The Universal Church

[steve-b]

My problem is with @Nicene who claims Jesus is not a spirit. Or are you building a case that agrees with him?

I’m, not following Nicene’s points

Jesus is both. Spirit and body.

For a short read

Again taking this in steps

The incarnation = 262 , 464 , 470 , 483

 

[Wannano]

Unless I am missing something I agree with all presented. Thanks.

 

[lanman87]

Other than that sentence it was more, to be honest, Gnostic vague-ary.

How so, Protestants/Evangelicals believe in the virgin birth of Christ, that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, and that Jesus was physically resurrected after the crucifixion. Non of which is even remotely gnostic teachings.

 

[lanman87]

It actually holds no regard if you disagree or not, The fact is the only ones who didn’t believe were the Gnostics to which Ignatius writes:

“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.”

The reason the gnostics didn’t believe that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ is because gnostic teaching was that Christ was not human (because all matter is evil) and only appeared as human. Ignatius is going after the belief that Christ had no flesh, he was not teaching transubstantiation.

Evangelicals believe that Christ was/is fully God and fully man and will say that the bread is the body of Christ and the wine is the blood of Christ. Even Baptist will say, “take eat, for this is my Body, do this in remembrance of me” when taking the Lord’s Supper.

 

[steve-b]

Nicene:

It actually holds no regard if you disagree or not, The fact is the only ones who didn’t believe were the Gnostics to which Ignatius writes:

“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.”

The reason the gnostics didn’t believe that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ is because gnostic teaching was that Christ was not human (because all matter is evil) and only appeared as human. Ignatius is going after the belief that Christ had no flesh, he was not teaching transubstantiation.

Evangelicals believe that Christ was/is fully God and fully man and will say that the bread is the body of Christ and the wine is the blood of Christ. Even Baptist will say, “take eat, for this is my Body, do this in remembrance of me” when taking the Lord’s Supper.

Re: Ignatius, his writings show

While the term transubstantiation didn’t exist yet, the belief of elements bread and wine changing into Christs body and blood, after consecration, IS the belief.

 

[mcq72]

While the term transubstantiation didn’t exist yet, the belief of elements bread and wine changing into Christs body and blood, after consecration, IS the belief.

Not sure Ignatius shows anything beyond what scripture says with “this is (my body)” with “Eucharist is” (the Lord’s flesh), that is he does not explain change explicitly as not symbolic, nor as not literal. His letters are riddled and explained with figurative and metaphorical speech (twenty times?)…Iganatuis certainly is not a slam dunk for real presence that you find centuries later explicitly described , or transubstantiation a millennia later

 

[lanman87]

Not sure Ignatius shows anything beyond what scripture says with “this is (my body)” with “Eucharist is” (the Lord’s flesh), that is he does not explain change explicitly as not symbolic, nor as not literal. His letters are riddled and explained with figurative and metaphorical speech (twenty times?)…Iganatuis certainly is not a slam dunk for real presence that you find centuries later explicitly described , or transubstantiation a millennia later

I agree, I’ve been in plenty of “Protestant” services where the Pastor calls the bread the body of Christ. Even in Baptist churches that hold a strictly memorial view call the bread the body of Christ. Just saying the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ doesn’t necessarily mean transubstantiation. It is common language regardless of the specific view of how the bread is the body of Christ.

In order to support transubstantiation any ECF would have to say three specific things:

1. Only the priest can consecrate the bread and wine
2. When the priest consecrates the bread and wine it turns into the literal (not figurative or symbolic) body and blood of Christ.
3. The bread and wine ceases to be bread and wine as it is 100% the body/blood of Christ.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

While the term transubstantiation didn’t exist yet, the belief of elements bread and wine changing into Christs body and blood, after consecration, IS the belief.

Not sure Ignatius shows anything beyond what scripture says with “this is (my body)” with “Eucharist is” (the Lord’s flesh), that is he does not explain change explicitly as not symbolic, nor as not literal. His letters are riddled and explained with figurative and metaphorical speech (twenty times?)…Iganatuis certainly is not a slam dunk for real presence that you find centuries later explicitly described , or transubstantiation a millennia later

Read it more carefully

Epistle to the Smyrnæans look at ch 7 & ch 8

ch 7…They abstain from the [Eucharist] and from [prayer] because they confess not the [Eucharist] to be the flesh of our Saviour , which suffered for our [sins], and which the [Father], of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of [God], incur death in the midst of their disputes. … It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such [persons], and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the [prophets] and above all, to the [Gospel], in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully [proved]. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of [evils]

ch 8. 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].

i’ll just say,

Ignatius was ordained a Catholic Bishop by the apostles in ~ 68 a.d AND he was a direct disciple ofJohn. From the time Ignatius was ordained till John’s death in ~100 a.d., that means Ignatius and John were contemporaries for ~30 yrs.

AND

Keep in mind, while Ignatius is writing against the Gnostic heretics here of his day, he’s writing against ALL those in heresy into the future.

