Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...

[Radical]

ok understood. Have you read the way a bishop is described in the Shepard of hermas?

do you mean at vis 3.5.1 or at Sim 9:27.1-3?

I only saw it quickly last week, and did not check context, but it described them as large trees among/over the sheep flock. *I know u have read the descriptions by st ignatius. Also see 1peter2:25 re application to Jesus!

It seems you mean Sim 9:27.1-3, but I am not sure of your point.

Also see 1tit3:4-5 and then 1tit3:15 the bishop has a key role in the church which is the pillar …etc

I am not saying that an overseer/bishop does not have a key ministerial role in the Church…I am saying that the role is not properly described as the role of a priest. I would also distinguish between the role of an apostle, the role of an apostles’s co-worker and the role of an overseer.

I noticed several hundred posts ago you seemed to suggest that the flock could appoint a bishop as if it’s not that special and appealed to the didache

correct

I note how Stephen and phillip are ordained in …acts6:3
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

The apostles allow the flock to put forward people but it is the Apostles that make the call and it is the Apostles who lay hands. The flock mereley help pick candidates right? And this I assume is in an environment where the apostles don’t know anyone or enough of them.
This is clearly also the case b/w Paul/Titus

agreed. I expect that the Didache contemplates the situation were an apostle isn’t around…which I don’t think was all that rare. It seems that prophets were common evangelists. The congregation requires some sort of leader and if an apostle wasn’t around to do the job (still with the congregation’s approval), the congregation would simply do the job itself.

We make the offering, the catholic priest plays a major part/enables it, but be is not offering it for us. *That is my understanding at least.

well, if nothing else this specifies our disagreement. It is my position that there is no need for a bishop/priest to play a major part or to enable it. That is a function not described in the NT. Ignatius (probably for reasons of unity) declares that a bishop is required for a valid Eucharist, but he uses no priestly terminology in that regard (Sullivan p. 116)

*The above ordination process and the role of bishop described is a clear special role set out *of the priesthood/ bishopric of Jesus(1peter2:25) ha I am here to learn, so am happy to be corrected.

I agree that the bishops and deacons of the Church have a special role, but I don’t see it as being properly described as a priestly role where the Eucharist is involved.

Priest does not have to equal OT priest of the OT Law. But there is definitely a NT priesthood under jesus the high priest, and some of them are called bishops.

agreed…a clear NT priesthood consisting of all those possessed of the HS

completely disagree with u. The “thanksgiving”/Eucharist is the most important part of the priesthood , and can only be done as a priest ,…

I don’t think that there is anything in the NT that gives any serious support to this claim. First off, I don’t see the words of institution indicating any change in substance. Christ does not say “This bread is now changed into my body.” Alarm bells should go off when one has to employ greek philosophy to explain how it is that the physical aspect of the human nature (his body) is really present w/o being physically present and how it is that one begins and ends by only sensing the presence of bread. As such, I see no need for any one to serve as Christ did and effect a change in the elements. Second, Paul gives no indication of the need for any minister to officiate at the Lord’s Supper. Third, the only type of priesthood mentioned is of the general priesthood consisting of the body of believers. Finally, the closest you can come to someone (apart from Christ) being called a priest under the New covenant is in Rom 15:16 where proclaiming the gospel is said to be a priestly duty…there is no mention of the existence of any further priestly duty (in particular, no mention of a duty that “can only be done as a priest” on the occasion of the Eucharist).

…wow that’s pretty catholic, even for me.

it was

Thanks for the discussion.

thanks back.

 

[Labarum]

The name of a man who founded the Catholic Church was Jesus Christ (fully man, fully divine). Unlike the other denominations (except perhaps for the Orthodox Church) you can trace the leader back to the Apostles. However with the Catholic Church we can trace back to St. Peter which was given the keys by Jesus Christ and it was Christ who said to him that he shall build His Church upon a rock - Peter meaning Rock.

