue Tertullian’s figurative view of the Lord’s Supper:
*Against Marcion
Book III C.19 For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery. *
In that first quote Tertullian is using “figure” to mean “symbol”. Christ, by referring to himself as the bread of heaven, is using bread as a symbol and Christ’s body does not become bread other than it is given bread as its symbol.
*Against Marcion Bk. IV. c.40 When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. ** Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. ** *
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown exactly how he understands how it is, that Jesus “made” bread his body. It was a figurative thing and not a literal thing. The bread is merely a symbol of his body and is viewed as being distinct from the body. Tertullian makes a very clear distinction with the symbolic bread on one hand, and the veritable body on the other hand. Some have claimed that Tertullian is using “figura” in a manner that does not mean “symbol” but if we continue with that passage it reads:
*An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! **But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, **** which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread, which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, …
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown his view as to why Jesus used “bread” instead of another food. It is b/c bread was used as a symbol in the OT prophecy.
…continuing with chapter 40:
He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed in His blood, Luke 22:20 affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however,* that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah,*** who asks, Who is this that comes from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are your garments red, and your raiment as his who comes from the treading of the full winepress? The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes Genesis 49:11 — ** in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine.** Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown that he understands wine is used as a symbol for blood b/c of its red colour. He even goes on to point out how washing ancient garments in wine pointed to Jesus’s flesh and blood respectively. So after pointing to a metaphorical usage, Tertullian declares that God (through the patriarch) used wine as a figure of his blood. So if Tertullian views the wine as a metaphor/symbol of Jesus’s blood and uses “figure” to describe that, then the logical conclusion is that when Tertullian wrote “Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.” a few sentences earlier, he was using “figure” in the same symbolic fashion.*
If we move on to the next century, then we can look at Tertullian. I have posted most of this bit elsewhere:
Here are the passages that I would use (in the limited confines of a thread) to argue Tertullian’s figurative view of the Lord’s Supper:
*Against Marcion
Book III C.19 For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery. *
In that first quote Tertullian is using “figure” to mean “symbol”. Christ, by referring to himself as the bread of heaven, is using bread as a symbol and Christ’s body does not become bread other than it is given bread as its symbol.
*Against Marcion Bk. IV. c.40 When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. ** Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. ** *
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown exactly how he understands how it is, that Jesus “made” bread his body. It was a figurative thing and not a literal thing. The bread is merely a symbol of his body and is viewed as being distinct from the body. Tertullian makes a very clear distinction with the symbolic bread on one hand, and the veritable body on the other hand. Some have claimed that Tertullian is using “figura” in a manner that does not mean “symbol” but if we continue with that passage it reads:
*An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! **But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, **** which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread, which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, …
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown his view as to why Jesus used “bread” instead of another food. It is b/c bread was used as a symbol in the OT prophecy.
…continuing with chapter 40:
He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed in His blood, Luke 22:20 affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however,* that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah,*** who asks, Who is this that comes from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are your garments red, and your raiment as his who comes from the treading of the full winepress? The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes Genesis 49:11 — ** in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine.** Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown that he understands wine is used as a symbol for blood b/c of its red colour. He even goes on to point out how washing ancient garments in wine pointed to Jesus’s flesh and blood respectively. So after pointing to a metaphorical usage, Tertullian declares that God (through the patriarch) used wine as a figure of his blood. So if Tertullian views the wine as a metaphor/symbol of Jesus’s blood and uses “figure” to describe that, then the logical conclusion is that when Tertullian wrote “Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.” a few sentences earlier, he was using “figure” in the same symbolic fashion.*
R
Radical
Guest
From On the Resurrection of the Flesh:
*C. 37 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to **devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. **Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John 6:51 **impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. **
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown that he understands that devouring, ruminating and digesting the Word are all spiritual actions. Given the foregoing, there should be no doubt that Tertullian understood that the Eucharistic bread was a symbol of Christ’s body. Tertullain specifically clarifies that when Jesus said (with respect to the bread), " This is my body" , what Jesus was actually saying is, “This bread is the figure of my body.”
When one looks at other things that Tertullian had to say about the Eucharist, the difference between the ancient Church and the modern RCC only becomes more obvious.
Further, similar cases could be presented wrt other ECFs and so, I trust, you should be able to get a glimpse of why I would say that your claim that they “all taught that the Eucharist was the Real Body and Blood of Christ” is an overstatement and is not correct.
God bless you.*
*C. 37 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to **devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. **Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John 6:51 **impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. **
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown that he understands that devouring, ruminating and digesting the Word are all spiritual actions. Given the foregoing, there should be no doubt that Tertullian understood that the Eucharistic bread was a symbol of Christ’s body. Tertullain specifically clarifies that when Jesus said (with respect to the bread), " This is my body" , what Jesus was actually saying is, “This bread is the figure of my body.”
When one looks at other things that Tertullian had to say about the Eucharist, the difference between the ancient Church and the modern RCC only becomes more obvious.
Further, similar cases could be presented wrt other ECFs and so, I trust, you should be able to get a glimpse of why I would say that your claim that they “all taught that the Eucharist was the Real Body and Blood of Christ” is an overstatement and is not correct.
God bless you.*
- Status