What do Protestants think the early Christian

[Palaeologos]

could be a number of reasons. in a rebellion against what they saw as an excess of ritualism and extra-Scriptural traditions and beliefs in the RCC, the baby was in many cases thrown out with the bathwater.

In many cases, they threw out the tub as well.

Framing the debate in terms of “I only care what the Bible says” is distorting the issue, I think. The New Testament is not an all-sufficient guidebook on How to Do Church. It was never intended to be that. It’s what I refer to as a high-context document; one which requires a knowledge of its usual milieu and context (i.e. the Christian church) in order to make sense.

The Gospels are collections of stories about Jesus which were intended to be read aloud in public, as part of a church service. And the Epistles were occasional letters by church leaders to different local churches and individuals, most often addressing problems the churches were having and questions posed by their correspondents. There was never an attempt to make the NT into some kind of comprehensive handbook of doctrine and practice.

This is why the writings of the early church fathers are useful–in fact, indispensable. They’re not infallible, of course, and they often disagree with each other; but they’re a very helpful source for the faith and practice of the early Church.

And of course, this is also why Tradition is important. Not tradition, in the sense of “we always sing the Doxology at Offertory,” but Tradition in the sense of what has always been believed, everywhere and by everyone (to paraphrase St Vincent of Lerins). The Bible alone doesn’t answer every question : I defy you to abstract the Westminster Confession’s nuanced doctrine of the Trinity (for example) solely from Scripture. It can’t be done! Add this to the fact that the canon of the NT wasn’t set until the mid-4th century AD, and you’re in the rather odd position of being indebted to the Catholic Church for preserving and vetting Scripture while claiming that they don’t understand it. This makes me scratch my head, since obviously they rejected a number of writings that weren’t in agreement with the way Christian theology had developed as of AD 340 or so.

It is obvious that the Real Presence was taught by the Christian church by this time. It’s all over the ante-Nicene Fathers. It’s not the doctrine of transubstantiation–that comes much later–but it’s essentially the same idea of the Presence that the Orthodox Church still teaches. I wish that the entire church had followed their lead and just accepted the mystery without trying to define it (much less in terms of an outdated [meta]physics), but it’s too late to close that barn door now.

 

[KathleenGee]

The practice and belief of the early Christians was that the Eucharist was the actual Body and Blood of Christ…and the Great Heresy was not to believe it, as those followers implied when abandoning Jesus when He foretold of eating His body and blood…the 12 remained…

 

[Roblox84]

The practice and belief of the early Christians was that the Eucharist was the actual Body and Blood of Christ…and the Great Heresy was not to believe it, as those followers implied when abandoning Jesus when He foretold of eating His body and blood…the 12 remained…

Why is it of such importance to not believe in it? I know that it is Gods plan for people to not accept the fact and that some will leave the true church, etc…, but in reality what do these people accomplish for not believing in the body of Christ in the Eucharist?

 

[RedBert]

Why is it of such importance to not believe in it? I know that it is Gods plan for people to not accept the fact and that some will leave the true church, etc…, but in reality what do these people accomplish for not believing in the body of Christ in the Eucharist?

because many see the"Real Presence" as a re- sacrificing of Christ: which is a heresy.

Christ will never pour out his blood again : the body of Christ will be be broken again.!

“do this remember is one thing” : but to say this this the real blood /flesh crosses the line.

Thats why many feel it WRONG to believe tin the “Real Presence”

 

[Mannyfit75]

because many see the"Real Presence" as a re- sacrificing of Christ: which is a heresy.

Christ will never pour out his blood again : the body of Christ will be be broken again.!

“do this remember is one thing” : but to say this this the real blood /flesh crosses the line.

Thats why many feel it WRONG to believe tin the “Real Presence”

It isn’t a Re-Sacrifice because Jesus Christ is not crucified over and over again. It is a unbloody-sacrifice.

It’s quite simple, really. The Mass is called an unbloody sacrifice to clarify the fact that we do not behold the Lord’s bloody body as it was seen on Calvary. Instead his body and blood are under the appearances of bread and wine. But it is the same sacrifice as the one in Calvary.

Catholic Church teaches that there was only ones-acrifice and that the Mass is a re-presentation of that sacrifice, a partaking in and of the one sacrifice-the eating of the Lamb (Ex. 12:11, John 6:52-58). There are not many sacrifices-only one. Catholics teach that the Mass is a participation in the one sacrifice, the sacrifice on Calvary.

Notice that we see Christ before the throne of God in Revelation 5:6, forever presented as a “lamb as though slain” (the Greek perfect tense). The apostle John tells us the Lamb was slain but is still on the altar before the throne of God. How do Protestants explain an altar, the table of sacrifice, in heaven before the throne of God (Is. 6:1; Rev. 6:9; 8:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7)? Didn’t altars become extinct with the new covenant or dispensation?] So we have an anomaly: Christ seated at the right hand of the Father, and Christ, the Lamb of God, standing on the altar. In the temporal world, he was slain once-but in heaven, the world outside time, it appears that the sacrifice of Christ is an eternal event. We are even told that he was crucified before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8).