And it was at Pentecost that the Holy Spirit descended upon the Church.

All denominations splintered from the Catholic Church. If the Church is a tree and each denomination was a branch then the Catholic Church is the trunk.

I don’t know what is so complicated about that?

 

[joe370]

Radical…

I agree that the bishops and deacons of the Church have a special role, but I don’t see it as being properly described as a priestly role where the Eucharist is involved.

Radical, I was just wondering, does it seem relevant to you that the early Christians believed in the ministerial priesthood? For example, the earliest reference to three-level of priesthood (High priest, priests and Levites) among Christians was recorded in the 1 Clement (written AD 96 AD) - and Clement knew the apostles: “Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his peculiar are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound only by the laws that pertain to laymen.” 1 Clement Chapter 40. Ignatius (disciple of Peter and bishop of Antioch) - wrote that the celebrant of the Eucharist must be a bishop or one he has entrusted and that a bishop ministered as a priest to God. Irenaeus (bishop of Lyon AD 115) - wrote that all the apostles of Jesus were priests who served God and the altar continually. Polycrates bishop of Ephesus, late 2nd century, wrote that the apostle John was a priest. Tertullian (AD 160 to 230, bishop of Carthage) - referred to bishops as “chief priests” and wrote that those chosen for sacerdotal (priestly) order must be men of one marriage. His successor Cyprian who died AD 258, wrote that a bishop is Christ’s priest and that presbyters are associated with the bishop in priestly honour. He also wrote that priests (bishops and presbyters) offer the same sacrifice Jesus offered to God the Father. From these men we can see that the title “priest” was first applied to the apostles and then to bishops who were their successors, and later applied to presbyters. Were these men wrong?

 

[fbl9]

Hi, Fb19,

And, what is your source to substantiate the millions upon millions burned at the stake?

God bless

Oops i burnt the evidence
btw it’s an L not a one

 

[joe370]

The name of a man who founded the Catholic Church was Jesus Christ (fully man, fully divine). Unlike the other denominations (except perhaps for the Orthodox Church) you can trace the leader back to the Apostles. However with the Catholic Church we can trace back to St. Peter which was given the keys by Jesus Christ and it was Christ who said to him that he shall build His Church upon a rock - Peter meaning Rock.

And it was at Pentecost that the Holy Spirit descended upon the Church.

All denominations splintered from the Catholic Church. If the Church is a tree and each denomination was a branch then the Catholic Church is the trunk.

I don’t know what is so complicated about that?

You know, it really is not complicated at all; very simple. The CC as the trunk is a good analogy.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Radical,
A good explanation I’ve heard is that when the apostles saw Jesus with the cup of wine saying “this is my blood” and then gave them his blood to drink, first century Jews would have known that only priests can pour the blood for the sacrifice (lev 4:5-7)

About the Eucharist, here is John 6: 48-64

“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man might eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink… This is the bread which comes down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?”

The manna in the desert was the type and the Eucharist is the archetype. The Israelites had Flesh (quail) and bread (manna) to eat and Jesus is specifically saying that his flesh is the bread of life. Jesus says several times here that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood, his flesh is true food and blood true drink. The apostles understand him literally and they respond the same way any sane person would “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” and “This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?”. They obviously understood him literally and he didn’t correct them. Many of his disciples deserted him right after this because they couldn’t accept what he was saying. If Jesus meant the eucharist to be symbolic, then he made it VERY EASY to be misunderstood as literal and he didn’t correct his apostles after they understood him literally.

There are many early church fathers that let us know that they believed in the real presence, but I think the best is 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 circa A.D. 150]).

This completely articulates the real presence. Not as common bread and common drink do we recieve these… the food of the eucharist is changed by the eucharistic prayer and it is both the flesh and blood of Christ. Justin Martyr’s detailed account of the eucharist proves that the real presence was taught so early. Clement and Iraneaus also make mention of it, but I think Justin Martyr’s leaves no doubt.

