Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth?

[joe371]

I reviews justin martyr 'a works and my notes. I see ZERO suggestion of a symbolic Eucharist relating to John 6. You’ll need to provide evidence.

:yup:

 

[Jon_S_1]

Not sure it was first century and doubt your reasoning of vetting, for the evidence begins after persecution stops. If you are afraid you don’t even let them in for any part of the service. No it seems to have been strictly a religious practice until infant baptism finally took over and Christianity became dominant .

Both Justin Martyr (150 AD) and Hypolytus (215ad) make reference to the catechumen.

 

[marywarfield]

Again, why did they for sure have catechumens leave the service before the consecration after Christianity is the state religion? No one denies the persecution.it just doesn’t make sense to have them come to half a service if you aren’t sure of them.

For the same reason the Church has at times withheld
the Eucharist altogether- to prevent sacrilege
to the actual Body of Christ.
There have been times in history where people
received only once in their lifetime and again at
viaticum and nothing in between.
The first duty of every Catholic is to protect
that Presence from insult or injury even at the
expense of their own life.
That is true today as well.

 

[benhur]

For the same reason the Church has at times withheld
the Eucharist altogether- to prevent sacrilege
to the actual Body of Christ.
There have been times in history where people
received only once in their lifetime and again at
viaticum and nothing in between.
The first duty of every Catholic is to protect
that Presence from insult or injury even at the
expense of their own life.
That is true today as well.

I know, and I have a hard time with that. This certainly developed and can’t see it as apostolic. Once in your life ? Asking believers to depart ? Remember catechumens were believers.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I know, and I have a hard time with that. This certainly developed and can’t see it as apostolic. Once in your life ? Asking believers to depart ? Remember catechumens were believers.

They were unbaptized. And may or may not have been believers. They didn’t have the internet or books or even a bible to learn the faith.

 

[benhur]

Because that was not the sole reason. Only one reason was vetting.

The other reason was faith formation. Since they cannot partake of the Eucharist anyway until they are baptized they utilized that time to learn the faith.

It is the same way today.

The only reason it went away for a while was because virtually everyone was baptized as an infant. It is the days of lots of adult converts that need this. Today and the early church both fit that bill.

I reviewed Justin martyr 's works and my notes. I see ZERO suggestion of a symbolic Eucharist relating to John 6. You’ll need to provide evidence.

Still not sure if there is one instance where a “believer” was told to wait and be catechumized better before baptism in water in scripture…Yes, will have to find fuller versions of Martyr’s quotes…CC does not deny in symbolism of bread and wine, just that it is literal at the same time. I think Augustine also says something of the symbolism/eating by faith. But first things first -Martyr’s statements need to be forthcoming (they are on line).

 

[cheezey]

Seeing this in a thread always makes me chuckle…
Thank you.

Re: the subject.
Why is there necessarily such a definitive answer? Assuming there is an answer at all.

:coffeeread:

(Just ate a BIG bag o’ pop corn.)

 

[benhur]

They were unbaptized. And may or may not have been believers. They didn’t have the internet or books or even a bible to learn the faith.

Yes. From my understanding of Acts most preaching did not take place during a "mass’’. Again I said “most”, not saying never, and am in no way demeaning the efficacy of reading the Word anywhere, anytime, by anyone, for “faith cometh by hearing it”.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Still not sure if there is one instance where a “believer” was told to wait and be catechumized better before baptism in water in scripture…Yes, will have to find fuller versions of Martyr’s quotes…CC does not deny in symbolism of bread and wine, just that it is literal at the same time. I think Augustine also says something of the symbolism/eating by faith. But first things first -Martyr’s statements need to be forthcoming (they are on line).

In the earliest Church, confession was once in a lifetime. Eucharist would be received only a few times in a lifetime. Considering these circumstances, why would a preparation period before full reception to the Church be non-Apostolic? Should the liberal protestant practice of “all are welcome” be practiced, is that Apostolic? That includes the modern Anglican practice of not only all baptised, but even of all faiths, or even no faith, including animals!

 

[joe371]

Yes. He speaks that Christians do not eat flesh or drink blood and speaks of symbolism in John 6 and the sacrifice is one of thanksgiving, not propitiation.

Justin Martyr quotes on the Eucharist?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Still not sure if there is one instance where a “believer” was told to wait and be catechumized better before baptism in water in scripture…Yes, will have to find fuller versions of Martyr’s quotes…CC does not deny in symbolism of bread and wine, just that it is literal at the same time. I think Augustine also says something of the symbolism/eating by faith. But first things first -Martyr’s statements need to be forthcoming (they are on line).

Yes, there is symbolism in the Eucharist we don’t deny that. Quotes describing the symbolism from martyr don’t dispute the fact that he clearly describes it as NOT ONLY symbolic.

The problem is with groups who say it IS ONLY symbolic.