I’ll go with the Catholic Church who is there and is still here, for my instruction.

 

[mcq72]

Keep in mind, while Ignatius is writing against the Gnostic heretics here of his day, he’s writing against ALL those in heresy into the future.

Correct, just as today you and I are both against Gnosticism.

It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such [persons] ,

like the “Separatists” ?

Who should be aloof from whom ?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Keep in mind, while Ignatius is writing against the Gnostic heretics here of his day, he’s writing against ALL those in heresy into the future.

Correct, just as today you and I are both against Gnosticism.

I was trying to be deliberately vague in my final point, when I said,

he’s writing against ALL those in heresy into the future

Maybe you didn’t see that last point

So I guess I need to be more specific

Great heresies in hstory not designed to cover EVERY heresy. Just the big ones.

Yes, Gnosticism is there, 1st and 2nd century.

but

scrolling down to the 16th century, look who else is there as well.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such [persons] ,

like the “Separatists” ?

Who should be aloof from whom ?

Ignatius makes simple and clear points in those 2 chapters ( 7 & 8).

1. He is a Catholic Bishop
2. Ergo He is “IN” the Catholic Church
3. everything valid must go through the bishop
4. Ignatius is writing to the Catholic Church in Smyrna.

For a finer point,

Ignatius is identifying, and warning in this letter, against separatists heretics.

THAT’s who Ignatius is speaking about AND he’s writing this to the Catholic Church, At Smyrna, to remain aloof from those heretics he describes

 

[gohjedrek]

I agree, I’ve been in plenty of “Protestant” services where the Pastor calls the bread the body of Christ. Even in Baptist churches that hold a strictly memorial view call the bread the body of Christ. Just saying the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ doesn’t necessarily mean transubstantiation. It is common language regardless of the specific view of how the bread is the body of Christ.

In order to support transubstantiation any ECF would have to say three specific things:

1. Only the priest can consecrate the bread and wine
2. When the priest consecrates the bread and wine it turns into the literal (not figurative or symbolic) body and blood of Christ.
3. The bread and wine ceases to be bread and wine as it is 100% the body/blood of Christ.

Baptist definitely have a symbolic view of the eucharist, I went to a baptist church for a year and though they had a memorial view, they had closed communion only to members of the church.

Yes, for transubstantiation, 1/2 are the big differentiating factors. Most evangelical churches don’t have 1, high churches generally have consecration for their Eucharistic service. The closest protestant eucharistic service that came close to the belief of transubstantiation I been was in a high-church/broad-church anglican. For 2, during the consecration, the bread and wine may be to us to the body and blood of Christ.

However, in the catholic church, during the consecration, the bread and wine may become the body and blood of Christ.

There was a minor difference in the eucharistic liturgy but it was ~85% similar. The anglican church leaves room for belief in transubstantiation or the spiritual presence of Christ in the eucharist.

 

[Nicene]

Nope.

Yep

Nope

Yep

And I am boggled that one could read earliest fathers and see only transubstantiation, and that unanimously.

Nice red herring. Apparently you didn’t read the bolded on transubstantiation: elements into the body and blood of Christ. However with your selectivity of the above you neatly avoided Ignatius’ contention above, contrary to your stated contention. The contention is that it is the Body and Blood of Christ.

Further on the contention that it was taught in the church The bishops at the first council of Nicaea in 325:

Canon 18

It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer.

The topic above is about who can serve who with reference to who can consecrate and that it is the “Body of Christ”. (which also disputes your contention again earlier anyone can consecrate)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

How so, Protestants/Evangelicals believe in the virgin birth of Christ, that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, and that Jesus was physically resurrected after the crucifixion. Non of which is even remotely gnostic teachings.

Are you sure you are reading the correct post? mcq72 said this:

Ok, very well thought out. Yes, how do we eat Jesus? It is not subjective for us as i think you imply.

It is quite objective. We do participate, we do literally spiritually eat, even at the foot of the cross, when we are born of the Spirit, when we first believe, unto life.

So two thousand years later, we are either like the centurion, or like the thief on the cross, where we encounter a living Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, in and with saving faith.

Calvary is objectively realized and we burst forth in thanksgiving, again and again, as we remember as how we came to be betrothed to the Almighty.

So is it your contention that you agree the centurion and the thief spiritually ate the “Body of Christ” and this is what the catholic church fathers taught? I have to ask if you also contend this is true from wannano:

I understood that Catholics see Mary as the Mother of God because Jesus is God, how then can Jesus be God if He is not a spirit for the Bible tells us that God is a spirit?John 4:24 “God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

I’d also like mcq72 to answer this as well.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Honestly I’m quite astounded that neither you nor mcq72 can read what Ignatius wrote.

Point 1. Already shown twice now. once with Ignatius, second at the first council of Nicaea.
Point 2. already have, you didn’t believe, not even sacred scripture
Point 3. Justin Martyr

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

You and mcq72 have both twisted Ignatius when he says:

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.