 

[Radical]

Radical, if you are right and Jesus’ church is not the Catholic church in communion with Rome, built on Peter, then isn’t it safe to say that Jesus’ church is not any of the 16th, 17th…21st century Protestant churches either,…

yes, as I indicated previously, the invisible Church is all those who have the HS and the visible church is the insitutions where those with the HS worship (that would be Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, etc)

Radical, I was just wondering, does it seem relevant to you that the early Christians believed in the ministerial priesthood? For example, the earliest reference to three-level of priesthood (High priest, priests and Levites) among Christians was recorded in the 1 Clement (written AD 96 AD) - and Clement knew the apostles: “Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his peculiar are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound only by the laws that pertain to laymen.” 1 Clement Chapter 40.

c 40 is not a reference to a three level priesthood among Christians. It is a reference to the temple sacrifices at Jerusalem. C 41 mentions that the sacrifices are only made at Jerusalem. Christians do not have Levites. (BTW where did you get the idea that Clement knew the apostles?)

Ignatius (disciple of Peter and bishop of Antioch) - wrote that the celebrant of the Eucharist must be a bishop or one he has entrusted and that a bishop ministered as a priest to God.

I think you are mistaken here too…where is the reference to the bishop ministering as a priest (BTW where did you get the idea that Ignatius was a disciple of Peter?)

Irenaeus (bishop of Lyon AD 115) - wrote that all the apostles of Jesus were priests who served God and the altar continually.

I believe that this is the quote you had in mind:

• For David had been appointed a priest by God, although Saul persecuted him. For all the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank. And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually.*
  it seems that you missed mentioning that according to Irenaeus all the righteous possess the rank…this just affirms that we are all priests (all the righteous that is)

Polycrates bishop of Ephesus, late 2nd century, wrote that the apostle John was a priest.

I believe what you have in mind is Polycrates’ claim that John was a priest under the old covenant…which has nothing to do with a role for a priest under the new covenant

It seems that your attempt to use the ECFs isn’t working out all that well (for you)…perhaps you could provide the rest of the quotes that you had in mind, in context, with chapter and verse references, so that we can see if there is anything there that you could use?

 

[tqualey]

There are only four major problems with this part of the identified presentation:

I don’t think that there is anything in the NT that gives any serious support to this claim. First off, I don’t see the words of institution indicating any change in substance. Christ does not say “This bread is now changed into my body.”

This is really not a matter you can ‘think your way through’. Just like there is not classical reason why Second Person of the Blessed Trinity became Man, willingly suffered and died for our sins so that we may be saved - excpet that it is a mystery that He loved us. The same is true with the Real Presence.

Note John 6:22-71 - here Christ plainily tells the Jews that He is Real Food that must be eaten if they are to live. There are 15 references to food, Christ being Food and His command that we eat His Flesh. There is no metaphor here - and the Jews knew that because they asked how were they expected to eat His Flesh (John 6:52) and after Christ responded - they rejected Him and walked away (John 6:66-67). John is giving us the background for the Real Presence - and this will be fulfilled at the Last Passover Meal celebrated by Christ and recorded by the Synoptics.

Christ did not conform to your words - He chose His Own: Matt 26:26, Mark 14:22, and Luke 22:19 all record that He took bread, blessed and broke it and said, “This IS My Body” - NOT: This is a symbol for my body, or This representes a form of my body, or This would be a nice thing to use to remember me by. Nothing like that. His Words are clear and precise.

Alarm bells should go off when one has to employ greek philosophy to explain how it is that the physical aspect of the human nature (his body) is really present w/o being physically present and how it is that one begins and ends by only sensing the presence of bread.

Zwingli and Calvin were not the first to challenge the Real Presence. (It should be noted that Luther defended the Real Presence.) According to this well referenced source (newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm ) the doctrine of the Real Presence “…lay unmolested down to the time…1098(AD)”. So, for about a thousand years there was no need to resort to either Greek philosophy ro alarm bells - Christians (and that would be Catholics) believed the Words of Christ without further explanation. With the challenge of the heretics, the Chruch had a need to explain just what was happening.

