SPLIT: A better and more important question to n-Cs

[Church_Militant]

[M]y question has less to do with the riches of the Vatican and more about how the Pope (and Bishops for that matter), are presented. And how far this appears to be from the appearance of the apostles and their contemporaries in the early church.

A better question and more important one as well would be to point out that the teachings and beliefs of the early church have not been preserved by n-C faith communities and how do you account for that?

It is obvious from the New Testament and from the verifiably historic writings of the early church.

In this case I will take issue with their beliefs and teachings of communion/the Lord’s Supper (Better known to us Catholics and the early church as the Eucharist.)

To save space & time I will use the following article from my blog as the basis for my argument.
The Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[VociMike]

Indeed, keeping faithful to what the apostles taught is obviously vastly more important than keeping faithful to what they wore.

 

[Church_Militant]

Indeed, keeping faithful to what the apostles taught

is obviously vastly more important than keeping faithful to what they wore.Yeah, I’d say so. Otherwise we’d all still be wearing sandals and togas right? I don’t know about you but I ain’t givin’ up my jeans and cargo pants and my shoes.

I agree that being faithful to the things Our Lord handed on to the apostles is by far the more important aspect of our faith.

What I cannot understand is how the modern post Reformation step children justify that there is very clear difference between the Eucharistic teachings of the New Testament, (as my article shows) and what they have accepted as the new winds of doctrines of men that only came into existence some 500 years ago so that they can persist in that error.

The documented writings of the earliest of the ECF also affirm that the apostles (in this case St. John in particular!) shared and took very seriously this doctrine and passed it on to the ECF.

Of course I have a theory about that, but that’s actually not very relevant to this discussion.

So…my question remains.

If your faith community does not teach what has come to be known as transubstantiation and that the Lord’s Supper is a Eucharistic celebration in the same way that the New Testament authors and Ignatius of Antioch and many others did, then how can you assert that yours is a faithful New Testament community? As you’ll see, it was a very big deal to St. Paul and the ECF.

 

[VociMike]

It’s amazing the different things people can find in a “plain reading of scripture”. No Real Presence, no necessity of Baptism, no authority to forgive sins, no Pope, no Trinity, no Divinity of Christ. And that’s just the beginning.

I am convinced that the modern situation of Scripture unanchored by Magisterium parallels the Tower of Babel.

But not to deflect your thread, which is about the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and the clear command by Christ that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life.

One point I like to bring up is that, if this memorial meal for our Lord and Savior is really just crackers and juice, is that not the most pathetic memorial meal ever served in the history of mankind? Is that a fitting memorial for God Incarnate? But OTOH, there could not be a more fitting memorial to God Incarnate than his own offering of himself to us. It just makes so much more sense.

 

[JonNC]

=Church Militant;4910367]A better question and more important one as well would be to point out that the teachings and beliefs of the early church have not been preserved by n-C faith communities and how do you account for that?

I think you have a legitimate question here, about many faith communities. As for confessional Lutheranism, I would quote the Augsburg Confession:

Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.

Church Militant

It is obvious from the New Testament and from the verifiably historic writings of the early church.
In this case I will take issue with their beliefs and teachings of communion/the Lord’s Supper (Better known to us Catholics and the early church as the Eucharist

.)
Church Militant

If your faith community does not teach what has come to be known as transubstantiation and that the Lord’s Supper is a Eucharistic celebration in the same way that the New Testament authors and Ignatius of Antioch and many others did, then how can you assert that yours is a faithful New Testament community? As you’ll see, it was a very big deal to St. Paul and the ECF.

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.

This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.

I agree that it is hard to understand the symbolic remembrance approach to the Eucharist.

Jon