Do I believe you are going to keep harping on Aquainas transubstantiation? Without a doubt, because
it allows distraction and non answer to the constant teaching of the true Church from the beginning on the Body and Blood of Christ. Do I believe you will attempt to jump on transmutation above? Yep, for the same reason. Diversion.

Peace and Bod Bless
Nicene

 

[lanman87]

Do I believe you are going to keep harping on Aquainas transubstantiation?

Well transubstantiation is the dogmatic belief of the Catholic church. Not “the real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, not that the elements become the body and blood of Christ, but that those elements literally become the body and blood of Christ and cease to be bread and wine as they are 100% the body and blood of Christ. If you are Catholic then that is the standard you must defend.

You and mcq72 have both twisted Ignatius when he says:

No, we addressed the context in which he wrote what he wrote. And that calling the Eucharistic elements the body and blood of Christ is common language among Christians. Even those who hold a Spiritual view, a symbolic view, or even a memorial view call the bread the body(flesh) of Christ and the cup the blood of Christ.

 

[mcq72]

So is it your contention that you agree the centurion and the thief spiritually ate the “Body of Christ”

Is it your contention that they physically, literally ate the Body of Jesus for they certainly were to follow Christ into Paradise then Heaven later, and CC says one must eat so per John 6?

I say eat Him spiritually representative of His body, you say eat Him literally of His body yet it is invisible hidden in accidents of bread. Tis a fine line, but a line indeed, but does not warrant your claim that we deny the body, for you also deny a visible body to eat.

 

[lanman87]

So is it your contention that you agree the centurion and the thief spiritually ate the “Body of Christ” and this is what the catholic church fathers taught?

As I said in an earlier post. Digestive language is often used in the Bible as a metaphor for seeking after and being satisfied with God.

Hebrews 5: 12-14 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

Psalm 119:103 How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

1 Peter 2:2-3 2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

Psalm 34:8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!

Psalm 42:1 As a deer pants for flowing streams, so pants my soul for you, O God.

Matthew 5:6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied."

In all those instances the hunger and thirst come from a spiritual longing for God. And the only way to be satisfied is to “taste” God. So in that sense the centurion and the thief on the cross “tasted” the Lord. That is the same way we “eat the bread of life” and “drink the living waters and never thirst again”. That way is not by taking a piece of physical bread or a jar of physical water, it is by our hearts being changed and being filled with the Spirit and trusting in God alone to meet our need.

37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:37-39

When we spiritually drink in Christ by belief then Spiritual waters flow from our heart by the power of the Holy Spirit who indwells those who have come to Christ in faith/belief/trust.

 

[mcq72]

“they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”, (Ignatius)

Again, the flesh, the body of Jesus was/ is quite visible. This is very objective.

Now what is then subjective perhaps is just how is it that it is His invisible body in bread. We all try to answer this having 3 to 4 understandings to discern from, and no, all but one (trans…) most certainly did not originate with reformers but were present from early church, transubstantiation being the late comer.

Ignatius does not illucidate further, and one could argue he did not, was silent, because figurative was obvious more readily than any obviousness of transubstantiation.

 

[steve-b]

lanman87:

I agree, I’ve been in plenty of “Protestant” services where the Pastor calls the bread the body of Christ. Even in Baptist churches that hold a strictly memorial view call the bread the body of Christ. Just saying the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ doesn’t necessarily mean transubstantiation. It is common language regardless of the specific view of how the bread is the body of Christ.

In order to support transubstantiation any ECF would have to say three specific things:

1. Only the priest can consecrate the bread and wine
2. When the priest consecrates the bread and wine it turns into the literal (not figurative or symbolic) body and blood of Christ.
3. The bread and wine ceases to be bread and wine as it is 100% the body/blood of Christ.

Baptist definitely have a symbolic view of the eucharist, I went to a baptist church for a year and though they had a memorial view, they had closed communion only to members of the church.

Yes, for transubstantiation, 1/2 are the big differentiating factors. Most evangelical churches don’t have 1, high churches generally have consecration for their Eucharistic service. The closest protestant eucharistic service that came close to the belief of transubstantiation I been was in a high-church/broad-church anglican. For 2, during the consecration, the bread and wine may be to us to the body and blood of Christ.

However, in the catholic church, during the consecration, the bread and wine may become the body and blood of Christ.

There was a minor difference in the eucharistic liturgy but it was ~85% similar. The anglican church leaves room for belief in transubstantiation or the spiritual presence of Christ in the eucharist.

Yet…NOTHING happens supernaturally, re: consecration, if there is no valid ordination, in apostolic succession , of the minister, in the first place.

It would be as effective as me, who is not validly ordained, standing there and speaking the same words as a validly ordained priest. NOTHING happens. It doesn’t matter how sincere I say the words. NOTHING happens to the elements because I’m not validly ordained.