It should be noted that Christ had another approach to encouraging his listeners to believe in Him as can be seen in John 10:38 - “If you don’t believe Me, then believe the signs!” And, here we see the Son of God trying to get people to believe - and they hardened their hearts and simply refused.

The Bottom Line is really quite simple: God can do anything He says He can do. He said He can be present in Bread and Wine - who are we to doubt God?

Second, Paul gives no indication of the need for any minister to officiate at the Lord’s Supper.

So what? He was not writing to address the obvious or to convince those who had hardened their hearts. Interesting insight from Paul - he had no doubts about the Real Presence - and this is the focus.
**
“This is St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:27 sq.), who, in the most vigorous language, brands the unworthy recipient as “guilty of body and of the blood of the Lord”. There can be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself unless we suppose that the true Body and the true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist.”**

Third, the only type of priesthood mentioned is of the general priesthood consisting of the body of believers.

Again, this appears to be literalism when it is convenient. Let’s look at God’s Plan:

In the OT, God created the priesthood from the Tribe of Levi during the exodus. These Levitical Priests were special and set apart from their countrymen - and they made sacrifice to God.

In the NT we see that Christ is both Priest and Victim as He offers Himself to His Father for our sins. Christ gave us the Eucharist - and the power of the priesthood to the Apostles when He commanded them to “Do this in memory of Me”. Like the Levitical Priests, the ordained Catholic Priest is special. He takes the place of Christ in celebrating the sacrifice of Christ on Calvry. There is a priesthood of believers - but, this is does not allow an unordained believer to consecrate the bread and wine into the Real Presence.

Finally, the closest you can come to someone (apart from Christ) being called a priest under the New covenant is in Rom 15:16 where proclaiming the gospel is said to be a priestly duty…there is no mention of the existence of any further priestly duty (in particular, no mention of a duty that “can only be done as a priest” on the occasion of the Eucharist).

Here is a link that addresses this concern: americancatholic.org/UpdateYourFaith/answers.asp?QC0797

This post is intended to address the errors and misconceptions presented in the previous post and to clearly spell out what is wrong and supply ources to provide the correct informaiton.

God bless

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Radical,

Have you read 1 Clement 42 and 44?
42
The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

44
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

We know from Irenaeus that Clement was a companion of the apostles. Here’s from Against Heresies 3:3,

“Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles”

Other Church fathers also identify Clement of Rome as the Clement to in Philippians 4:3

I’ve always read that Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the evangelist, not St. Peter

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Labarum,

Not only is it not complicated - it is accurate!

God bless

The name of a man who founded the Catholic Church was Jesus Christ (fully man, fully divine). Unlike the other denominations (except perhaps for the Orthodox Church) you can trace the leader back to the Apostles. However with the Catholic Church we can trace back to St. Peter which was given the keys by Jesus Christ and it was Christ who said to him that he shall build His Church upon a rock - Peter meaning Rock.

And it was at Pentecost that the Holy Spirit descended upon the Church.

All denominations splintered from the Catholic Church. If the Church is a tree and each denomination was a branch then the Catholic Church is the trunk.

I don’t know what is so complicated about that?

 

[joe370]

Radical you are right about 1 C 41:2. My bad.

40:1 Since, therefore, these things have been made manifest before unto us, and since we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do everything in order, whatsoever the Lord hath commanded us to do at the appointed seasons, and to perform the offerings and liturgies.

To what liturgical offering is Clement referring regarding what the Lord commanded these fledgling Christian leaders to do? Does Clement believe that the Lord hath commanded those early Christians to do at the appointed seasons, and to perform the offerings and liturgies of the animal sacrifices in the temple?