Let’s take a close look: When was Christ crucified-“before the foundation of the world,” in A.D. 30, or as the “Lamb standing as though slain” presented in eternity future?

Catholics say, “All of the above.” They see the Mass as a partaking of that eternal event. It brings that event into their presence. It transports them into heaven to see, experience, and partake of the eternal liturgy going on before God’s throne. Catholics wonder why Evangelicals make this so complicated, since Catholics think of it as simple and biblical.

 

[KathleenGee]

If the bloody sacrifice had to be done again, then Jesus would have to come back to earth.

He said, ‘It is finished’.

I think the best fundamentalists can do is the awesome task to study early church history.

The great heresy was not to believe, and I also think it intellectually wrong to not study truth.

The other aspect people don’t understand is the work and movement of the Holy Spirit, and that would be an area where Catholics also get a sense…we know Our Shepherd and He knows us…when we have heard error coming from pastoral practices of some clergy…the Holy Spirit works through error that comes about in local churches, I mean dioceses, by individuals usually in groups with an agenda…

For example, I was in another diocese, my home…as a young child I lived within a two miles of the chancery, and received my infant baptism at our Cathedral. I worked overseas through my diocese and one overseas. I came home and met this sister who shared with me that ‘they’ were whittling down the hierarchy’. I didn’t say anything, couldn’t say anything then anyway, but I was not in that place. In other aspects I saw her faith in the Lord…but she was moving in some ways that just wasn’t there for me.

A number of sisters thought they were being called to become priests. And there were clergy working on to have priestless Sunday’s, have non-consecrated lay take over the place of the priest. My girlfriend was in a parish where they had to listen to this for several years…the laity was congenial, open, compliant, happy. Came dutifully to all these meetings and talks. Finally at the end of this, the priest part of this group to change the Tradition of the Church, asked them what would they rather do?

“How many would attend a lay service?” They raised their hands. They would come.

“OK,-- if you had the choice–how many of you would take the trouble to drive 80 miles to Mass, going through all that effort, instead of coming here for a lay service???” He was dramatic.

Well, Everyone raised their hand they would rather drive to a Mass far away than go to a lay Eucharist service (where the priest consecrates the Host elsewhere)!!! Nobody got into it whether the Real Presence was there or not there…

That is the Holy Spirit working, and it also shows the laity knew they were not getting a Full Deck at the lay service…and we heard rumors that there were priests who thought the Host only was Jesus for 15 minutes…I don’t know how they figured it out, but it was about 15 minutes.

In the meantime, people were praying for vocations because with the attitude of that group, they were having a hard time allowing young men into the priesthood, because the group would not admit them into the seminary…and our seminary was the first thing to be shut down with this administration…

Well, I went back home and visited with the Vicar, and he told me the diocese had 33 men studying for the priesthood! while the one I moved to had one! And those 33 are in the process of having been ordained…don’t know how many are left…

After this, I was never afraid again about false teachers misguiding faithful Catholics,

let those who want to flap their flappers, let them,

but I know it is truly Jesus Christ Who sustains the Church through the Holy Spirit…and you can’t say He did it for this x amount of years, or 15 minutes here or there,

Jesus Christ did institute His sacraments, that we are united through the summit of the Eucharist, then and today…and tomorrow!!

 

[Mannyfit75]

The writings of the Early Church Fathers shows that Early Christians believe in the real presence. St. Ignatius clearly states in his writings,

*“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,…” - St. Ignatius of Antioch, “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D." - *

No one Christian question the “real presence of Jesus Christ” in the Eucharist until Protestant in the later centuries rejected it. This real presence is not only found in the Catholic Church but it is also affirmed in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Coptics etc.

It is only the so called Evangelical-Fundamentalist-Biblicans who deny the real presence.

 

[KathleenGee]

Cruisin,

Some of your comments can’t help but cause me to wonder what kind of assembly you attend…and they make me think of the Old Our Gang comedies from the 1930’s I used to watch with my favorite Shirley Temple movies…

our dad would let us drink pop when these movies came on…the scrappy boys would start with drawing a line in the dirt, and one would say, ‘OH Yeah??? and the other would say, ‘Yeah!!!’’ and then they would get into the fist fighting…

I shared an experience in my prior post about a living example of the Holy Spirit working through our faith…

And about confessing sin, I confess my sins to Jesus Christ, but I am following Our Lord in Scripture…

On the evening of the day of the Resurrection, He instituted His life and power to the Apostles, the beginning of the priesthood, to forgive sins. And it is psychologically healing to go to another human being where we have erred as well…and that is one of the benefits of being in the church rather than alone with the Bible.

About referring to the Mass and sacraments as a bunch of rituals, I assume you mean man-made, you are sounding like you are coming out of a reactionary, indoctrinated point of view…and it makes me think of the Our Gang comedies again.

