The Invention of Catholicism?

[jmcrae]

All very interesting speculation. But before we change the subject, do you understand my original point about the third possibility of not having formed an opinion on a claim or do I need to explain if further for you?

I understand your point. I disagree with it. By 107 AD, the Church had a very comprehensive and very Catholic theology, which we see in the seven letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch (who was being taken away to the lions at the time of his writings - these beliefs that he was articulating in his seven letters were what he was giving up his life for - if he didn’t think they were true - if he didn’t think they were Apostolic - he certainly would not have died for them with the hope of the Resurrection).

They weren’t bumbling around in the dark making stuff up; they were passing on the teachings of Christ.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I understand your point. I disagree with it.

Thank you for clarifying that.

By 107 AD, the Church had a very comprehensive and very Catholic theology, which we see in the seven letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch (who was being taken away to the lions at the time of his writings - these beliefs that he was articulating in his seven letters were what he was giving up his life for - if he didn’t think they were true - if he didn’t think they were Apostolic - he certainly would not have died for them with the hope of the Resurrection).

I don’t disagree with this. I would agree that if Ignatius dropped by a local Church for a visit that he would feel very much at home with the mass, or at least the essential elements of it.

They weren’t bumbling around in the dark making stuff up; they were passing on the teachings of Christ.

Yes, but again you pose a false dichotomy. As Acts makes perfectly clear, there was much debate and confusion in the early church on even the simplest questions (e.g. should they take the Gospel to the gentiles and do gentiles need to convert to Judaism first).

 

[Stephen168]

It is very possible to say they did not have any thought about the real presence. Here is what they required of the gentiles:
Acts 15:28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”

                                  Or

The Apostles were not born on Pentecost Sunday. They had been hearing Christ’s teachings and participating in His Sacraments for at least three years.

Now he’s added a new element to the game: Assume nothing happened before Act.

 

[mercygate]

You realize, of course, that Protestants also claim the Holy Spriti guides them in their interpretation, don’t you?

The Holy Spirit blows where he wills, and often prompts people outside the Church, most particularly in their individual devotion. But for doctrine at the core, the Catholic Church has the history, the continuity, the paper trail-- and not least --. Christ’s promise to send a paraclete “to guide you into all the truth.”

Catholic ecclesiology is physical, requiring communion among the faithful in docility to the Holy Spirit.

 

[fbl9]

I don’t read that there. Granted, Paul was not an English speaker but this passage does not convey a Real Presence-only meaning.

If this is the key passage of this issue then perhaps a closer inspection of the original Greek would be in order.

Clearly Paul means to instruct a reverential attitude toward the ritual but beyond that it is unclear (to me at least) that he is thinking, much less teaching, Real Presence.

You may know how to give a complete citation to bad you don’t read as well…The first epistle of St.Paul to the Corithians11:29"for he who eats and drinks unworthily,without distinguishing the body,eats and drinks JUDGEMENT to himself"…Face the truth a mere symbol CANNOT judge one.A symbol can not affect one’s health,etc…As St.Paul continues he says that one is being judged by the Lord verse 32 of the same…

 

[mercygate]

Thank you for clarifying that.

I don’t disagree with this. I would agree that if Ignatius dropped by a local Church for a visit that he would feel very much at home with the mass, or at least the essential elements of it.

Yes, but again you pose a false dichotomy. As Acts makes perfectly clear, there was much debate and confusion in the early church on even the simplest questions (e.g. should they take the Gospel to the gentiles and do gentiles need to convert to Judaism first).

That’s how the Church has grown in her understanding of the faith. Challenges force the Church to wrestle with issues and come to a conclusion. That’s why the Apostles would not have been able to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity clearly – they hadn’t faced the challenge. Again: we call it the Holy Spirit. That’s even the words of Acts: “It seemeth good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . .”

 

[mercygate]

This is not as cut and dried as some might think, regardless of one’s view on the Real Presence. There was no chalice nor paten there when Jesus spoke those words, so Jesus could not have meant that when speaking to these people. They couldn’t say “Oh, he means the plate and cup next to Him” as the could during the Last Supper.

The only Body of Christ the people could see was the one that was standing, sweating breathing and speaking in front of them. Since no one, not even the disciples that stayed with Him grabbed an arm or leg, they knew He meant something else on that day besides literally eating His flesh.

So it’s not as clear as it might seem when you read back into the narrative.

Of course it was not clear! Even when asked, “Will you also leave?” Peter’s response was not: “Of COURSE not, Lord! We know what you mean! We get it!” All he can muster is: “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” In other words: "We have no idea what you’re talking about but we’re sticking with you because we KNOW you and we LOVE you.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, Shekhinah, or holiness, is an ancient concept with many meanings. If a priest blesses a rosary, or a meal for that matter, then it becomes holy. Relics are holy, etc.