Rad, Ignatius seems to be saying: if you have a true bishop, then you can be sure of your Eucharist being true:

*“The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him.” Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 8 (from the book Early Christian Writings)
*

Coupled with this:

*“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate (local church) those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.” (1 Clement to the Corinthians)

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” (Ignatius to the Church in Smyrna c. 110 AD)*

The sole Eucharist should be considered valid if it is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him, and Ignatius believed that the Eucharist was indeed Jesus’ flesh and blood, the same flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead. Since Jesus’ flesh and blood (a genuine sacrifice) - is involved in the offering a priest is necessary - correct?

Your thoughts friend…

 

[freerf]

I am told by non-Catholics that the Catholic Church, in communion with Rome, is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa 33 AD, in Jerusalem. Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church in communion with Rome, and when, just as I have done below, regarding just a few of the very first reformed churches?

The Lutheran church – 1517 AD, founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome.

The Anabaptist church – 1520 AD, founded by Nicholas Storch, and Thomas Münzer, former Lutherans.

The Mennonite church – 1525 AD, founded by Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock, in Switzerland, as an offshoot of the Anabaptist chruch.

The Baptist church – 1606 AD, founded by John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam, as an offshoot of the Mennonites.

The Amish church – 1693 AD, founded by Jacob Amman, a Swiss Bishop.

The Anglican Church – 1534 AD, founded by King Henry VIII, as a direct result of the Pope not granting him a divorce from Catherine of Aragon.

The Presbyterian church – 1560 AD, founded by John Knox, in Scotland.

The Congregationalist church (The Puritans) – 1583 AD, founded by Robert Brown, in Holland.

The Episcopalian church – 1784 AD, founded by Samuel Seabury in the American Colonies; an offshoot of the Church of England.

The Quakers - 1647 AD, founded by George Fox, in England.

The Methodist church – 1739 AD, founded by John and Charles Wesley, in England.

The Evangelical church – 1803 AD, founded by Jacob Albright, originally a Methodist, who broke away and founded his own church.

The Mormon church – 1829 AD, (also call themselves “Latter Day Saints”) - was founded by Joseph Smith.

The Seventh Day Adventists – 1831 AD, founded by William Miller.

Jehovah’s Witnesses – 1872 AD, founded by Charles Taze Russell.

The question is a red herring. You ask the question but stipulate that the answer must be Catholic. You must forgive me if I answer it as a Protestant and from a Protestant perspective.

We believe Christ’s church is where His Spirit is, and not bound by a denomination, be it Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Orthodox, etc… The Church was established by Christ and comprises of His people. Most of this I’m sure you’re familiar with, ad nauseum.

The Protestant can therefore view the Universal Church history as flowing through different denominations at different times, often simultaneously.

So one could say the “Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ” without needing to refute that the Catholic Church has a very, very long history. Christ founded His church, not your church, not my church. His church.

Your question is moot when viewed in the light of basic Protestant beliefs.

 

[joe370]

Radical, I am a little confused: you reject the ministerial priesthood because the word priest is not employed to describe the elder as a priest, but have no problem using the word invisible to describe the church, even though the word invisible is not used in scripture to describe the church.

yes, as I indicated previously, the invisible Church is all those who have the HS and the visible church is the insitutions where those with the HS worship (that would be Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, etc)

 

[joe370]

Radical, what alter is he talking about:

"For David had been appointed a priest by God, although Saul persecuted him. For all the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank. And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually."

Also, why would Polycrate claim that John was a priest under the old covenant?

