I
Immaculata
Guest
Thank you, thank you, Dr. Colossus, Grolsch, Kurt G,+veritas+, jmm08. My heart is full from all you gathered for so rich a feast.
The Very Early Eucharist---Jesus not present in the Bread and Wine?
- Status
E
exrc
Guest
That would be a very wise choice indeed!
Your friend exrc!
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
I hope you are just kidding.God Bless
P
puzzleannie
Guest
Church Militant:
quite true, also what we have extant of the Didache is a fragment, so we don’t know the content of the whole thing
C
clmowry
Guest
Yes, I’m kidding. I’m not sure how to make a post drip with sarcasm.I hope you are just kidding.God Bless
Perhaps there should be a syrupy smilie?
T
TNT
Guest
I believe this site has a short synopsis of the Church Fathers:
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
Sungenis’ Book Not by Bread Alone covers all the above objections of EXRC
I do not think that an exrc is going to convince any knowledgeable Catholic with excerpts. But, go ahead and try.
A primary source of conversion is the Real Presence, and always will be.
J. N. D. Kelly is every bit the scholar that Schaff is:
Kelly (a protestant) writes:
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
Sungenis’ Book Not by Bread Alone covers all the above objections of EXRC
I do not think that an exrc is going to convince any knowledgeable Catholic with excerpts. But, go ahead and try.
A primary source of conversion is the Real Presence, and always will be.
J. N. D. Kelly is every bit the scholar that Schaff is:
Kelly (a protestant) writes:
God Bless
T
TNT
Guest
XRC # 19:
“Do your own thing, believe what tickles your fancy… Free to make your own rules…”
He refuses to retain authority over all those churches.
I forget what verses those are, but they’re there somewhere.
I do remember one that a “church of Christ” member taught me:
When did Paul tell anyone to stop saluting the Roman Church?
ps. Who is it that gave you authority to teach infallibly. Unless it is infallible, it’s just a “likely” (as you say) opinion among millions.
God did not give the sheep authority to instruct the Shepherd. I believe it was just the opposite.
This is obvious from the fact that Paul writes to churches all over the mediterranean, his main admonition is:
“Do your own thing, believe what tickles your fancy… Free to make your own rules…”
He refuses to retain authority over all those churches.
I forget what verses those are, but they’re there somewhere.
I do remember one that a “church of Christ” member taught me:
What does Salute mean?
When did Paul tell anyone to stop saluting the Roman Church?
ps. Who is it that gave you authority to teach infallibly. Unless it is infallible, it’s just a “likely” (as you say) opinion among millions.
God did not give the sheep authority to instruct the Shepherd. I believe it was just the opposite.
M
mayra_hart
Guest
. If Luther believed in the Real Presence, then how did he explain it?
Luther always maintained the literal interpretation of the words: “This is My Body; This is My Blood.” In fact he said he was tempted to deny the Real Presence in order “to give a great smack in the face of Popery,” but the teaching of the Bible and all antiquity were too strong in its favor. He explained how Christ was present by using the word “consubstantiation” instead of transubstantiation. He held that the two substances of bread and of the Body were present at one and the same time. Since he admitted no changing of one substance into another then the logical explanation for his theory is the use of the sentence “Here is My Body or This contains My Body” instead of “This is My Body.” Luther’s explanation would place the Body of Christ “with,” “upon … alongside,” or “in” the substance of bread or wine. If Protestants believe in the Real Presence there is no other way of explaining the literal meaning of the four words, “This is My Body” than by Transubstantiation.
Christ did not say, “My Body is in or with this bread.” He said, “This is My Body.” Now it is certainly not His body according to appearances. It must, then, be His body ac-cording to substance, or in other words, God changes the substance without altering the appearances of bread.
The Council of Lateran in 1215 condemned the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, that the substance of bread and the Body of Christ exist together; the Zwinglian idea of a memorial supper; and the Calvinistic doctrine of a virtual or dynamic presence, whereby the efficacy of Christ’s Body and Blood is communicated from Heaven to those who are predestined to be saved.