If the doctrine of Real Presence meant nothing more than a priestly blessing I don’t think it would be a point of controversy between Protestants and Catholics.

If the Eucharist were nothing more than a blessing, we wouldn’t need the Messiah, would we?

 

[mercygate]

The body and the blood are united under each of the species. This reunification happens at the end of the Agnus Dei, when the priest drops a piece of the wafer into the chalice. If you receive the wafer only, you are receiving both Christ’s blood and Christ’s flesh, alive - Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

Uh-huh. Moreover, unless the priest partakes of the Holy Blood, the Mass is invalid. It must be taken. The practice of receiving in only one kind was a reaction to the Utraquist heresy around 1400 that said unless people received in both kinds, they were not partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, but again you pose a false dichotomy. As Acts makes perfectly clear, there was much debate and confusion in the early church on even the simplest questions (e.g. should they take the Gospel to the gentiles and do gentiles need to convert to Judaism first).

Yes, and they found the answer in the Oral Tradtion (not in the Scriptures, notice, since there was nothing in any of the Scriptures they had at that time to allow Gentiles to participate in anything) - Jesus said, “First to the Jews, then to the Gentiles.” So the Apostles said (in essence), “Okay, then. Now is the time for the Gentiles.”

Yes, there were arguments, but the arguments were not resolved by inventing new doctrines, nor by taking a “sola Scriptura” approach; they were resolved by going back to the Holy Tradition - the teachings and doings of Christ - for guidance.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You may know how to give a complete citation to bad you don’t read as well…The first epistle of St.Paul to the Corithians11:29"for he who eats and drinks unworthily,without distinguishing the body,eats and drinks JUDGEMENT to himself"…Face the truth a mere symbol CANNOT judge one.A symbol can not affect one’s health,etc…As St.Paul continues he says that one is being judged by the Lord verse 32 of the same…

Paul is clearly instructing people to act reverentially in breaking bread. The question is whether he is conveying anything more here than that.

The idea that actions have consequences is nothing novel. And connecting actions to consequences is an ancient concept, regardless of intervening causes and effects.

Now if Paul had said “Therefore, whoever eats the body or drinks the blood of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty…” I would agree with your point.

Would you interpet this passage to mean that judgement can be postponed by avoiding comunion?

 

[Non_Serviam]

You may know how to give a complete citation to bad you don’t read as well…The first epistle of St.Paul to the Corithians11:29"for he who eats and drinks unworthily,without distinguishing the body,eats and drinks JUDGEMENT to himself"…Face the truth a mere symbol CANNOT judge one.A symbol can not affect one’s health,etc…As St.Paul continues he says that one is being judged by the Lord verse 32 of the same…

Part of the problem here is that people are getting hung up on the Chapter and verse divisions and forgetting that when Paul wrote this there weren’t any.

Look at chapter 5, usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians5.htm Paul speaks about how immorality in the body of Christ causes judgment and ruins their worship together

chapter 6 usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians6.htm disputes in the body, liberty between strong and weak members of the body

chapter 7 usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians7.htm he gets back to addressing some of the issues related to immorality and sexual impurity on the body

chapter 8 usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians8.htm Paul is back to weaker and stronger parts of the body and issues related to food and appetites

chapter 9 usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians9.htm Paul talks about discipline and self-control for the good of the body, using the physical body as a metaphor

Look at chapter 10 usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians10.htm

Paul talks about eating and drinking and about Christ’s body, the Church.

Look at Chapter 11 usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians11.htm Paul talks about what happens when the body comes together to worship, and some are not conscious of the awesome responsibility they have as part of the body of Christ, that by not taking it seriously they are in danger of judgment

note We see this in Act with Ananias and Saphira

Chapter 12 usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians12.htm Paul having addressed abuses in the body of the church, begins to teach them the correct uses of spiritual gifts in the body to edify God and enhance worship.

Chapter 13 usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians13.htm Paul puts the gifts in their relative context to love

Chapter 14 usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians14.htm Paul continues teaching on spiritual gifts and how they can be part of an orderly church gathering-a gathering of the body of Christ.

What Paul is saying in I Cor 11 is that it is failing to discern that we are part of the body of Christ that can lead to judgment-improper behaviour during the Eucharist is just one of the ways it can happen according to this rather long argument that he makes over several chapters.

 

[jmcrae]

Now if Paul had said “Therefore, whoever eats the body or drinks the blood of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty…” I would agree with your point.