 

[Radical]

Radical,
A good explanation I’ve heard is that when the apostles saw Jesus with the cup of wine saying “this is my blood” and then gave them his blood to drink, first century Jews would have known that only priests can pour the blood for the sacrifice (lev 4:5-7)

As first century Jews they would have understood that one doesn’t drink blood…especially human blood. They would have also noted that the pouring out of his blood for the forgiveness of many happened at the cross and that only wine was poured at the last supper…

About the Eucharist, here is John 6: 48-64…The manna in the desert was the type and the Eucharist is the archetype. The Israelites had Flesh (quail) and bread (manna) to eat and Jesus is specifically saying that his flesh is the bread of life. Jesus says several times here that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood, his flesh is true food and blood true drink. The apostles understand him literally and they respond the same way any sane person would “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” and “This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?”. They obviously understood him literally and he didn’t correct them. Many of his disciples deserted him right after this because they couldn’t accept what he was saying. If Jesus meant the eucharist to be symbolic, then he made it VERY EASY to be misunderstood as literal and he didn’t correct his apostles after they understood him literally.

this IMHO is an extremely common misreading of John 6 and an incorrect assessment of what the crowd understood that day and what Christ intended that day. Here, with a few changes, is what I have said on another thread WRT the reason some left that day:

a) Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been transubstantiated into his body. Transubstantiation would have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility. As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not transubstantiation or the Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.

b) Likewise, Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been mysteriously changed into his body. That such could be the case would also have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility. As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not any sort of “real presence” teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.

c) At the time of John 6 the Lord’s Supper had not been held and as such, there is no way that the audience could have even understood that Jesus was talking about a future Sacrament involving bread and wine. As such, the “hard teaching” that some rejected was not in any way connected to the Eucharist (in their minds), b/c the future existence of that Sacrament was totally unknown to the audience.

What then was the “hard teaching” that they heard? I suppose (like Augustine) one could believe that they took Jesus to be requiring a cannibalistic act from them….such is possible b/c that is where a literal understanding (of his very graphic words) would lead. One should note that Christ’s use of “chew” or “gnaw” would require the eater to actually bite into his flesh and chew on it for a literal fulfillment of Jesus’ words. In the Catholic Eucharist, no gnawing of flesh actually occurs b/c the accidents of the teeth never meet the accidents of Christ’s body. The Catholic Eucharist is not a literal fulfillment of John 6. If some walked away from a literal understanding, then those that left, rejected cannibalism (and the teacher of it).

I don’t know that any of those people would have thought that Jesus was requiring a cannibalistic act from them. Jesus was profoundly moral and cannibalism is profoundly immoral. I suspect many would have concluded that Jesus couldn’t have intended to be taken literally, but w/o further explanation from him, they wouldn’t have known what to make of his words. Those words wouldn’t have made sense and would have been offensive. If that is right, then those that left rejected (what to them seemed to be) a nonsensical and offensive teaching (and the perceived teacher of it).

The text doesn’t say why Jesus made no effort to clarify his meaning, but it makes it very clear that none left who had been actually called by the Father. Christ could have called out, “Wait I am only speaking metaphorically” or “Wait I am not speaking of cannibalism or of your teeth actually chewing my flesh”, but he didn’t, b/c it seems, that he didn’t care to.

There are many early church fathers that let us know that they believed in the real presence, but I think the best is Justin Martyr…This completely articulates the real presence. Not as common bread and common drink do we recieve these… the food of the eucharist is changed by the eucharistic prayer and it is both the flesh and blood of Christ. Justin Martyr’s detailed account of the eucharist proves that the real presence was taught so early. Clement and Iraneaus also make mention of it, but I think Justin Martyr’s leaves no doubt.

I don’t know that Martyr held to a real somatic presence. There are quite a number of ways in which a believer can believe that the bread and wine are Christ’s flesh (note not “body” for Martyr) and blood that stop short of a real somatic presence.

 

[guanophore]

I am not saying that an overseer/bishop does not have a key ministerial role in the Church…

Do you think that any minister of the Church has any role that is separate, apart from, or not based in Jesus relationship to the Church?

I am saying that the role is not properly described as the role of a priest.

This may have to do with your understanding of what it means to be a priest. Do you agree that Jesus is our Great High Priest?

I would also distinguish between the role of an apostle, the role of an apostles’s co-worker and the role of an overseer.

