Was not 2Corinthians 5:16 Paul's ideal opportunity to teach transubstantiation?

[Nicea325]

Well yes ,that is the whole point : your exaggeration stresses the point :that Somehow and for some other reason, the continuous use of “the cup” ,by Paul,rather than just its contents,must have a greater spiritual significance and therefore benefit to the reader.

Would Catholics accept that in Mark 10:38 ,when Jesus replies to the ‘sons of thunder’,desire for maximum prominence in his coming glory, that we see the cup and its contents ,being used to signify an all encompassing spiritual reality.?That here ,by using the metaphoric “cup” ,he is figuratively pointing to his own pathway and cross :whereby his Father would exult the name of his Son ;and make his name to be “a name which is above every other name”?( Phil 2:9)
Could the names of James and John get to a similar place :

“ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of?”

Of course not ,he must drink of this cup alone and that to the bitter dregs.

Why does Jesus seem to adjust the sternness of this affirmation? ( that they could not)

“Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of ?”
It seems to be contradictory would you agree?For me It can only be the same cup( that they all could share) if ,once emptied of its terrible contents( by the Saviour) : the vessel remained the same but the contents now were:" The cup of blessing" 1Cor10:16

Carry therefore this symbolic use of the cup over to the me memorial of the supper and do we not see the contents ( of the cup) and the vessel which holds those contents,similarly put to use?

How interesting! To bad the whole symbolic belief and position of the Eucharist is a novelty! If the Real Presence were false or a great usurpation from Jesus’ teachings, I am curious to know why no one in the early church expressed it? Hence, if the Eucharist is merely symbolic?

 

[Nicea325]

That’s some impressive cognitive dissonance. You should have told that to the Apostles and their disciples. We have Ignatius of Antioch condemn Gnostics because they refuse to acknowledge the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ. We have Justin the Martyr explain it as ‘transmutation’, which essentially means the same as transformation.

If Paul was talking about those who participate unworthily in the metaphoric cup of Christ’s suffering, then it would be impossible to drink condemnation upon oneself by the simple participation in the one-time event of a symbolic communion. This is not the case, as he speaks of participation in the Eucharist in an unworthy state as BEING the source of the condemnation.

Additionally, they DID end up drinking of the cup of Christ’s blood, and entered into the LITERAL mystery of His Passion, just as Catholics do each time they receive the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist.

It is amazing…isn’t it? St.Paul sure chose some harsh words for mere symbolic Eucharist? But hey, let us not forget that all of Christianity was in the dark until fundamentalist arrived and are setting us straight. :ehh:

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

If Paul was talking about those who participate unworthily in the metaphoric cup of Christ’s suffering, then it would be impossible to drink condemnation upon oneself by the simple participation in the one-time event of a symbolic communion. This is not the case, as he speaks of participation in the Eucharist in an unworthy state as BEING the source of the condemnation.

Additionally, they DID end up drinking of the cup of Christ’s blood, and entered into the LITERAL mystery of His Passion, just as Catholics do each time they receive the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist.

Your first point “PeaceinChrist”, to me ,openly displays and admits of the continuous use of the symbolism used by Paul ( that which he received of the Lord) and as seen through out both OT and NT.
A purely symbolic cup ( “of Christ’s sufferings”) you say,makes the purely symbolic " drink" of condemnation ,null and void ;and impossible to implement .
Do you then believe :“to drink condemnation”( upon oneself) was an actual ( eternal arsenic )
Fluid, one ,as a result of eating of the supper unworthily, would ( by Paul) be given to drink?

Secondly you are quite correct ,that through Paul’s repeating his instruction to the “church” at Corinth: " they did end up drinking of the cup of Christ’s blood,and entered into the LITERAL mystery of His Passion"
The mystery of that Passion ,is a reality to we who have inwardly digested ,and are presently fed and sustained : in the truth of it.

From my side of the “fence”, it might well be observed that a literal view of the " bread" ,and that broken, might well be seen to incline the partakers of it,to a trust in the bread Itself ,rather than that passion which,I believe it represents.

 

[campeador]

Your first point “PeaceinChrist”, to me ,openly displays and admits of the continuous use of the symbolism used by Paul ( that which he received of the Lord) and as seen through out both OT and NT…

Bernard, the Jews do not symbolically eat the Passover Lamb.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Bernard, the Jews do not symbolically eat the Passover Lamb.

John 2:21&22

“But he spake of the temple of his body”

" When therefore he was risen from the dead,his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them;and they believed the scripture,and the word which Jesus had said"(KJV)

Obviously Roman Catholics believe that on the night in which he was betrayed,and in the upper room,before Jesus gave to his disciples he transubstantiated ( in blessing) and changed the elements of the bread and wine ,so that they became quite literally his flesh and blood.

But do you as Catholics also believe that the Passover (lamb) meal ,of which the breaking of the bread ,was made part, (Matt 26:26 " And as they were eating,Jesus took bread")
was also included in this too?
That is ,had the lamb at this Passover, also been transubstantiated?

We all would accept,I believe, that the slaying and the eating of the lamb was (also) to be understood as a figure: even of " the lamb of God" sat at meat with his disciples.

But I would make the suggestion that sat at this table,only the lamb of God himself,knew that what had recently happened to the Passover lamb,( although he had informed them on several occasions) ,of which they were presently eating of,would in actual fact ,happen to him.None other ,at this time saw his death( and resurrection) thus portrayed.

This “lamb” then,even if taken from a symbolic point of view ,was eaten without understanding by those sat around Jesus at the table.

Like-wise was not the bread and wine also consumed by those ( around Jesus) ,at the table ,without understanding? That is his disciples being unaware of the real meaning behind his words and actions?

If this is then so ,and as Catholics , I believe would hold : that this was the first “Mass” ,how can it ever be eaten mixed with faith?

Because as latter on it was witnessed ,that all would have remained as doubting Thomas , if the risen Lord had not appeared.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

John 2:21&22

“But he spake of the temple of his body”

" When therefore he was risen from the dead,his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them;and they believed the scripture,and the word which Jesus had said"(KJV)

Obviously Roman Catholics believe that on the night in which he was betrayed,and in the upper room,before Jesus gave to his disciples he transubstantiated ( in blessing) and changed the elements of the bread and wine ,so that they became quite literally his flesh and blood.

But do you as Catholics also believe that the Passover (lamb) meal ,of which the breaking of the bread ,was made part, (Matt 26:26 " And as they were eating,Jesus took bread")
was also included in this too?
That is ,had the lamb at this Passover, also been transubstantiated?

We all would accept,I believe, that the slaying and the eating of the lamb was (also) to be understood as a figure: even of " the lamb of God" sat at meat with his disciples.

But I would make the suggestion that sat at this table,only the lamb of God himself,knew that what had recently happened to the Passover lamb,( although he had informed them on several occasions) ,of which they were presently eating of,would in actual fact ,happen to him.None other ,at this time saw his death( and resurrection) thus portrayed.

This “lamb” then,even if taken from a symbolic point of view ,was eaten without understanding by those sat around Jesus at the table.

Like-wise was not the bread and wine also consumed by those ( around Jesus) ,at the table ,without understanding? That is his disciples being unaware of the real meaning behind his words and actions?

If this is then so ,and as Catholics , I believe would hold : that this was the first “Mass” ,how can it ever be eaten mixed with faith?

Because as latter on it was witnessed ,that all would have remained as doubting Thomas , if the risen Lord had not appeared.

John 2:19 " Jesus answered and said unto them,Destroy this temple ,and in three days I will raise it up"
2:21 “But he spake of the temple of his body”.
2:22 “When therefore he was risen from the dead,his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them;and they believed the scripture,and the word which Jesus had said”

When eating of the bread and drinking of the cup ,those disciples sat with Jesus around the table,( regardless of whether it was meant to be RP or simply symbolic) could not have understood the Lord’s meaning ; nor discerned the spiritual depth of his words and actions.
Then of necessity none sat there with him ,since they had no understanding,were able to eat and drink with faith.
If So then , like the figure of the Passover lamb,I believe: the true significance and revealed truth then portrayed,would only come after the Lord was risen from the dead.
How can Catholics then claim that upon looking back ( after the resurrection ) these same disciples ,could see ,(as we would hold) anything other than a spiritual meaning in the remembrance of these things?
Just like as in the example above where “he spake of the temple of his body”? Not as was presumed a literal earthly building.

Can it be in anyway suggested that in looking back on the night he was betrayed,that The Lord Jesus would have informed his disciples,that even though they understood not ,nor believed in it at the time: that nevertheless ,they still were, there ,actually eating his flesh ;and drinking of his cup.?

For us who would think it not unreasonable to believe, that for them who now saw the literal “passion” ,and the body that had been Broken and the cup that had been consumed,it was then only the figure of what now had in fact,come to pass.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

How interesting! To bad the whole symbolic belief and position of the Eucharist is a novelty! If the Real Presence were false or a great usurpation from Jesus’ teachings, I am curious to know why no one in the early church expressed it? Hence, if the Eucharist is merely symbolic?

1Corinthians 2:7 “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery,even the hidden wisdom,which God ordained before the world unto our glory”(KJV)

1Cor 10:3&4 “And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink : for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ”

1Cor 3:2 “I have fed you with milk,and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it”

1Cor 10:21"Ye cannot drink the cup of The Lord,and the cup of devils:ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table,and of the table of devils"

What do all these verses have in common?

For we who see a spiritual interpretation point of view: “we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery”

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Bernard, the Jews do not symbolically eat the Passover Lamb.

Mark 14:1 " After two days was the feast of the passover ,and of unleavened bread"

1Corinthians 5:6-8 “Your glorying is not good.Know ye not good .Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”

Purge out therefore the old leaven,that ye may be a new lump,as ye are unleavened .For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us;

Therefore let us keep the feast,not with the old leaven of malice and wickedness;but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." ( KJV)

I don’t think Catholics believe that the Jews Passover lamb was in anyway transubstantiated meat.
Wouldn’t you agree that the slaughtered " lamb" ,although remembering (Gods) deliverance from Egypt ; was also no doubt ,meant to portray and prefigured( long before) that " lamb of God "

Likewise ,as Mark 14:1 shows: the passover feast is seen in connection and parallel to that of the symbolic, " unleavened bread" .

Would Catholics agree that " the unleavened bread" so pictured with the passover lamb
Was thus meant to represent Christ also?
For me I would certainly equate the leaven ,as Paul does in 1Corinthians 5, with that which corrupts the dough :causing the bread to rise,or with Paul’s parallel meaning : the corruption of sin.
Christ being unleavened ( bread) was, we all know ,without corruption.
So even the symbolism of the Passover feast , in the night in which he was betrayed,to which the memorial, through the bread and the cup ,were added ; were for me ,one and the same.

Does not Paul point to Christ ( in verse 7 above) " For even Christ" in his urging the corrupt Corinthians to purge out the old leaven: that is by looking to their true Passover who being spotless was without leaven?

 

[Nicea325]

1Corinthians 2:7 “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery,even the hidden wisdom,which God ordained before the world unto our glory”(KJV)

1Cor 10:3&4 “And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink : for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ”

1Cor 3:2 “I have fed you with milk,and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it”

1Cor 10:21"Ye cannot drink the cup of The Lord,and the cup of devils:ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table,and of the table of devils"

What do all these verses have in common?

For we who see a spiritual interpretation point of view: “we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery”

Quoting verses is not helping your position. Again,historically speaking, name ONE orthodox Christian who clearly attacked the Real Presence of the Eucharist as heretical or usurpation againt Christ teaching?

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Quoting verses is not helping your position. Again,historically speaking, name ONE orthodox Christian who clearly attacked the Real Presence of the Eucharist as heretical or usurpation againt Christ teaching?

You cannot get more orthodox Christian,in my book ,than Paul an Apostle ,of whom your own scriptures ,no doubt also show (1Cor11:23) “For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you”(KJV)

Historically speaking I don’t believe by-passing or not commenting on the scriptures quoted is helping your position.

 

[Nicea325]

You cannot get more orthodox Christian,in my book ,than Paul an Apostle ,of whom your own scriptures ,no doubt also show (1Cor11:23) “For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you”(KJV)

Historically speaking I don’t believe by-passing or not commenting on the scriptures quoted is helping your position.

Nice divergence. You are merely providing your interpretation which has never been declared infallible. So again, your quoting proves nothing. Even the Devil quotes scripture…was it infallible?

And yes historically speaking, you have provided zilch evidence ANYONE attacked the Real Presence of the Eucharist as false or a ursurpation from Christ.

Unless you can provide me with ONE name outside the Bible who explicitly said the Real Presence was false, you having nothing to quote but the same old rhetoric.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Nice divergence. You are merely providing your interpretation which has never been declared infallible. So again, your quoting proves nothing. Even the Devil quotes scripture…was it infallible?

And yes historically speaking, you have provided zilch evidence ANYONE attacked the Real Presence of the Eucharist as false or a ursurpation from Christ.

Unless you can provide me with ONE name outside the Bible who explicitly said the Real Presence was false, you having nothing to quote but the same old rhetoric.

1John 2:27 “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you,and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things ,and is truth,and is no lie,and even as it hath taught you,ye shall abide in him” (KJV)

Nicea325,

I don’t know why I am as surprised as I am : I should have known as a former Roman Catholic, that in Catholicism God the Saviour does not directly deal with a Catholic alone,but only through the agency of the priesthood,that is : in doctrinal matters relating to his salvation.
It is therefore perhaps unreasonable of me to expect you to look at the scriptures from an objective point of view; and perhaps for this same reason you are more confident and happier when directing your attention away from the scripture ,toward that which has also been settled beforehand for you by tradition.

For me however ,although I can by myself do or see nothing( in the scriptures) ,I believe this “same anointing” if he indeed is the Spirit of Truth : shall " lead me into " the way of it .That is into all the truth: relating to the God of my salvation.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325,

I don’t know why I am as surprised as I am : I should have known as a former Roman Catholic, that in Catholicism God the Saviour does not directly deal with a Catholic alone,but only through the agency of the priesthood,that is : in doctrinal matters relating to his salvation.

And as a practicing Catholic I am not surprised at all by your poor misconceptions as a former Catholic. First of all, you are dead wrong about your premise. Evidently you never took the time to study what the church truly teaches or else you would not say what you think is true.

It is therefore perhaps unreasonable of me to expect you to look at the scriptures from an objective point of view; and perhaps for this same reason you are more confident and happier when directing your attention away from the scripture ,toward that which has also been settled beforehand for you by tradition.

Please! And it is amazing how former Catholics seem to “find” the Bible once they leave. But as Catholics they acted as though the Bible was invisible. The fact I do not accept your interpretation in so shape or form indicates my removal from the Holy Scripture. The fact you fail to provide me any historical evidence outside the Bible only strengthens my point.

For me however ,although I can by myself do or see nothing( in the scriptures) ,I believe this “same anointing” if he indeed is the Spirit of Truth : shall " lead me into " the way .That is into all the truth: relating to the God of my salvation.

And your Bible also says to adhere to the church. It is not about: Me and my Bible and Jesus.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

And your Bible also says to adhere to the church. It is not about: Me and my Bible and Jesus.

No Nicea325 ,you are quite correct.But it is about Jesus ; his Bible ,and last of all :me.

Psalm40:7 " Then said I ,Lo,I come : in the volume of the book it is written of me," ( this also is repeated in Hebrews 10:7)

" Come unto me,all ye that labour and are heavy laden,and I will give you rest " Matthew11:28(KJV )

As for the “Church” : Acts 2:42 " And they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship"

Not outside of it but “in the apostles doctrine and fellowship”
Even to this day.

Even within the pages of the NT Peter warns in the then present tense," But there were false prophets also among the people,even as there shall be false teachers among you,who shall bring in damnable heresies",

Paul says in 2Timothy 1:15 " that all they which are in Asia have turned away from me"

So if within the pages of the scriptures itself: confidence was greatly deteriorating,what confidence can one have at looking past ,that is beyond the closure of scripture ;unless it is examined in the light ,and through those same very writings?

 

[Nicea325]

No Nicea325 ,you are quite correct.But it is about Jesus ; his Bible ,and last of all :me.

Psalm40:7 " Then said I ,Lo,I come : in the volume of the book it is written of me," ( this also is repeated in Hebrews 10:7)

" Come unto me,all ye that labour and are heavy laden,and I will give you rest " Matthew11:28(KJV )

As for the “Church” : Acts 2:42 " And they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship"

Not outside of it but “in the apostles doctrine and fellowship”
Even to this day.

Even within the pages of the NT Peter warns in the then present tense," But there were false prophets also among the people,even as there shall be false teachers among you,who shall bring in damnable heresies",

Paul says in 2Timothy 1:15 " that all they which are in Asia have turned away from me"

So if within the pages of the scriptures itself: confidence was greatly deteriorating,what confidence can one have at looking past ,that is beyond the closure of scripture ;unless it is examined in the light ,and through those same very writings?

Quote until kingdom come, you have yet to provide what I have asked you. All the more why my point proves you wrong.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Quote until kingdom come, you have yet to provide what I have asked you. All the more why my point proves you wrong.

In the will of God I will “Quote” and like my master and like the Berean’s (Acts 17 11)

“In that they received the word with all readiness of mind,and searched the scriptures daily,whether those things were so”

And will so do until at last Jesus comes ;or I will,at last ,go to be with him; and so shall I “ever be with the Lord”

As you no doubt are fully aware Nicea325, there is a very active thread on" the Historicity of the church" in which church tradition ,has been hotly debated.

You are of course entitled to your opinion ;but my purpose and hope for this thread was (and is) for a people who had “searched the scriptures” (in relation to 2Corinthians 5:17) and that likewise “daily” that is : to see “whether those things were so”.

 

[Nicea325]

In the will of God I will “Quote” and like my master and like the Berean’s (Acts 17 11)

“In that they received the word with all readiness of mind,and searched the scriptures daily,whether those things were so”

And will so do until at last Jesus comes ;or I will,at last ,go to be with him; and so shall I “ever be with the Lord”

As you no doubt are fully aware Nicea325, there is a very active thread on" the Historicity of the church" in which church tradition ,has been hotly debated.

You are of course entitled to your opinion ;but my purpose and hope for this thread was (and is) for a people who had “searched the scriptures” (in relation to 2Corinthians 5:17) and that likewise “daily” that is : to see “whether those things were so”.

Entitled to my opinion? The history of the church is not a matter of opinion,but recorded experiences. You ought to take the time to learn it and stop feeding off your false premises. So you a mere mortal who is 2,000 years separated from Christ knows more than the entire 2,000 year old church-right? And why? Because you own and read the Bible;hence you know it all and have all the answers? Please!

And the will of God also includes us knowing what happened within the confines of His church and evidently you REJECT! Typical former Catholic.

BTW: God s not a Bible!

Debated? So Debating makes it false? U-huh…countless debated the Trinity,Hypostatic Union,Incarnation,etc. Do you have issues with such past debates? Of course not! Only what conflicts with your own personal opinions.

You act as though you are the first to question the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. Folks like you have come and gone.

Again…you have provided me ZILCH evidence of anyone attacking the Real Presence as heretical or a usurpation of Christ.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Entitled to my opinion? The history of the church is not a matter of opinion,but recorded experiences. You ought to take the time to learn it and stop feeding off your false premises. So you a mere mortal who is 2,000 years separated from Christ knows more than the entire 2,000 year old church-right? And why? Because you own and read the Bible;hence you know it all and have all the answers? Please!

And the will of God also includes us knowing what happened within the confines of His church and evidently you REJECT! Typical former Catholic.

BTW: God s not a Bible!

Debated? So Debating makes it false? U-huh…countless debated the Trinity,Hypostatic Union,Incarnation,etc. Do you have issues with such past debates? Of course not! Only what conflicts with your own personal opinions.

You act as though you are the first to question the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. Folks like you have come and gone.

Again…you have provided me ZILCH evidence of anyone attacking the Real Presence as heretical or a usurpation of Christ.

It seems to me Nicea325 ,there is in your question ( regarding" ZILCH evidence of anyone attacking the “R P) more than a suggestion in respect to that which many would hold to :that which they believe,truly began with Martin Luther and spread throughout the world ,was indeed in harmony with the RC practice of the “Mass”.
Such men as Calvin claimed, from a scriptural standpoint ,that not only was the Mass not to be found in the NT; but neither was that priesthood by which it was claimed ,the bread was " transformed”. If this is not an attack on the RP ,then what is ? That is ,according to your own practices past and present.

As you know in "Church History " much was defined ,and the consequences were enormous,among men ; and nations ,in regards to their very real and opposing views ,that is in respect to ones interpretation of the “Lord’s supper”.

Although I personally would say that the reformation was only a partial ( although ,hugely significant ) return to “that which was at the beginning”. As a result of what originally was claimed,by a few , to be a stand upon the word of God ( and the God of the word)
The number of those who were to say they disagreed with that which they once held as truth is ,I believe ,incalculable.

Of those who claimed to be sent forth to preach the Evangel; and that in accordance with Romans 10:14 &15(the “sent” preacher)
There are very many I would own as my "Fathers " of the Church .In my own situation within the united kingdom especially .

Although there was no doubt glimmers of light,throughout ,that is after the apostle John departed to be with Christ and the close of scripture; unto Luther ,of which Luther was as it were :a volcanic eruption ,I would say very few have clung to that which was once delivered to the saints at the beginning.