Luther always maintained the literal interpretation of the words: “This is My Body; This is My Blood.” In fact he said he was tempted to deny the Real Presence in order “to give a great smack in the face of Popery,” but the teaching of the Bible and all antiquity were too strong in its favor. He explained how Christ was present by using the word “consubstantiation” instead of transubstantiation. He held that the two substances of bread and of the Body were present at one and the same time. Since he admitted no changing of one substance into another then the logical explanation for his theory is the use of the sentence “Here is My Body or This contains My Body” instead of “This is My Body.” Luther’s explanation would place the Body of Christ “with,” “upon … alongside,” or “in” the substance of bread or wine. If Protestants believe in the Real Presence there is no other way of explaining the literal meaning of the four words, “This is My Body” than by Transubstantiation.
Christ did not say, “My Body is in or with this bread.” He said, “This is My Body.” Now it is certainly not His body according to appearances. It must, then, be His body ac-cording to substance, or in other words, God changes the substance without altering the appearances of bread.
The Council of Lateran in 1215 condemned the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, that the substance of bread and the Body of Christ exist together; the Zwinglian idea of a memorial supper; and the Calvinistic doctrine of a virtual or dynamic presence, whereby the efficacy of Christ’s Body and Blood is communicated from Heaven to those who are predestined to be saved.
T
TNT
Guest
EXRC et al
MALACHIAS, whose name signifies The Angel of the Lord
1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.
When did His name become Great among the Gentiles?
King James:
For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations," Says the LORD of hosts.
How pure is a merely human offering?
Where is your incense offering? You are a gentile, I assume.
MALACHIAS, whose name signifies The Angel of the Lord
1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.
When did His name become Great among the Gentiles?
King James:
For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations," Says the LORD of hosts.
How pure is a merely human offering?
Where is your incense offering? You are a gentile, I assume.
G
Grolsch
Guest
The Church fathers overwhelmingly support the Catholic views that to suggest otherwise is almost laughable. I could already see the holes in exrc’s shotgun cut and paste job. (Very dubious tactic btw, bombarding people with a huge mass of info in the hope that something will stick)
Firstly, lets deal with his Irenaeus quote and fill in what was left out:
Just so there can be no more doubt on Irenaeus’ position, here is another quote:
Firstly, lets deal with his Irenaeus quote and fill in what was left out:
Oh my. I wonder what that could mean.
Just so there can be no more doubt on Irenaeus’ position, here is another quote:
Clement of Alexandria is more tricky for the layman because of his use of neo-platonic philosophical rhetoric which was the fashion in Alexandria at the time. But nonetheless his position was also clear:
D
Deacon2006
Guest
Hope this helps!
A major problem with your logic is that you must ignore that the apostles did in fact engage in Eucharist celebrations and they wrote about it decades later in the scripture with an eye to praxis and an eye to meaning. It is completely untenable to claim that Jesus intended to do something different from what every Christian community did from the day of his death until Luther. It is a hard teaching and I understand that you have turned your back and walked away but I hope you will stop laboring under the yoke of the sin of your protestant fathers, pray 40 days in the desert about the true meaning of the Eucharist and I will greet you as a Catholic at mass.
God Bless
I’ll pray for your conversion.
M
Maccabees
Guest
Oh gee what a nice copy and paste job from your anti-catholic sources. Look we have all gone around in circles on this one before your accusations are a classic way of misinterpeting the fathers and councils much like how you misinterpet the Bible.
Read these articles by Dave Armstrong they answer the usual charges we get but I am too tired to type.
Anyway there is nothing new under the sun.
bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
bringyou.to/apologetics/num34.htm
When you look at the topic in its entirely and not through the spin doctors of White, Webster, Geisler etc.
The catholic postion has a mountain of evidence on its side the protestant side is a temporary zit that needs a little clearisil catholic truth to clear it up. Then history tells us the truth the catholic belief in the eucharist is constant and true.
Much like the trickey the Jehovah’s witness try to do with the church fathers when they take the fathers out of context on the trinity and the councils out of context in order to create a false presumption that the trinity was not unified among the fathers and it was a doctrine of contradictions the bigger pitcture tells us differntly in the same way protestants deny the catholic church on the eucharist and bpatism which was unified in teaching without contradiction for 2000 years. of course they don’t want to talk about the dozens of interpretations of their own sacraments within protestantism.
JW’s and protestants use the same misleading tactics and are wrong on the historical evidence but they try it anyway.
There really isn’t anything under the sun.
Read these articles by Dave Armstrong they answer the usual charges we get but I am too tired to type.
Anyway there is nothing new under the sun.
bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
bringyou.to/apologetics/num34.htm
When you look at the topic in its entirely and not through the spin doctors of White, Webster, Geisler etc.
The catholic postion has a mountain of evidence on its side the protestant side is a temporary zit that needs a little clearisil catholic truth to clear it up. Then history tells us the truth the catholic belief in the eucharist is constant and true.
Much like the trickey the Jehovah’s witness try to do with the church fathers when they take the fathers out of context on the trinity and the councils out of context in order to create a false presumption that the trinity was not unified among the fathers and it was a doctrine of contradictions the bigger pitcture tells us differntly in the same way protestants deny the catholic church on the eucharist and bpatism which was unified in teaching without contradiction for 2000 years. of course they don’t want to talk about the dozens of interpretations of their own sacraments within protestantism.
JW’s and protestants use the same misleading tactics and are wrong on the historical evidence but they try it anyway.
There really isn’t anything under the sun.
K
Kurt_G
Guest
When “exrc” lays so much information down to discuss (or counter) it’s hard to know where to start. For brevity let’s mention only one of “exrc’s” quotes:
exrc:
How “exrc” might wish Jesus had answered:
John 6:51 “…if any man eat this bread, he shall live forever, and the bread that I will give is my example, my teachings, my Word, for the life of the world.”
What Jesus really said:
John 6:51 “…if any man eat this bread, he shall live forever, and the bread that I will give is my FLESH, for the life of the world.”
Isn’t it amazing that,rather than leave us wondering what he meant by “Bread”, Jesus actually defines what He means by “bread” in John 6:51? Yes, it’s preposterous to hear such words.
I guess that’s why many of His followers left him in verse 66. They didn’t leave him because they misunderstood him, they left him because they understood Him, but just couldn’t accept, on raw faith, what Jesus really said, because it was too “hard”.
GOD BLESS US ALL!
Well, “exrc”, if your bible really stops in John 6 with verse 35, you should ask for your money back. Actually Jesus tells us exactly what he is referring to a little later on in that chapter:
How “exrc” might wish Jesus had answered:
John 6:51 “…if any man eat this bread, he shall live forever, and the bread that I will give is my example, my teachings, my Word, for the life of the world.”
What Jesus really said:
John 6:51 “…if any man eat this bread, he shall live forever, and the bread that I will give is my FLESH, for the life of the world.”
Isn’t it amazing that,rather than leave us wondering what he meant by “Bread”, Jesus actually defines what He means by “bread” in John 6:51? Yes, it’s preposterous to hear such words.
I guess that’s why many of His followers left him in verse 66. They didn’t leave him because they misunderstood him, they left him because they understood Him, but just couldn’t accept, on raw faith, what Jesus really said, because it was too “hard”.
GOD BLESS US ALL!
H
hlgomez
Guest
EXRC,
DId the Clement you quoted change the very words of our Lord? It’s true indeed that the Lord drank the “wine,” but the substance was at first “wine.” Now, that substance of the wine was change by our Lord with His very words into His most precious Blood, “This is my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins.” Was it the wine that was shed?
Again for you hearing, did the Lord said, “this is my “wine”, the “wine” of the new and everlasting covenant.” What an utter blasphemy! I pray that you don’t change the very meaning of our Lord’s words. For if you change the meaning, you just bluntly say that it was a lie that the Lord spoke. God have mercy on your soul.
Peace and blessing,
Pio
DId the Clement you quoted change the very words of our Lord? It’s true indeed that the Lord drank the “wine,” but the substance was at first “wine.” Now, that substance of the wine was change by our Lord with His very words into His most precious Blood, “This is my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins.” Was it the wine that was shed?
Again for you hearing, did the Lord said, “this is my “wine”, the “wine” of the new and everlasting covenant.” What an utter blasphemy! I pray that you don’t change the very meaning of our Lord’s words. For if you change the meaning, you just bluntly say that it was a lie that the Lord spoke. God have mercy on your soul.
Peace and blessing,
Pio
T
TNT
Guest
You may not have meant it, but you did just what you said EXRC should not do.
M
mayra_hart
Guest
In recent times there has been a move among certain Protestant groups to argue that Christ did not us a form of fermented wine at the last supper, rather they claim he used a form of nonalcoholic “Grape Juice”. The scholars tell us that no unfermented wine is now know in Palestine, and there is no evidence of its use at any time:
“No unfermented wine is now know in Palestine, and there is no evidence of its use at any time.”----(“Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary”, Edited by F. N. Peloubet, D.D., Copyright 1969, Page.738)
Even on the vine, the juice within the grapes is becoming wine because of the yeast and microbial activity at work in the grapes. This activity continues during and after the pressing of the grapes and extraction of the juice. Consequently, pure (i.e., non-alcoholic) grape juice was an impossibility until 1869, when Mister Welch succeeded in applying the process of pasteurization to freshly squeezed must. The “fruit of the vine” used by Christ at the Passover Feast could not have been grape juice, because of time considerations. The Palestine grape harvest begins in the Jewish month of Elul (August-September). The harvest is over before Tishri 15-21 (September-October), the Festival of Booths - Deuteronomy 16:13. Because the last supper was on Passover, at Nisan 14 (April), seven months had elapsed since the harvest of the vine.
M
mayra_hart
Guest
Second, we know from the historic documents of the time that it was wine used at the Lord’s Supper, many of the Early Christians also attest to the fact that Christ used wine at the last supper. The Early Church farther Tertullian Gives a wonderful explanation as to why our lord used wine at the last supper:
“He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, ‘He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes’–in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.” [Against Marcion,40(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:418-419] this interesting article is from www.cathoinsight.com i truly enjoy reading this, i hope you all do too
“He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, ‘He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes’–in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.” [Against Marcion,40(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:418-419] this interesting article is from www.cathoinsight.com i truly enjoy reading this, i hope you all do too
M
MBS1
Guest
Per EXRC:
“There are a lot of problems with the Catholic view of John 6, however, such as the fact that Jesus speaks in the present tense about how He is the bread of life and how people are responsible for eating and drinking Him.”
There are a lot of problems with EXRC’s view of John 6, however, such as the fact that Jesus speaks in the future tense about how He *will * give us this bread:
John 6:51 "
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." Last I checked, Jesus didn’t give us words and teachings for the life of this world, He gave his flesh on the cross. He says His flesh is the same as this bread which He shall give. He says you must eat this living bread which he shall give for the life of this world. I am always amazed that despite these clear words in scripture, Protestants insist Jesus’ flesh in John 6 is somehow his teachings and not real flesh. One even told me “It means we must munch on Jesus’ words.” I’d laugh if it weren’t so sad to think of these poor Christians missing out on His gift to us.
MBS1
“There are a lot of problems with the Catholic view of John 6, however, such as the fact that Jesus speaks in the present tense about how He is the bread of life and how people are responsible for eating and drinking Him.”
There are a lot of problems with EXRC’s view of John 6, however, such as the fact that Jesus speaks in the future tense about how He *will * give us this bread:
John 6:51 "
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." Last I checked, Jesus didn’t give us words and teachings for the life of this world, He gave his flesh on the cross. He says His flesh is the same as this bread which He shall give. He says you must eat this living bread which he shall give for the life of this world. I am always amazed that despite these clear words in scripture, Protestants insist Jesus’ flesh in John 6 is somehow his teachings and not real flesh. One even told me “It means we must munch on Jesus’ words.” I’d laugh if it weren’t so sad to think of these poor Christians missing out on His gift to us.
MBS1
F
Fiat
Guest
Dear MBS1:
Thank you for the excellent post!!!
I would also point out that Exrc thinks that the Bible contradicts the Truth of Transubstantiation when he notes that Jesus in Matt 26:29 refers to the consecrated wine as “fruit of the vine.” Somehow, Exrc concludes that this proves that Jesus did not think the wine had been transubstantiated into His own blood. The problem with Exrc’s understanding is that even though the reality of the Blood exists, this does not foreclose the opportunity of speaking metaphorically about the reality. I can refer to the consecrated bread as “The Bread of Life,” without denying the essential reality of the bread being the Body of Christ. In other words, just because I describe something metaphorically in no way means that the reality of that something ceases to exist.
This isn’t a very good example, but I think it will suffice: I drive a car to work. I could metaphorically refer to my car as the “carriage that takes me to the office.” Just because I have refered to my car as the carriage in no way means that I believe my car is no longer a car but is a carriage instead. Likewise, Jesus has consecrated the wine into His Blood. I don’t think there are any hard and fast rules that now prevent Him from referring to His blood as “fruit of the vine,” particularly when He has already metaphorically established Himself as the Vine, of which we are the branches. Our Lord’s metaphorical description of the Precious Blood does not negate the Precious Blood.
Likewise, Exrc improperly reads 1 Cor. 11:26 to say that the Eucharist is only to be practiced until Christ returns, but the passage Exrc cites says no such thing. The passage states simply that our participation in the Eucharist “proclaims the death of the Lord until he comes.”
In Jesus and Mary
Fiat
Thank you for the excellent post!!!
I would also point out that Exrc thinks that the Bible contradicts the Truth of Transubstantiation when he notes that Jesus in Matt 26:29 refers to the consecrated wine as “fruit of the vine.” Somehow, Exrc concludes that this proves that Jesus did not think the wine had been transubstantiated into His own blood. The problem with Exrc’s understanding is that even though the reality of the Blood exists, this does not foreclose the opportunity of speaking metaphorically about the reality. I can refer to the consecrated bread as “The Bread of Life,” without denying the essential reality of the bread being the Body of Christ. In other words, just because I describe something metaphorically in no way means that the reality of that something ceases to exist.
This isn’t a very good example, but I think it will suffice: I drive a car to work. I could metaphorically refer to my car as the “carriage that takes me to the office.” Just because I have refered to my car as the carriage in no way means that I believe my car is no longer a car but is a carriage instead. Likewise, Jesus has consecrated the wine into His Blood. I don’t think there are any hard and fast rules that now prevent Him from referring to His blood as “fruit of the vine,” particularly when He has already metaphorically established Himself as the Vine, of which we are the branches. Our Lord’s metaphorical description of the Precious Blood does not negate the Precious Blood.
Likewise, Exrc improperly reads 1 Cor. 11:26 to say that the Eucharist is only to be practiced until Christ returns, but the passage Exrc cites says no such thing. The passage states simply that our participation in the Eucharist “proclaims the death of the Lord until he comes.”
In Jesus and Mary
Fiat
F
Fiat
Guest
(continued)
I would also point out to Exrc that during the first century of Christianity, Christians were accused of being cannibals. My guess is that the accusation came about as a result of the early Christians talking about drinking the Blood and eating the Flesh. Why else would the pagans have made that specific accusation?
In Faith,
Fiat
I would also point out to Exrc that during the first century of Christianity, Christians were accused of being cannibals. My guess is that the accusation came about as a result of the early Christians talking about drinking the Blood and eating the Flesh. Why else would the pagans have made that specific accusation?
In Faith,
Fiat
- Status