I am interested to learn more about this. How do they differ? How do you define the role of a “co-worker”.

correct

So, do you agree with the scriptural parameters for bishop?

agreed. I expect that the Didache contemplates the situation were an apostle isn’t around…which I don’t think was all that rare. It seems that prophets were common evangelists.

Yes, but the Didache was written as a liturgical guide, and was addressed to the presbyters.

The congregation requires some sort of leader and if an apostle wasn’t around to do the job (still with the congregation’s approval), the congregation would simply do the job itself.

And how did you determine that the “congregation needs some sort of leader”?

What for? I thought you said we are all part of the priesthood?

well, if nothing else this specifies our disagreement.  It is my position that there is no need for a bishop/priest to play a major part or to enable it.

I am curious to know how you reconcile this statement with the scriptures that teach the contrary.

That is a function not described in the NT. Ignatius (probably for reasons of unity) declares that a bishop is required for a valid Eucharist, but he uses no priestly terminology in that regard (Sullivan p. 116)

Do you honestly think the NT does not demonstrate that an apostolic function is to “do this, in memory of me”?

 I agree that the bishops and deacons of the Church have a special role, but I don't see it as being properly described as a priestly role where the Eucharist is involved.

Maybe it would be easier to start with the other aspects of the role?

agreed…a clear NT priesthood consisting of all those possessed of the HS

If the HS can make a priesthood of all believers, how is it He is unable to create a ministerial priesthood.

I don’t think that there is anything in the NT that gives any serious support to this claim. First off, I don’t see the words of institution indicating any change in substance. Christ does not say “This bread is now changed into my body.”

This is an interesting statement, but beyond the scope of this thread. However, when I read it I wonder, when God said

Let there be Light, was there any change?
Gen 1:6-26

6 And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.

20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.” And it was so.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.

One has to wonder what happened to the creative power of God, that by the time the Last Supper rolled around, when He said “This is my Body”, He had lost the power to make is so.

 

[guanophore]

  Alarm bells should go off when one has to employ greek philosophy to explain how it is that the physical aspect of the human nature  (his body) is really present w/o being physically present and how it is that one begins and ends by only sensing the presence of bread.

I am not sure what you mean by this, but it is not necessary to use any kind of philosophy to explain the mysteries of God. At the same time, there is nothing inherintly wrong with it.

 As such, I see no need for any one to serve as Christ did and effect a change in the elements.

I should think not, since you don’t believe that Christ did “serve” in that capacity.

 Second, Paul gives no indication of the need for any minister to officiate at the Lord's Supper.

IT is a mistake to make an arguement from a lack of evidence. It is especially problematic because those who were taught the faith by Paul,a nd other Apostles, did understand it that way.

Third, the only type of priesthood mentioned is of the general priesthood consisting of the body of believers.

This seems to deny the priesthood of Christ.

It also is a denial of the origin of the word “priest”, which comes from the word Presbyter. to say that the word “presbyter” is not used in the NT is a gross denial.

Finally, the closest you can come to someone (apart from Christ) being called a priest under the New covenant is in Rom 15:16 where proclaiming the gospel is said to be a priestly duty...there is no mention of the existence of any further priestly duty (in particular, no mention of a duty that "can only be done as a priest" on the occasion of the Eucharist).

I can see your point. If you are unable to discern that Jesus ordained His Apostles to this service, commanded them with regard to it, and empowered them to do the same for their successors, it makes sense that you would say this.

 

[joe370]

The question is a red herring.

It is not a diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue.

