Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist

[Cathoholic]

benhur:

Well I think Peter does say we are priests. We are a royal priesthood.

OK. I am alright with this benhur.

But my point was, we are a “royal priesthood” IN CHRIST (“through Jesus Christ”).

Not on our own.

1st PETER 2:4-5a, 9a 4 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; 5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, . . . . through Jesus Christ. . . . . 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. . .

Our priesthood is a SHARE in Christ’s ONE Priesthood.

And keep in mind that the “Royal Priesthood” imagery is drawn precisely from Exodus 19.

This is important because I am going to come back to that point later and show how there were differing shares in the Priesthood THEN too.

 

[susanlo]

Paul has singled out those who are divided from those who aren’t divided. .They who are divided are irreverently celebrating the Eucharist.*

*When Jesus said “this is my body this is my blood” Jesus didn’t say this symbolized, He meant what He said, “this is my body This is my blood”

Many of Jesus own disciples left Him over this teaching. And Jesus was the one who instructed them face to face. His own disciples said to Jesus face, this is a hard saying who could even listen to it. AND THEY WALKED AWAY* from Him never to return.
John 6:56-67

Protestants say the same thing. Just look at your argument.

We had a few threads a few months ago on John 6 and the Eucharist. Did those who walked away leave because they clearly understood the concept of transubstantiation, but rejected the teaching? Or did they misunderstand and think of cannibalism? They may have returned and joined the church in Acts once they understood what Jesus was talking about, we don’t know that they never came back. Jesus explains to his disciples who stayed in John 6:63 that He is talking about something spiritual.

Do you understand what is just said there?There is no symbolizing here.
Guilty of the body: not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ,in the Eucharist even to those unworthy communicants here; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body, **if it was a symbol and NOT really **the true body and blood of Jesus present in the Eucharist.

Not acknowledging what is really there, and acting irreverently towards the body and blood of Our Lord, is a sacrilege. And one can’t be judged and condemnedfor it if it is only a symbol and NOT really the true body and blood of Jesus

They were condemned for behaving inappropriately and disrespectfully at the celebration of the Eucharist. They were there to give praise and thanksgiving for the gift of salvation paid for by Jesus in the flesh, but they were being selfish and indulgent and embarrassing others. Jesus really did have flesh that was beaten and hung on a cross and blood that was shed for salvation. Christians don’t deny that Jesus had a body and a true sacrifice. Behaving inappropriately at this Eucharist celebration was not disrespecting the items they were eating and drinking, but it was disrespecting the true and real sacrifice that Jesus made with his body and blood.

Paul is talking to the Church here. These are not a bunch of know nothing pagans even though they are acting like it. . They are in the only Church Jesus established .

#34 , and Paul is lowering the boom on them for being so irreverent.

Maybe it says something, but Corinth is in ruins today.

 

[rcwitness]

We had a few threads a few months ago on John 6 and the Eucharist. Did those who walked away leave because they clearly understood the concept of transubstantiation, but rejected the teaching? Or did they misunderstand and think of cannibalism? They may have returned and joined the church in Acts once they understood what Jesus was talking about, we don’t know that they never came back. Jesus explains to his disciples who stayed in John 6:63 that He is talking about something spiritual

My good friend, let me share what I find so difficult to believe what you are saying here. First, if Jesus is talking about something spiritual (only), then is He not talking about His physical death?
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.”
Here, Jesus makes a connection with being the Bread of Heaven (which is the Word of God) and real flesh (the Word made flesh, which was to die as our sacrifice/salvation).
So, to reduce this Teaching to only spiritual, is to separate it from the Lord’s Supper. But to combine His spirit with His real flesh is to connect His Teaching to a transubstantiational Holy Communion. We say the Eucharist is both Spirit and flesh, just as Jesus is the Word made flesh.

Secondly if, as you say, in vs. 63 Jesus explains He is talking about Spirit only (as opposed to His real flesh and blood being the source of our Communion), then why do the disciples leave after this.
Verse 66After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
You are saying that He cleared it up in vs 63. And that He revealed it was only a metaphor. Then why do many disciples leave Him still?