That’s what he does say. In my translation, anyway. (It says “answerable for” instead of “guilty of” but it’s the same meaning.)

Would you interpet this passage to mean that judgement can be postponed by avoiding comunion?

If you are not in the state of grace, you would avoid the judgement by absaining from Holy Communion, going to Confession at the next available opportunity, and then after that, receiving Holy Communion in a state of grace.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That’s how the Church has grown in her understanding of the faith. Challenges force the Church to wrestle with issues and come to a conclusion. That’s why the Apostles would not have been able to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity clearly – they hadn’t faced the challenge. Again: we call it the Holy Spirit. That’s even the words of Acts: “It seemeth good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . .”

Of course it was not clear! Even when asked, “Will you also leave?” Peter’s response was not: “Of COURSE not, Lord! We know what you mean! We get it!” All he can muster is: “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” In other words: "We have no idea what you’re talking about but we’re sticking with you because we KNOW you and we LOVE you.

Although we probably disagree on many things, at least you understand what I’m getting at here.

The reason I don’t draw the line that sola scripturists do is because when I read the NT I see nothing but confusion among the Apostles from begining to end. Clearly they witnessed something they didn’t understand and the NT vividly describes there efforts to make sense of it and to apply it to their situation.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Of course it was not clear! Even when asked, “Will you also leave?” Peter’s response was not: “Of COURSE not, Lord! We know what you mean! We get it!” All he can muster is: “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” In other words: "We have no idea what you’re talking about but we’re sticking with you because we KNOW you and we LOVE you.

Agreed-it just irks me at times when some Catholics want this chapter to appear clear cut and cast aspersions on those that turned away. It would be interesting if the ones that find it “clear” could go back in time and be standing there and hearing those words what their response would be, given that the concept was repugnant to Jews of that era.

(It would be an equivalent shock to Catholics as hearing during a Papal audience the Pope make a statement that the church must now have women priests in it. I’m sure there would be a lot of murmuring and confusion in that situation as well)

Like Abraham, who didn’t know what was going to happen, but took Isaac up the mountain, those who stayed exercised a faith in someone that they accepted a command that appeared to contradict the previously revealed will of God.

The Real Presence is a correct teaching, in my opinion, but John 6 needs to be seen more in the light of a prophetic statement by Jesus rather than a literal one at the time He was speaking it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That’s what he does say. In my translation, anyway. (It says “answerable for” instead of “guilty of” but it’s the same meaning.)

Well, then this definitely calls for an investigation of the original Greek and translator’s notes.

If you are not in the state of grace, you would avoid the judgement by absaining from Holy Communion, going to Confession at the next available opportunity, and then after that, receiving Holy Communion in a state of grace.

That would certainly be a reasonble interpretation, though Paul doesn’t require this. But this need not imply Real Presence.

 

[fbl9]

Paul is clearly instructing people to act reverentially in breaking bread. The question is whether he is conveying anything more here than that.

The idea that actions have consequences is nothing novel. And connecting actions to consequences is an ancient concept, regardless of intervening causes and effects.

Now if Paul had said “Therefore, whoever eats the body or drinks the blood of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty…” I would agree with your point.

Would you interpet this passage to mean that judgement can be postponed by avoiding comunion?

St.Paul’s first epistle to the Corithians 11:27"Therefore whoever eats THIS bread(note he is refering to a specific bread not just any bread) or drinks the cup of the Lord(note St.Paul by this is coupling THIS bread with the cup of the Lord)will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord"…
What makes one unworthy before God?
SIN does…
What makes one guilty before God?
Sin does…
How can one profane that which is merely symbolic?
If one so desired to be seperated from God,one could do as you are saying (not recieving communion),but why would one do this?
Because they are saying the old wine is better.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Now if Paul had said “Therefore, whoever eats the body or drinks the blood of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty…” I would agree with your point.

That’s what he does say. In my translation, anyway. (It says “answerable for” instead of “guilty of” but it’s the same meaning.)

What translation are you using?

I flipped through several translations at Bible Gateway and they all say “bread” and “cup”.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2011:27&version=31

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

How can one profane that which is merely symbolic?

That’s easy enough. If I get a statue of Mary blessed and then I urinate on it then I am profaning a (blessed) symbol.

 

[Non_Serviam]

What translation are you using?

I flipped through several translations at Bible Gateway and they all say “bread” and “cup”.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2011:27&version=31

Here’s the NAB-“bread” and “cup” are used, which is in line with the Greek “artos” and “poterion”

22
Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and make those who have nothing feel ashamed? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this matter I do not praise you.
23
11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
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.
28
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself