What do Protestants think the early Christian

[wmscott]

I am keeping this post for my daughter who left the Church because of scandal…in prayers she will return…went into Evangelism…

Hi Kathleen, I will also pray for your daughters return to the Church. As parents, we should try to illustrate the differences between the happy clappy feel good services and approaching the throne of God, and how Christ touches us through His Holy sacraments.

However, we have to let them make the decisions as to the directions they take in their spiritual journeys. We have to trust in the Lord that the Holy Spirit will guide and protect them, eventually to lead them back home. The best we can do is to be that shining example of our beautiful faith. Peace of Christ be with you and your daughter.

 

[ConfusedTim]

Sorry to butt in I have to ask some questions. normally I read and don’t post.

to start with on the idea of the actual presence and the word Rememberance. From what I recall,since I do not have anything in front of me except my memory, the word Remembrance is translated from a Greek word that means, to call up into memory.

Now, The only places this used in the context of the meal is by Mark and by Paul.

Why would Mark ( a converted Greek) writing to a converted Greek, use this word and not the other gospel writers ?

Why would Paul use the same verbage in his letter to the Corinthians ( I think. could be wrong) ?

Again what is the prupose of the writer for using this particular word that is translated, memory?

Thanks

Hi Cruisin, as mentioned by others, they key thing is that the early Christian church ( i.e. those who taught by the apostles) all belived that the eucharist was NOT a symbol of Jesus but was actually the real presence of Jesus. You would have to imagine that if the early church was taught by the apostles then they would have taught them what Jesus actually meant.

Secondly, if the early church erred on this point i.e the lay people were taking it literally when in fact it should have merely been a sysmbol then there would have been some mention of the apostles correcting the wrong interpretation by the lay people it in the Acts of the apostles (which as you know was written well after the church started).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel, that is the beautiful aspect of the Catholic Church; it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. There is that straight line from the time Christ handed the keys to St. Peter until today. I am a convert to and I have been guilty of persecuting the Catholic Church back in the days of my blissful ignorance. I believed and spread the anti-Catholic falsehoods believing them to be true with no factual evidence to back it up. That is a sin I have confessed and Christ has forgiven me for, however, it is harder to forgive myself whenever I think about those days.

Now I, as do my Catholic brothers and sisters, have the awesome privilege to touch Christ and have Christ touch us in one of the most intimate ways as when receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist. Many Protestants espouse the “Personal Relationship” with Christ philosophy, which is all good, however, how much more of a “Personal Relationship” can there be than to receive Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity each time we celebrate the Mass.

Very well said; You and I can talk of the mystagogy for days on the mystical wedding feast of the lamb here; The New Covenant in Jesus blood and body is made a reality to our humanity, these mysteries plant hope, faith and love in our being, they fill us with every blessing and grace. Coming into these mysteries helps me to reallize why the Catholic Martyrs and Apostles went to their deaths with great Joy and many times singing…for me, I desire not to just hear the Word of God, but to “taste the Word of God” 1 Peter 2:3 for you have tasted that the Lord is good.

Now I understand not fully why the early Saints spoke like the scriptures in tasting the blood and eating Jesus flesh, sounds foolish to the natural person, but to those of the Spirit it is above every power and prinicipality.

Once you have tasted the Lord there is no turning back; Hebrew 6:4
For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and **tasted the heavenly gift 2 and shared in the holy Spirit 5 and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 3 **6
and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves 4 and holding him up to contempt.

Know this God has forgiven you and me and will never remember our sin no more as far as the east is from the west.

God bless you

 

[cruisin]

Now, The only places this used in the context of the meal is by Luke( sorry I said Mark earlier) and by Paul.

Why would Luke ( a converted Greek) writing to a converted Greek, use this word and not the other gospel writers?

Why would Paul use the same verbage in his letter to the Corinthians ( I think. could be wrong) ?

Again what is the purpose of the writer for using this particular word that is translated, memory?

Why would God command this practice, in the way that the CC cklaims and put in us a position of fear to keep the body and blood off the floor with golden equipment,so that we don’t make a mistake and dropping some on the floor.

Please how about some direct answers to my questions. May they can’t be answered here?

 

[cruisin]

Hi Cruisin, as mentioned by others, they key thing is that the early Christian church ( i.e. those who taught by the apostles) all belived that the eucharist was NOT a symbol of Jesus but was actually the real presence of Jesus. You would have to imagine that if the early church was taught by the apostles then they would have taught them what Jesus actually meant.

Secondly, if the early church erred on this point i.e the lay people were taking it literally when in fact it should have merely been a sysmbol then there would have been some mention of the apostles correcting the wrong interpretation by the lay people it in the Acts of the apostles (which as you know was written well after the church started).

Yes I know who wrote the book of Acts the same person who wrote the Gospel with his name, both to the same recipient.

Both Luke and Paul use this word, memory to their Greek converted audience, where none of the Jewish writers to the Jewish audience did.

What’s the difference in audiences?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=cruisin;6359469]Again what is the purpose of the writer for using this particular word that is translated, memory?

Why would God command this practice, in the way that the CC cklaims and put in us a position of fear to keep the body and blood off the floor with golden equipment,so that we don’t make a mistake and dropping some on the floor.

Please how about some direct answers to my questions. May they can’t be answered here?

The in “rememberance of me” or “in memory of me” is a translation from the Hebrew word “Zakar” which is the word God uses in his covenant when he makes anew with his people when they were delivered from slavery, thus the “zakar” in the passover is to be a perpetual ritual in consuming a lamb sacrifice and libation of the lambs blood. This covenant “in rememberance” or Zakar is God stating, when you do this what I command you to do, do in “zakar” my presence as I make myself present before you in these 1st. the original lamb passover.2nd now in the Last supper which is a fulfillment of the passover “sedar” meal eternally.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Why would God command this practice, in the way that the CC cklaims and put in us a position of fear to keep the body and blood off the floor with golden equipment,so that we don’t make a mistake and dropping some on the floor.

Not to pick on you cruisin, because I see this type of apologetic argument advanced a lot here by both Catholics and Protestants (why wouldn’t God provide a teaching authority…)
and I just want to address its “wrongness”…

The argument starts with what we feel it makes sense for God to do (and or not do) and then ask the other side why would God do this (or not do this) because it makes sense (from my perspective) for Him to do this (or not do this).

The problems with this argument are
(1) God doesn’t have to (and many times does not) reveal the “why” when He does something or command something to be done. Any attempt by me or anybody else to provide the “why” is a matter of speculation.
(2) God often does not make sense from our perspective anyway. Didn’t God say His ways are not our ways? I mean since I am asking why…why doesn’t God prevent earthquakes and reveal a cure for cancer? Why did God allow the holocaust? It makes sense from my perspective for a loving God to eliminate suffering and injustice from this earth He created. Certainly He is able to do it.

The problem is that I read here as apologetical arguments basically the same type of questions and reasoning that I am posing under (2).

Now back to your debate.

 

[cruisin]

I am not an apologist and never claimed to be. I am asking simple questions without getting direct answers to those questions.

When I read scripture I try to place it in the context of the reader and the purpose of the writer.

Please quit translating text that was orignally written in Greek back to Hebrew. For me this is a bad practice.

What I am doing is examining Luke who was a Greek convert writing to a Greek friend in Greek. for me this gives a good glimps of how a non jew convert would have understood that last supper. The other recordings of the upper room don’t even use the term “Rememberance” . Why, did they already understand that this term is implied because of their heritage?

You really can not prove that Jesus even said do this in rememberance of me in the upper room. If he did wouldn’t all of the writers reported it? Was in Rememberance of me been added for purpose of clarification to the Greek Reader?

When it was written: "Christ died once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous "

Was the writer speaking in spiritual terms or was he speaking in human terms to encourage the reader and hearer? I think we should be careful throwing scritpure back and forth from this world to the next and keep it in context of what the writer intended and the reader heard.

How did Lukes intended “GREEK” Reader understand what he was writing?

How is this not the best way to understand what is written?

I wish you guys would get out of your apologetic defense mode and just answer a direct question based on the context of the question.

I will probably not post to many more times if I cannot get a direct answer to my questions here.

I don’t claim to know the answers. just have lots of questions that seems to me the Chruch with all the answers can’t answer. at least you havn’t so far.

With all the amateur apologists here i thought … well I just thought… bad me…

 

[KathleenGee]

There was a game we had to play a few times in class in junior high…

It was called ‘grapevine’ or ‘telephone’…too long ago to remember exactly…

The first person ‘sees’ the story and then passes it down the grape vine…and after passing through so many people, the last person then gets to share what the story was, and see how it deviated from the original.

The story changes with the person…each one has a part that resonates but to another does not.

Christ did not pick one apostle. He picked 12. There were 4 evangelists…each one got the basic story but each one got a different take.

One may not have considered the place of the upper room, but another did. So we need the (name removed by moderator)ut of all the apostles to get the full understanding of Christ and His mission.

I am no apologist…but WmScott here gave a link to faith and reason. Metaphysics is the study of reality. And so we can’t just look at Scripture in itself but in context of God and human beings, and this aspect is under the category of Tradition…what happened, how it affected imprinted the early Christians and their expansion…with the affirming presence of the Holy Spirit.

People have all these images of the Catholic Church…and it is hard to break through them to see what its true nature and mission is as Christ’s bride.

 

[ConfusedTim]

Hi Cruisin, i have been hoping that you would give me an answer to the question: did the earliest Christians think that the eucharist was symbolic or the real presence of Christ. Do you think that the Christians who were taught by the apostles considered the eucharist to be symbolic?

 

[wmscott]

I am not an apologist and never claimed to be. I am asking simple questions without getting direct answers to those questions.

When I read scripture I try to place it in the context of the reader and the purpose of the writer.

Please quit translating text that was orignally written in Greek back to Hebrew. For me this is a bad practice.

What I am doing is examining Luke who was a Greek convert writing to a Greek friend in Greek. for me this gives a good glimps of how a non jew convert would have understood that last supper. The other recordings of the upper room don’t even use the term “Rememberance” . Why, did they already understand that this term is implied because of their heritage?

You really can not prove that Jesus even said do this in rememberance of me in the upper room. If he did wouldn’t all of the writers reported it? Was in Rememberance of me been added for purpose of clarification to the Greek Reader?

When it was written: "Christ died once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous "

Was the writer speaking in spiritual terms or was he speaking in human terms to encourage the reader and hearer? I think we should be careful throwing scritpure back and forth from this world to the next and keep it in context of what the writer intended and the reader heard.

How did Lukes intended “GREEK” Reader understand what he was writing?

How is this not the best way to understand what is written?

I wish you guys would get out of your apologetic defense mode and just answer a direct question based on the context of the question.

I will probably not post to many more times if I cannot get a direct answer to my questions here.

I don’t claim to know the answers. just have lots of questions that seems to me the Chruch with all the answers can’t answer. at least you havn’t so far.

With all the amateur apologists here i thought … well I just thought… bad me…

Did you read any from the link that I provided you in post 92?

An excerpt, hope that this is of help to you.

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

 

[wmscott]

From the Haydocks Catholic Bible Commentary,

Ver. 19. THIS IS MY BODY. See the annotations on the same words of consecration, Matthew xxvi. 26.; Mark xiv. 22. and 1 Corinthians xi. 24. — Do this for a commemoration of me. By these words he gave a power and precept to them, and their successors, to all bishops and priests, to consecrate and offer up the same; yet so, that they are only the ministers and instruments of Jesus Christ, who instituted this sacrifice, this and all other sacraments, who is the chief and principal Priest, or offerer. It is Christ that chiefly consecrates and changes the elements of bread and wine into his own body and blood; it is he that chiefly and principally forgiveth sins in the sacraments of baptism, penance, &c. It is what St. Augustine so often repeats against the Donatists, that it is Christ that baptizeth, though the instrumental minister be a sinner or a heretic; and this is what all Catholics confess and profess. — The holy sacrifice and sacrament is to be offered and received with a devout and grateful remembrance of Christ’s benefits, and especially of his sufferings and death for all mankind. But to teach that it is a bare, though devout memorial, or a remembrance only, so as to exclude the real presence of Christ, under the outward appearances of bread and wine, is inconsistent with the constant belief and consent of all Christian churches, both of the west and east, and contradicts the plain words of Christ. The learned bishop of Meaux, in his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, desires all Christians to take notice, that Christ does not command them to remember him, but to take his body and blood with a remembrance of him, and his benefits: this is the import of all the words, put together. This is my body: this is my blood: do this in, for, or with a remembrance of me. (Witham) — This sacrifice and sacrament is to be continued in the Church to the end of the world, to shew forth the death of Christ, until he cometh. But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils, which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself hath commanded, of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice, and receiving in the sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed. (Challoner) — Which is given, &c. He does not say, which shall be offered for you, but which is offered;[2] because it was already a true sacrifice, in which Christ was truly present which he offered in advance to his eternal Father, before that which he was going to offer the next day, in a different manner, on the cross. This sacrifice was the consummation of the figurative Pasch, and the promise or pledge of the bloody offering, which Christ would make on the cross. … It was not the mere figure of his body, which was crucified, but the true body and the true blood. In the same manner it is both the one and the other which are given, and really present, in the Eucharist. (Calmet) — To renew the memory of what I have this day done, in giving you my body; and what I shall do to-morrow, in delivering my blood and my life for the whole world, do you hereafter what you now see me do. Take bread, break it, sand say, This is my body; and it will become so really and truly, as it now is in my hands. (Calmet)

 

[cruisin]

wmscott,

If what you say is true then all should be in agreement and there should be no argument correct?

you said God needs to be reminded of Christs sacrifice, why?

as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10).

You also pulled a single verse out of context. Here is the chapter as a whole.

For the law, being only a poor copy of the future good things, and not the true image of those things, is never able to make the people who come to the altar every year with the same offerings completely clean.
Heb 10:2 For if this had been possible, would there not have been an end of those offerings, because the worshippers would have been made completely clean and would have been no longer conscious of sins?
Heb 10:3 But year by year there is a memory of sins in those offerings. this memory is caused by the rolling up of sin because no sin offering until Christ was worthy to fully cleanse of sin
Heb 10:4 Because it is not possible for the blood of oxen and goats to take away sins.
Heb 10:5 So that when he comes into the world, he says, You had no desire for offerings, but you made a body ready for me;
Heb 10:6 You had no joy in burned offerings or in offerings for sin.
Heb 10:7 Then I said, See, I have come to do your pleasure, O God (as it is said of me in the roll of the book). For the law, being only a poor copy of the future good things, and not the true image of those things, is never able to make the people who come to the altar every year with the same offerings completely clean.
Heb 10:2 For if this had been possible, would there not have been an end of those offerings, because the worshippers would have been made completely clean and would have been no longer conscious of sins?
Heb 10:3 But year by year there is a memory of sins in those offerings.
Heb 10:4 Because it is not possible for the blood of oxen and goats to take away sins. a memory because the offering was of animals

Heb 10:5 So that when he comes into the world, he says, You had no desire for offerings, but you made a body ready for me;
Heb 10:6 You had no joy in burned offerings or in offerings for sin.
Heb 10:7 Then I said, See, I have come to do your pleasure, O God (as it is said of me in the roll of the book).
Heb 10:8 After saying, You had no desire for offerings, for burned offerings or offerings for sin (which are made by the law) and you had no pleasure in them,
Heb 10:9 Then he said, See, I have come to do your pleasure. He took away the old order, so that he might put the new order in its place.
Heb 10:10 By that pleasure we have been made holy, by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for ever. Christ took our place and the place of those oxen and goats…
Heb 10:11 And every priest takes his place at the altar day by day, doing what is necessary, and making again and again the same offerings which are never able to take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Jesus had made one offering for sins for ever, he took his place at the right hand of God; There is no need for any more offerings because of Christ
Heb 10:13 And has been waiting there from that time, till all who are against him are made a foot-rest for his feet.
Heb 10:14 Because by one offering he has made complete for ever those who are made holy. Was Christ offering once for all?
Heb 10:15 And the Holy Spirit is a witness for us: for after he had said,
Heb 10:16 This is the agreement which I will make with them after those days, says the Lord; I will put my laws in their hearts, writing them in their minds; he said,
Heb 10:17 And I will keep no more memory of their sins so God remembers or sin?and of their evil-doings.
Heb 10:18 Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no more offering for sin. What do you mean by continues or perpetual offering I dont see it here?
Heb 10:19 So then, my brothers, being able to go into the holy place without fear, because of the blood of Jesus, Can I go into the Holy of Holy’s or not?
Heb 10:20 By the new and living way which he made open for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having a great priest over the house of God,
Heb 10:22 Let us go in with true hearts, in certain faith, having our hearts made free from the sense of sin and our bodies washed with clean water:

Now explain to me why I need to ingest Christ when I have the Holy spirit?

How can Christ be present in the emblems and the Holy spirit be here at the same time. Jesus said that he had to leave so the Helper could come.

Also each time a word is used it can take on a different meaning dependent on the circumstance of it’s use.

Please prove that Jesus actually used the word memory or that Luke was using the word to explain something to Theophilus? Are these letters recording the exact words of Jesus or are the writers calling up in memory and telling a the story as they understood it form there world view. Luke is explaining this to another Greek would theophilus understood it as you say? who did he worship before coming to Christ? What was his world view. where did he live? I struggle with comparing to other parts of the Bible. We can get idea’s of usage but nothing is totally difinative unless we can step back in time and walk with Luke and the apostles…

also I will be more receptive if you can ague form a neutral point of view and use neutral proof. I have not given authority to the Catholic church so it’s writings do not hold much weight for me unless proved other wise. I examine everything. also more paragraphs. That long one is horrible to read.

 

[cruisin]

Hi Cruisin, i have been hoping that you would give me an answer to the question: did the earliest Christians think that the eucharist was symbolic or the real presence of Christ. Do you think that the Christians who were taught by the apostles considered the eucharist to be symbolic?

Yes I believe that it was purily symbolic in the same sense as the sader meal was symbolic to remind the Jews of the bondage in Egypt.

The apostles also understood it as such. Even though they still didn’t quite understand that he had to die. the sader meal is designed as a whole process of discussion, talking about the deliverance from Egypt . when Christ got to the cup of deliverance the one that discusses the coming messiah He took the Matza and the cup and told them, I am the Messiah and that this part of the meal is now full filled prophecy. Do this part of the meal in memory of me. I think they understood exactly.

I don’t need to ingest my God and put him in me every week, as the pagans did, I already have him in the form of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes I believe that it was purily symbolic in the same sense as the sader meal was symbolic to remind the Jews of the bondage in Egypt.

The apostles also understood it as such. Even though they still didn’t quite understand that he had to die. the sader meal is designed as a whole process of discussion, talking about the deliverance from Egypt . when Christ got to the cup of deliverance the one that discusses the coming messiah He took the Matza and the cup and told them, I am the Messiah and that this part of the meal is now full filled prophecy. Do this part of the meal in memory of me. I think they understood exactly.

How can you claim to have the Holy Spirit with a symbolic Jesus? Unless you are confusiing an emotion to be a symbolic holy Spirit, and a cracker and grape juice to be symbolic of Jesus body and blood?

The Holy Spirit is a person not an emotion to symbolize him. Jesus resurrected from the dead, Christ lives and reigns both in heaven and on earth. Jesus does not symbolically present himself in crackers and grape juice. You preach a new different Jesus from a new gospel. Never did Christians ever believe in a symbolic Jesus until Protestants protested this Apostolic Faith 1600 years later.

Jesus told his disciples he had to go (to his passion sacrifice) or else the Holy Spirit would not come. So you see you have to have the once and for all sacrifice made present in the sacramental body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ or else (our advocate who teaches us) the Holy Spirit cannot reveal this mystery to you.

1Corinthians 2:v10… This God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11… no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.14 Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. 15 The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?”** But we have the mind of Christ**.

Hebrews 11:1…Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.

1John 4:27 Those who keep his commandments remain in him, and he in them, and the way** we know that he remains in us is from the Spirit that he gave us.** 4:1 Beloved,** do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God,** because many false prophets have gone out into the world. **This is how you can know the Spirit of God; every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This spirit is of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world. **

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

We don’t get to decide ourselves how God wants his own to worship him in Spirit and Truth. This God has settled the matter at the last supper and from Jesus himself who taught of his true presence “flesh and blood” in the bread and wine. We do not get to choose for ourselves how God wants to be present to his people. How difficult was it for God to reveal himself in a burning bush? a Rock in the desert? a shekinah cloud by day, and fire by night, and then present in the whisper of a wind?

Had you lived in the first 4 difficult persecuted centuries of the Church your symbolic Jesus was never believed in, and anything contrary to the "True presence of Jesus in his Eucharist were swiftly excommunicated and labeled heretics.

Here are a few ECF who believed and taught of the Eucharist the same Apostolic faith still practiced unchanged 2000 years in the Catholic church.

St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” “First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

“God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.” “Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it." -“Dialogue with Trypho”, [41: 8-10]

St. Justin:
“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 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.” First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165)

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies, 5:2) 180 a.d

“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.” -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely

Peace be with you

 

[ConfusedTim]

Yes I believe that it was purily symbolic in the same sense as the sader meal was symbolic to remind the Jews of the bondage in Egypt.

The apostles also understood it as such. Even though they still didn’t quite understand that he had to die. the sader meal is designed as a whole process of discussion, talking about the deliverance from Egypt . when Christ got to the cup of deliverance the one that discusses the coming messiah He took the Matza and the cup and told them, I am the Messiah and that this part of the meal is now full filled prophecy. Do this part of the meal in memory of me. I think they understood exactly.

I don’t need to ingest my God and put him in me every week, as the pagans did, I already have him in the form of the Holy Spirit.

Cruisin, you have probably come across many of the writings of the church fathers who write about what the first Christians belived about the eucharist - there are too many quotations to post but i have provided a couple (see below). The reason why i started this thread is to find out what non catholics believe the first christians thought of the eucharist and why you have that opinion. You have stated that the early church thought the eucharist was symbolic - can you provide some references that support your view? All the writings i have ever come across suggest the opposite.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)

 

[Jimmy_B]

+JMJ+

What do Protestants think of early Christian History?

I don’t know if they do… And, the Protestant, non-Catholic Christians who have study Christian history; they view it from a Protestant prospective and they then, tend to avoid converts like Chesterton and Newman…

If it’s “good”, then it’s the “Early Church”…if it’s “bad”, then it’s “Catholic”…They also avoid the history and formation of the Bible and they avoid the history of their particular denomination and where their beliefs are derived…Calvin or Luther…and so on and so on… Much need’s be rejected to remain Protestant and not Catholic. Many today, practice a minimalistic form of Christianity

Am I wrong?

 

[cruisin]

Jimmy,

i could argue that the human condition gravitates toward where it is comforatable on both sides. Catholics look for information that supports their world view and reject what they disagree with. Prodestants do the same thing. Evoluitonists and those who support abortion do the same thing.

When someone disagrees these types fail to look at the evidence from a nuetral position because they have gone into defense mode.

It see the aprproach here form Catholics is that the CC has been around for 2000 years so it has all authority and must have it right. others come formt he approach that the current CC didn’t come aobut until constantine in the 3 and 4 centuries basing it on all of the historical documentation. others have different views all together.

My point here is not who is right and who is wrong. but bringing the conversation into a neutral/ safe postion, throwing all the evidence out on the table and taking a look at it.

If we really want to learn we have to be able to unpack our world view, challenge it and see if it really stacks up against the evidence.

I have been reading these boards for a long time and many started threads don’t do this. they imply the approach; i’m right, your incompitent for beleiving the way you do, now prove me wrong.

This is not christian charity.

At the end of the day I hope we can walk away with a agree to disagree and still be friends.

Thanks for letting me say what I think.

Cruisin.

 

[KathleenGee]

What issues Jimmy B has brought up is in no way intended to be uncharitable.

The deliberate refusal to study faith history of past people is not charitable either. He is bringing up very serious points that if protestants had an open mind to learning the truth about people of times past, you would have keys to help in understanding our faith today.

To deny the use of reason in religion is placing yourself in the way of error as well. We have the chaff with the wheat and it is one of the trials of faith to separate the two and to remain faithful to the Lord and His Church.

Just like the clergy scandals in English speaking countries today…Christ had terrible words for those who caused scandal and mislead the little ones…5% were errant. Social deviancy exists in every social institution. The secular system in our country has abuse issues 100 times that of the clergy, but we hear little about it. There is so much abuse going on now in our society that has no relationship at all to the Catholic clergy.