 

[susanlo]

Secondly if, as you say, in vs. 63 Jesus explains He is talking about Spirit only (as opposed to His real flesh and blood being the source of our Communion), then why do the disciples leave after this.
Verse 66After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
You are saying that He cleared it up in vs 63. And that He revealed it was only a metaphor. Then why do many disciples leave Him still?

I guess we don’t know exactly at what point they left in that conversation. Verse 66 does come after verse 63, but many may have left at various points in this whole conversation. What I mean to say is that when Jesus realizes that they are getting upset and leaving He explains that:

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! "63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

He doesn’t use this point to clarify that eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood is the key to salvation. He explains that the Spirit gives life (salvation). Verse 64 ends with showing that Jesus had foreknowledge that some did not believe and would betray Him (Judas). The Apostles stuck around, but the left were gone at this point.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I guess we don’t know exactly at what point they left in that conversation. Verse 66 does come after verse 63, but many may have left at various points in this whole conversation. What I mean to say is that when Jesus realizes that they are getting upset and leaving He explains that:

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! "63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

He doesn’t use this point to clarify that eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood is the key to salvation. He explains that the Spirit gives life (salvation). Verse 64 ends with showing that Jesus had foreknowledge that some did not believe and would betray Him (Judas). The Apostles stuck around, but the left were gone at this point.

Greetings, Susan.

So I better understand your contention, are you holding the position that the the “flesh counts for nothing”, because that’s what it says in verse 63?

 

[benhur]

benhur, I thank you again for allowing me share my faith with you. I would ask in kind, to share your faith with me here, on how you believe the “grape juice”, cracker or “unleavened bread” has transformed spiritually to symbolically represent the reality of Christ.?

ben, those words you use symbolically, represent, transform are expressed from the ECF’s, but they do not interpret these words in way they are interpreted today. I am very curious to hear your expression of faith in a spiritual to symbolic representation of the reality of Christ.

Thank you
Gabe

hi G,

The Lord’s words, and now our words at the blessing/consecration are spiritual words, of spiritually discerned. The reality is Calvary, that He shed His blood for us, making a new testament…again per the Lord’s Word, which we repeat.

Both your and my view can seem to be from the beginning.Even centuries later when specifics of transubstantiation came about so did the rebuttal of symbolic specifics.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

I guess we don’t know exactly at what point they left in that conversation. Verse 66 does come after verse 63, but many may have left at various points in this whole conversation. I think that what I mean to say is that when Jesus realizes that they are getting upset and leaving He explains that: "63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” He doesn’t use this point to clarify that eating literal flesh is the key to salvation. He explains that the Spirit gives life (salvation). Verse 64 ends with showing that Jesus had foreknowledge that some did not believe and would betray Him (Judas).

When Jesus says this (the Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing) is very deep. Here is what I believe He is saying, in relation to salvation:

First, He is talking about understanding and belief. We understand and believe by the Spirit (not by flesh and blood.
Matt 16
Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”*And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Jesus makes a reference to this is John 6:
44*No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…

65*…And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father. Here, we understand that Jesus connects belief and salvation with “coming to Him”.what does it mean to “come to Him”? I don’t believe it should be reduced to a “one time event” but a participation.
*He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.
I believe that Jesus gives His Spirit for the life of the world, but also His flesh and blood which was obedient unto death. So if we say “I am eating His Spirit, but not His flesh and blood” then we are not putting John 6 and His Eucharist together.

 

[rcwitness]

We must not confuse initiations (whether by faith or completed by works) into salvation as eternal assurance. Those have eternal marks but we must endure in the faith. The Lord’s Supper is about remaining or abiding in Him.

Consider Peter, when He gave his famous reply to Jesus:

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

This is a moment of salvation! Was it the first? I don’t know. Was it the last? I don’t believe so. Listen to what Jesus tell him before the Last Supper:

He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?”**Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand.”**Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part in me.”