If that is true, it seems Jesus told us to do an empty ritual.

Again look at my response regarding catechumens being believers in my post above.

 

[Nicea325]

As a former Catholic, my question is “When seriously looking at history, how can any christianist remain that, especially a Catholic?” I completely, save for one small bit, agree with Publisher in post #2 this thread. You see, your question skips a number of important steps. You just went from being a “christian” to being a “christian.” After the third century, it is doubtful that any notion of what the original teaching was has remained intact, if there was any left even at that point. By original teaching I mean what surely must be referenced in Mark (who didn’t write that, as didn’t any of the four evangelists write theirs) 4:33,34.

Seriously: how did that get past the censors, or anyone thinking about the validity of the completeness of what’s recorded as alleged public teaching? So the question about the thread title might well be:

"What makes anyone think that any denomination, including Catholic, holds an allegedly holdable ‘truth?’"

And if you think one does: “What is the nature of that ‘truth’ and how might I be holding it vis a vi my practical knowledge and experience in epistemology, history, ancient languages, translation, interpretation (& by what standards,) literary criticism–including but way not limited to knowledge of literary standards of the time, idiom, semiotics, general semantics, the natures of witnessing, comprehension, reportage, collections, corruption of various kinds and degrees, credentials and abilities of those making decisions re scripture and dogma from inclusion to interpretation to pastoral policy, phenomenology of religion and, in general, the psychology of belief, and all of the above and more under the chief heading of the phenomenal ability of the human mind to make stuff up and believe it as if it was Reality.”

Then God incarnated for NOTHING! How can anyone believe otherwise? Why on earth would God in the flesh clearly say the Holy Spirit will guide into ALL Truth and yet leave everyone second guessing if there is ANY holdable Truth?

Then God must be playing a head-games with us.

 

[rfournier103]

Yes. He speaks that Christians do not eat flesh or drink blood and speaks of symbolism in John 6 and the sacrifice is one of thanksgiving, not propitiation.

Not to further derail the thread; but could benhur explain to the rest of the class how 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 could be symbolic?

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

I would recommend John Salza’s “The Biblical Basis for the Eucharist.” Great book that BIBLICALLY refutes the numerous misconceptions about the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[joe371]

Not to further derail the thread; but could benhur explain to the rest of the class how 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 could be symbolic?

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

I would recommend John Salza’s “The Biblical Basis for the Eucharist.” Great book that BIBLICALLY refutes the numerous misconceptions about the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[ltwin]

Not to further derail the thread; but could benhur explain to the rest of the class how 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 could be symbolic?

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

I would recommend John Salza’s “The Biblical Basis for the Eucharist.” Great book that BIBLICALLY refutes the numerous misconceptions about the Body and Blood of Christ.

This verse in no way proves that the bread and wine physically changed into the body and blood of Jesus. Paul’s warning against unworthily partaking can make perfect sense if one subscribes to a pneumatic presence view.

It can even make sense under a memorialist view of the Eucharist because the elements need not physically transform in order for people to partake of them unworthily. Though they remain bread and wine, they have still been set apart for a holy purpose and to abuse that is an offense against God. Those who have unconfessed sin, who have strife and hatred in their hearts against other people are making a mockery out of an ordinance that Christ instituted and are really insulting Christ’s sacrifice on the cross by their behavior.

 

[dronald]

Yes, there is symbolism in the Eucharist we don’t deny that. Quotes describing the symbolism from martyr don’t dispute the fact that he clearly describes it as NOT ONLY symbolic.

The problem is with groups who say it IS ONLY symbolic.

If that is true, it seems Jesus told us to do an empty ritual.

Again look at my response regarding catechumens being believers in my post above.

Tertullian:

They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. 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, 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. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

 

[Jon_S_1]

Tertullian:

They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. 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, 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. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

I will answer this more thoroughly later but for now.

Sometimes I have to scratch my head when dozens and dozens of quotes are discounted based on one paragraph.

Really? You know we teach that individual bishops are not infallible. Right?

And Tertullian isn’t even a bishop. Nor a saint.

 

[dronald]

I will answer this more thoroughly later but for now.

Sometimes I have to scratch my head when dozens and dozens of quotes are discounted based on one paragraph.

Really? You know we teach that individual bishops are not infallible. Right?

And Tertullian isn’t even a bishop. Nor a saint.

You want to discuss history, so there’s history. And you said that those who see it as symbolic most likely saw it as symbolic and literal; I’m giving evidence to the contrary.

 

[benhur]

Tertullian:

They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. 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, 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. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

Who said , “leave your teeth and bellies behind” on this matter of “eating” ?

 

[Jon_S_1]

You want to discuss history, so there’s history. And you said that those who see it as symbolic most likely saw it as symbolic and literal; I’m giving evidence to the contrary.

Provide more than one source as I have. Also explain why all apostolic churches across the globe, easy and west, near and far hold this teaching.