You ask the question but stipulate that the answer must be Catholic. You must forgive me if I answer it as a Protestant and from a Protestant perspective.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Radical,

No Christ never said, “my body will mystically change into bread” But he did

1. Call him self the bread of life
2. He Paralleled this bread to the manna in the desert, but said you will not die like the Israelites but have everlasting life. The manna in the desert was food for their journey to the promised land, it tasted like wafers made of honey, a foretaste of the “land of milk and honey”. The Eucharist is a wafer that is food for our journey, not a physical journey out of Egypt but a spiritual journey. When Christ stepped into the river it didn’t part like it did for Moses, but the clouds parted because the new exodus is a spiritual heavenly journey and not a physical journey. The eucharist is food for the new exodus
3. He tells the people to eat this new bread after calling himself the bread of life, and then he tells them that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink. He says “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” after having already said “ if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever”

Yes the last supper didn’t happen yet, but John’s narrative is kinda different from the others. John was written 20-30 years after the synoptic gospels and his style is more poetic. Sometimes he has foreshadowing or simply says something that will happen. For instance, at one point early in the gospel he refers to Judas Iscariot as something like “the one who would betray Jesus” way before Judas betrays him.

I’ve read the Confessions of Augustine and he emphasized the Eucharist at one point. He said something like “that holy bread that gives life” and other things. Other places in Augustine he makes reference to the Eucharist,

“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” (Sermons, 272).
Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. {Sermons 234}

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

Here’s an interesting perspective from Augustine on the “hard teaching”
“The very first heresy was formulated when men said: “this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?” {Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p.66}

As for cannibalism, one reason the early Christians in Rome were persecuted is because the Eucharist was seen as cannibalism by opponents of Christianity.

 

[guanophore]

As first century Jews they would have understood that one doesn’t drink blood…especially human blood. They would have also noted that the pouring out of his blood for the forgiveness of many happened at the cross and that only wine was poured at the last supper…

I agree that it was not His blood when it was poured into the cup. It did not become such until He declared it to be.

However, if we are to follow your reasoning, then the blood that Jesus shed on the cross was not His real blood, but only symbolic blood. If the blood in the cup is not “real”, then the idea that He is offering it for the expiation of sins does not hold. Forgiveness of sins does not occur without bloodshed. "Symbolic’ blood doesn’t count.

this IMHO is an extremely common misreading of John 6 and an incorrect assessment of what the crowd understood that day and what Christ intended that day. Here, with a few changes, is what I have said on another thread WRT the reason some left that day:

a) Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been transubstantiated into his body.

I agree with this 100%. The Jews would not have been scandalized if He had only qualified this. The Apostles, also were confused, but accepted His “words of eternal life” because they trusted Him.

We also note that Jesus did not run after the Jews and explain that they had misunderstood.

Transubstantiation would have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility. As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not transubstantiation or the Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.

This is a false conclusion for several reasons. The concept of “transubstantiation” is a Western one that was never adopted by the Eastern Church, where the Real Presence is equally understood (along with the priesthood that cathects it). The other reason it is in error is because the Catholic Teaching regarding the Eucharist is EXACTLY what is provided in Jn. 6 (word for word).

b) Likewise, Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been mysteriously changed into his body.

This is quite true. I am not even sure the Aposltes 'got it" when they were at the Last Supper. That text does not indicate that they did, either. They “got it” sometime before Paul’s letters, though, because it is clearly stated there.

That such could be the case would also have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility. As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not any sort of “real presence” teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.

I am interested to hear what you think it was. What do you think was the “hard teaching”?

In fact, it was such a foreign concept and a scandal for a Jew to drink blood that they were appropriately scandalized. And, in fact, this is the teachign on the eucharist Jesus provided.

c) At the time of John 6 the Lord’s Supper had not been held and as such, there is no way that the audience could have even understood that Jesus was talking about a future Sacrament involving bread and wine.

I agree with you on this point also.

As such, the “hard teaching” that some rejected was not in any way connected to the Eucharist (in their minds), b/c the future existence of that Sacrament was totally unknown to the audience.

Yes, it is true that no one, the faithful disciples, or the ones that walked away, could have envisioned what He meant. It is interesting to note, though, that when Jn. 6 is read through the eyes of the early church, they understood it to mean this, and called those that did not believe it “heretics”.