Jesus was asking them to do something they did not understand, and yet if they did not receive it, they would have no part in Him! This is exactly how we understand John 6 and Holy Communion.

Peter and the Apostles did not understand the bread of life discourse (completely). They didn’t need to. They just needed to trust His Word that He would provide. They didn’t know that He needed to die. And that is how we are saved! Were they not saved until He died? Not necessarily. They were accepting Him along the way. And then, they knew how He was to deliver them.

 

[steve_b]

We had a few threads a few months ago on John 6 and the Eucharist.

In reality there has been tons of ink spilled on this subject
s:

Did those who walked away leave because they clearly understood the concept of transubstantiation, but rejected the teaching? Or did they misunderstand and think of cannibalism?

They understood and didn’t accept Him.

After His disciples left, Jesus turned to His apostles and said, are you going to leave me to? Peter said, where would we go, you have the words of everlasting life. Peter got it.

Besides, Jesus knew in advance those disciples did not believe. He knew they had no faith. But He gave them the teaching anyway. They chose freely to leave.

This is a perfect case to show even God almighty in the flesh teaching them face to face, He didn’t convince people of no faith, nor would He override their lack of faith. He doesn’t and He won’t do that. He gave us ALL free will. That is what makes us culpable in the end for what we choose to do. We have free will.
s:

They may have returned and joined the church in Acts once they understood what Jesus was talking about, we don’t know that they never came back.

Look at what was said (all emphasis mine)

" 63 the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Comment: spirit and life covers the seen and unseen. Like a sacrament, there is a physical portion that is seen, and an unseen reality which is the grace given

64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

*Comment: Faith is a free gift. God wants everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. So no one is left out. BUT… people can reject the gift and no one is forced to believe. *

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer ** ουκέτι** ] went about with him."

Comment: The definition of the word means never again
s:

Jesus explains to his disciples who stayed in John 6:63 that He is talking about something spiritual.

covered above
s:

They were condemned for behaving inappropriately and disrespectfully at the celebration of the Eucharist. They were there to give praise and thanksgiving for the gift of salvation paid for by Jesus in the flesh, but they were being selfish and indulgent and embarrassing others. Jesus really did have flesh that was beaten and hung on a cross and blood that was shed for salvation. Christians don’t deny that Jesus had a body and a true sacrifice. Behaving inappropriately at this Eucharist celebration was not disrespecting the items they were eating and drinking, but it was disrespecting the true and real sacrifice that Jesus made with his body and blood.

I think you misunderstand the point I was making on this

#135

 

[Cathoholic]

Susanlo. You said . . . .

Jesus explains to his disciples who stayed in John 6:63 that He is talking about something spiritual.

JOHN 6:51-52, 63 51 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." 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” . . . .

. . . (Jesus said) 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Susanlo said (here) . . . .

Jesus explains to his disciples who stayed in John 6:63 that He is talking about something spiritual.

“The flesh is of no avail”.

The context here Susanlo IS Spiritual, . . . . BUT! . . . . it is not MERELY spiritual!

Some early Church heretics would say Jesus didn’t REALLY give His flesh on Calvary for our sins. It was merely “spiritual” they would say.

Yet Jesus said, “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Jesus gave His WHOLE self on Calvary. Not just His spirit.

You and I would both agree with that.

So when Jesus says “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” . . . . you and I both KNOW, Jesus gave ALL of HIMSELF on Calvary. Jesus gave His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

When Jesus says, “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” . . . it is not mere metaphor or to be “spiritualized” away.

You and I both agree on this.

Likewise when Jesus says, “the flesh is of no avail” in verse 63 . . . we both KNOW Jesus isn’t talking about HIS Flesh right?

You don’t think Jesus is saying His (Jesus) Sacred flesh is of “no avail” correct Susanlo?

(I hope you are not trying to throw that into the passage.)

When Jesus says, “the flesh is of no avail” He is referring here to the works of the flesh on our own (we can’t save ourselves).

But even more, “the flesh” refers to specific aspects of being unable to “save yourself”. The specific aspects likely would concern Old Covenant rituals, genealogy, etc.

"The flesh" = works of Old Covenant Torah or “Law” such as “circumcision”, tribal genealogy, etc.

Let’s look at Philippians 3:3-6 for a reasonable example of the Jewish meaning of what “the flesh” means to an ancient Jew.

St. Paul specifically talks about the phrase “the flesh” with regards to himself. Let’s see how he uses it.

(Special emphasis will be mine)

PHILIPPIANS 3:3-4 3 For we are the true circumcision who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in THE FLESH.
4 Though I myself have reason for confidence in THE FLESH also.
If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in THE FLESH, I have more:

Why? Why St. Paul, can you say that before you were a Christian, you had so much confidence in THE FLESH?

Fortunately St. Paul is about to tell us why.

PHILIPPIANS 3:4b-6 4b If any other man thinks he has reason
for confidence in THE FLESH, I have more:
5 circumcised on the eighth day,
of the people of Israel,
of the tribe of Benjamin,
a Hebrew born of Hebrews;
as to the law a Pharisee,
6 as to zeal a persecutor of the church,
as to righteousness under the law blameless.

“The law” incidentally that St. Paul is blameless in, is ritual law, NOT moral law!

“The law” St. Paul is “blameless” in is concerning his pedigree and various rituals such as circumcision is where St. Paul refers to himself as “blameless”.

St. Paul when referring to MORAL LAWS in 1st Timothy 1:15, refers to himself as “foremost” among sinners and NOT “BLAMELESS”.

• St. Paul concerning the law and “the flesh” = "Blameless"
• St. Paul concerning the law in a moral sense = "Foremost among sinners"

NOWHERE in Scripture does Jesus intimate His Sacred Flesh is of NO AVAIL!”

JOHN 6:63a 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail;

 

[benhur]

OK. I am alright with this benhur.

But my point was, we are a “royal priesthood” IN CHRIST (“through Jesus Christ”).

Not on our own.

Hi C,

Yes ofcourse, in , by thru , for Jesus.

And keep in mind that the “Royal Priesthood” imagery is drawn precisely from Exodus 19.

This is important because I am going to come back to that point later and show how there were differing shares in the Priesthood THEN too.

Yes , the genesis 19 is finally fulfilled. That which was lost because of sin is now covered and restored. Remember, the original Passover (of the plague), each family head was the “priest”. There was no “priestly” class.

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Hi C,

Yes ofcourse, in , by thru , for Jesus.
Yes , the genesis 19 is finally fulfilled. That which was lost because of sin is now covered and restored. Remember, the original Passover (of the plague), each family head was the “priest”. There was no “priestly” class.

Blessings

The NT has an ordained priesthood of apostolic succession.

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-we-have-a-ministerial-priesthood

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/apostolic-succession

 

[benhur]

But I never said a heireus priest “ceases”. (a heireus priest is FULFILLED)

I mentioned heireus priest terminology would be confusing in the early Church unless it was constantly clarified.

And it WOULD be.

The Old Covenant heireus priest is FULFILLED in Christ.

Hi C,

Yes Understand. Thank you

The issue then is . . . . Is Christ a Priest unto Himself ONLY?

OR

Does He ALLOW a SHARE in His Priestly ministry?

Of course we all share , even benefit from His High Priest "position, as he is seated at the right hand of the father. We can boldly go now before the throne, being in Christ. Being disciples we are now His finger on Earth, His ministers , to the world in darkness and to the brethren , the Church, The Royal priesthood

How about in His SACRIFICIAL ministry?

His sacrificial ministry is complete, just as His creation ministry was complete after six days. Now we are no the seventh day of rest , where we declare His handiwork, and in this case, His sacrificial “handiwork”, gift of Calvary.

And if Christ allows a SHARE in His Priesthood, are there DIFFERING SHARES among some of the recipients?

Yes, as in eyes, ears, hands, feet etc., as is the Body of Christ. So yes to offices of presbyter/bishop, and apostles, and prophets, and gifts of healing, and teaching etc . There is no "go between’’ class, such as Levite , one of 12 tribes. All parts have a direct link to the Head now. Sin is eradicated as a barrier to the holy of holies, for those in Christ

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The Sacrifice of the Mass is unbloody. It is an unbloody re-presentation of the one once for all Sacrifice.

Hi C,

Then why has the Lord’s words “evolved”, changed, to a consecration fitting a bloody old testament sacrifice ?

“Pray brethren that our sacrifice may be acceptable to the Father…May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…”

“We ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in sacrifice”

The attitude of these consecrations is of an us, thru a priest, to God offering, instead of a God to us offering, and us together a thanksgiving offering back. Christ is not the sacrifice we offer to God, but our obedience, praise, and thanksgiving for Christ, and Calvary is.

It is not called the New Passover, but Thanksgiving (or Eucharist from the Greek)

Yet there it is in Romans 12. Offering our bodies as a living sacrifice.

This is a priestly function benhur.

Do you think it is “optional” or necessary?

WHY do you think you can be a “priest” in ANY sense benhur?

Not Levitical priesthood function, but for sure part of the Royal priesthood. Not optional or necessary but a fact , a fruit, of one who is in Christ.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Each Eucharist is never a new or different act of God, for the remission of sin. The Eucharist in every age since the last supper, is the One Eucharistic Presence of Jesus body and blood made present in time and space for the remission of sin.

 

[benhur]

St. Augustine wrote many books on symbols and signs including numbers, You ask a difficult task here, my freind My short opinion is; My body is the mark which holds me bondage, when I take the signs of bread and wine (transubstantiated) into or signified as defined by Augustine to be real. The transubstantiated bread and wine remain bread and wine to my senses or flesh (body), this sign (bread and wine) is a mark of my weakness and holds me in bondage on this side of death, because my senses that have taken the signs of bread and wine when they (Transubstantiated) signify = the real presence of Jesus body and blood. Although my flesh consumes the body and blood of Jesus, the reality is, It is Jesus Himself who is Other = resurrected, uses His body and blood to become a bridge for my weakness and bondage, that makes me free, so that I may enter the holy of Holies in full communion with God’s presence. Amen

Hi Gabe,

Not sure if you answered (and thank you) with full quote "at hand’’, so here it is:

Chapter 9.—Who is in Bondage to Signs, and Who Not.
13.* Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies:* he, on the other hand, who either uses or honors a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honor the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer.* Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome.* To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures.* But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord.* And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom.* Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.* He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage.* And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error"

So I wonder would Augustine put a consecrated “Host” in a monstrance , and pray or kneel before it ? Reverence yes because what it signifies, but not because of what it is (bread in a monstrance) . Certainly does not talk of "change’, except of spiritual understanding. He says do not honor the bread but what it signifies (not what it becomes).

Do not think he says your senses lead you to “coil of error” by not seeing “spiritual”. Senses are neutral and function perfectly for what they were designed to do. They are "good’’ as we are told in Genesis. Just as spiritual eyes, and spiritual teeth , are “good” when regenerated in Christ.

The best one Catholic can say is that this just one quote, and CC view must be garnered from other quotes, but I would humbly submit not from this one.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The NT has an ordained priesthood of apostolic succession.

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-we-have-a-ministerial-priesthood

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/apostolic-succession

Hi steve,

Yes a presbyter class, and an apostolic class and a prophetic class. So yes to your reply because the english term of priests is apparently derived from presbyter, and not from the greek hiereus. The apostles ordained presbyters/bishops ( the two terms interchangeable to apostles).

There is not “go between” class , as the Levites were for the Old testament. Such a priestly class only exists if there is no full propitiation for sins, and no way to be fully indwelt with the Godhead. Those OT barriers have been wrent in two and their associated priesthood dissolved

Blessings

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur.

Hypothetical: A man gets his Bachelor of Science in accounting, then gets his CPA (Certified Public Accountant).

Then this same man goes on and gets his Ph.D. in Economics and teaches economics at a University.

He is still “an accountant”.