Aware that this is also is no new thing expressed by me and addressed to your own eyes: that your own claim to this foundation has been somewhat haphazard :quite apart from pope Joan,their series was often broken,sometimes by two rival Sees.

 

[Nicea325]

It seems to me Nicea325 ,there is in your question ( regarding" ZILCH evidence of anyone attacking the "R P) more than a suggestion in respect to that which many would hold to :that which they believe,truly began with Martin Luther and spread throughout the world ,was indeed in harmony with the RC practice of the “Mass”.

And yet the countless of evidence supporting the “Mass” as scriptural is impossible to penetrate the minds of self-centered men like Luther,Calvin,etc. And?

Such men as Calvin claimed, from a scriptural standpoint ,that not only was the Mass not to be found in the NT; but neither was that priesthood by which it was claimed ,the bread was " transformed". If this is not an attack on the RP ,then what is ? That is ,according to your own practices past and present.

What is it? Spiritual pride. How is that for starters? Where in the Bible is it stated everything must be taught and said explicitly? Where does Jesus teach it MUST be in the Bible? Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Mass is in the NT. Unfortunately you suffer the same as they didoor interpretations and poor biblical exegesis in regards to the Real Presence. According to my practices? I am not a Protestant or fundamentalist where my interpretations are infallible;hence the thousands of denominations. Tell me something, which denomination truly has it right?

As you know in "Church History " much was defined ,and the consequences were enormous,among men ; and nations ,in regards to their very real and opposing views ,that is in respect to ones interpretation of the “Lord’s supper”.

And as you know, Jesus promised to guide His church into all Truth? Where part do you disagree with Jesus?

Although I personally would say that the reformation was only a partial ( although ,hugely significant ) return to “that which was at the beginning”.

Really? Name the denomination “that which was at the beginning?” Do not hold your breathe to long.

As a result of what originally was claimed,by a few , to be a stand upon the word of God ( and the God of the word)

Historical sources please. I want to read the sources by these “few” to be a stand upon the Word of God.

The number of those who were to say they disagreed with that which they once held as truth is ,I believe ,incalculable.

Evidence please.

Of those who claimed to be sent forth to preach the Evangel; and that in accordance with Romans 10:14 &15(the “sent” preacher)
There are very many I would own as my "Fathers " of the Church .In my own situation within the united kingdom especially .

Sources please.

Although there was no doubt glimmers of light,throughout ,that is after the apostle John departed to be with Christ and the close of scripture; unto Luther ,of which Luther was as it were :a volcanic eruption ,I would say very few have clung to that which was once delivered to the saints at the beginning.

Very few? How many denominations?

Aware that this is also is no new thing expressed by me and addressed to your own eyes: that your own claim to this foundation has been somewhat haphazard :quite apart from pope Joan,their series was often broken,sometimes by two rival Sees.

Pope Joan? Did you enjoy the popcorn while watching the movie?

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11860324]Mark 14:1 " After two days was the feast of the passover ,and of unleavened bread"

1Corinthians 5:6-8 “Your glorying is not good.Know ye not good .Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”

Purge out therefore the old leaven,that ye may be a new lump,as ye are unleavened .For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us;

Therefore let us keep the feast,not with the old leaven of malice and wickedness;but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." ( KJV)

I don’t think Catholics believe that the Jews Passover lamb was in anyway transubstantiated meat.
Wouldn’t you agree that the slaughtered " lamb" ,although remembering (Gods) deliverance from Egypt ; was also no doubt ,meant to portray and prefigured( long before) that " lamb of God "

Likewise ,as Mark 14:1 shows: the passover feast is seen in connection and parallel to that of the symbolic, " unleavened bread" .

Would Catholics agree that " the unleavened bread" so pictured with the passover lamb
Was thus meant to represent Christ also?
For me I would certainly equate the leaven ,as Paul does in 1Corinthians 5, with that which corrupts the dough :causing the bread to rise,or with Paul’s parallel meaning : the corruption of sin.
Christ being unleavened ( bread) was, we all know ,without corruption.
So even the symbolism of the Passover feast , in the night in which he was betrayed,to which the memorial, through the bread and the cup ,were added ; were for me ,one and the same.

Does not Paul point to Christ ( in verse 7 above) " For even Christ" in his urging the corrupt Corinthians to purge out the old leaven: that is by looking to their true Passover who being spotless was without leaven?

Yea; I can acept that as one of the meanings,

God Bless you,
Patrick