Now he is an “economist” too.

The fact that he now has a greater share of University education, does NOT mean him being “an accountant” vanishes.

Nor is the fact that he is an accountant AND an economist, mean ALL accountants are necessarily “economists”.

Nor would it mean that “accountants” and “economists” are “interchangable” in terminology and/or in function. Even if there is some overlap of training.

You and I would agree with that.

benhur. You said the terms “presbyters” and “bishops” are “interchangable”.

The apostles ordained presbyters/bishops ( the two terms interchangeable to apostles).

Please offer some evidence that these two Apostolic offices presbyter and bishop, are . . . “interchangable”.

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

Yes a presbyter class, and an apostolic class and a prophetic class.

Hi benhur,

In looking at the following offices, in scripture

• apostles
• Priest / presbuteros / elder catholic.com/encyclopedia/priest
• *Bishop / episkopos * catholic.com/encyclopedia/bishop
• *Deacon / *diakonos catholic.com/encyclopedia/deacons

I thought I would show how those in apostolic times, those who were ordained by the apostles, taught on this subject?

Bp Ignatius, of Antioch, was ordained by the apostles and was a direct disciple of John the apostle. Ignatius mentions all the offices AND the name of the Church that Jesus established. He wrote this letter ~107 a.d. on his way to be thrown to the lions. He had been bishop for about 40 years at this writing. Keep in mind, there was no NT at this time. The NT writings hadn’t been identified yet, nor assembled or canonized yet. John had just written Revelations 7 yrs earlier.

Ignatius hit all the subjects in this one chapter

Epistle to the Smyrnæans Chapter 8. (emphasis mine)

Let nothing be done without the bishop

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

Ignatius wrote to the Catholic Church in 6 locations

• Epistle to the Ephesians
• Epistle to the Magnesians
• Epistle to the Trallians
• Epistle to the Romans
• Epistle to the Philadelphians
• Epistle to the Smyrnæans

Plus 1 other letter

• Epistle to Polycarp

plus 1 letter written about him

• The Martyrdom of Ignatius

 

[Techno2000]

I was reading some Protestant arguments against the Real Presence in the Eucharist (trying to find a best argument someone would have for rejecting the doctrine). Nearly all of them were pretty easily refutable.

One however I found to be a little confusing, and I’m not quite sure how to answer this. The argument essentially boils down to Christ couldn’t be physically present in the Eurcharist because that would require his physical body to in multiple places at any given moment always.

This is the exact quoted argument…

Any takers?

The carnal flesh mind of man using **Human Reasoning ** can not understand such things as the supernatural phenomenon of the Eucharist, only the spiritual minded man can.

The** mind of the flesh is death,** but the** mind of the Spirit is life** and peace, because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s Law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the flesh cannot please God.

these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 13 And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual.

Those who are** unspiritual** do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are** unable to understand** them because they are discerned spiritually. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.

New Living Translation
The Spirit alone gives eternal life.** Human effort accomplishes nothing**. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Weymouth New Testament
It is the spirit which gives Life. The flesh confers no benefit whatever. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and are Life.

English Standard Version
It is the Spirit who gives life;** the flesh is no help at all**. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Berean Study Bible
The Spirit gives life;** the flesh profits nothing.** The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

New International Version
The Spirit gives life;** the flesh counts for nothing. **The words I have spoken to you–they are full of the Spirit and life.

NET Bible
The Spirit is the one who gives life;** human nature is of no help!** The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

King James 2000 Bible
It is the spirit that gives life**; the flesh profits nothing:** the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Contemporary English Version (CEV)
The Spirit is the one who gives life!** Human strength can do nothing**. The words that I have spoken to you are from that life-giving Spirit.

Expanded Bible (EXB)
It is the Spirit that gives life.** The flesh ·doesn’t give life **[Is useless; counts for nothing]. The words I told you ·are spirit, and they give life [or are from the Spirit who gives life].

GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
Life is spiritual. Your physical existence doesn’t contribute to that life. The words that I have spoken to you are spiritual. They are
life.