Do you know that the use of rituals came from God Himself to Moses??? God had to teach the people of God what was pleasing to Him, not what they thought was pleasing to God.

The Catholic/Orthodox Mass/liturgy is the fulfillment of the old Jewish liturgy that was the center of life for the Jewish people.

In the Catholic Mass, only Jesus can atone for sin and can intercede and take us to Him, and in our most dignified and reverent liturgies, we are united to Jesus Christ and then made pleasing as a sacrifice ourselves with Him to the Father.

And as the Eucharist is broken again within us, the Eucharist then becomes part of our brokenness, healing us and making us whole, and then we go out to extend His presence within us to the world.

Inspite of the clergy scandals, the Holy Spirit has been bringing people into the Church at Easter.

After explaining to you the different levels of understanding of Church, and then to relate the diocese to a stadium is insulting and shows some kind of uncharitable bias.

Finally, how sure are you that your form of worship is the most fulfilling to God the Father what he wants, rather than your interpretation of the bible – and what you think God wants???

That is why we need visible administration, and it is not cultish to have a visible headquarters…the Vatican.

 

[SonofMonica]

because many see the"Real Presence" as a re- sacrificing of Christ: which is a heresy.

Wait, who believes that the Real Presence is a re-sacrificing of Christ? Not Catholics.

Or are you saying that those who believe that Catholics believe the Real Presence is a re-sacrificing of Christ are heretics? That I can more easily swallow.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

I know that most non Catholic Christians dont believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but what do you think the first Christians (those in say the first and second century AD) thought i.e. do you think that the early church saw the Eucharist as a symbol? If so what evidence can you provide to support your view?

Here is something I wrote on the subject a few years ago:

The Eucharist in the Ante-Nicene Church

 

[KathleenGee]

If the early Christians had taken everything out of context, their influence would have collapsed a long time ago…

It is Jesus Christ Who sustains the Church, the Holy Spirit guides us in the Tradition of the intent of Christ, His Word, His Church, and worship…following in the tradition of ancient Jews…

Their worship forms were given to them. They did not create their worship, the design of the temple, the rituals, the rite of the priesthood…All this came from God.

So we have to ask, 'When are we behaving as a man made church???"…

The problem with American fundamentalism is that considering geographic distance from the heart of Christianity in the Mediterranean regions, is that it has a most severed break with Tradition, and its subsequent practices among believers, their devotions, and the understanding of faith, worship, and reason in fulfillment of the entire Word of God.

To retain this posture, there are many steps, hurdles to overcome for a fundamentalist.

 

[Palaeologos]

Here is something I wrote on the subject a few years ago:

The Eucharist in the Ante-Nicene Church

Brian, there’s an awful lot of cherry-picking going on in that essay.

It is clear from a reading of the Ante-Nicene Fathers on this issue that the Real Presence was believed and taught by them. Transubstantiation, obviously, was not; that doctrine is an attempt to explain the mechanics of the RP using Aristotelian scientific terms. That acceptance of that explanation is required of Roman Catholics in the 21st century is unfortunate, because we now realize that physics doesn’t work the way Aristotle thought it did. You might want to make note, by the way, of the fact that St Thomas Aquinas himself did not teach a corporeal and localized presence in the Eucharist.

How much better to accept the mystery of receiving Christ in the elements, following the lead of the Eastern Church. In the words of Elizabeth I :

“He was the Word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it;
And what that Word doth make it,
I do believe, and take it.”

What more really needs to be said?

 

[KathleenGee]

It is Lent…if you are out to disprove the Eucharist, then it is impossible to be in the place of liturgical Christians and experience the Holy Spirit at work who unites and guides us…and the bottom line is that we are not living out rules and regulations,

We are living within the presence of God as a gathering of people, He carrying us forward together into eternal life, rather than a solitary-- however meritorious-- devotion to the Word of God.

But you are comparing apples to oranges…

The authority of defining, making pronouncements, the presence of authority always pointed to Rome…St. Thomas was wrong on some issues he debated with the Church regarding Mary and women…

But a lived experience in God with others through the liturgy is mystical, transcendent, and most of all – ALIVE! We are entering into the Body of Christ Himself at Mass…we are united in Him…a living and actual experience without the arbitration and the scruples…more a reflection on the angonizing doubts of an individual. We are called to Christ in faith, not only as individual members, but as a gathering of the whole…

Just as in Catholicism, we do not look at Scripture in parts but in context of the whole and in the tradition, the way of understanding through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Roblox84]

because many see the"Real Presence" as a re- sacrificing of Christ: which is a heresy.

Christ will never pour out his blood again : the body of Christ will be be broken again.!

“do this remember is one thing” : but to say this this the real blood /flesh crosses the line.

Thats why many feel it WRONG to believe tin the “Real Presence”

How can you re sacrifice Christ? I would think Christ would be honored that we do what he did at the table.

What is the protestant belief when the people in the bible who didn’t believe in Christs words of the real presence left?

 

[Roblox84]

Here is something I wrote on the subject a few years ago:

The Eucharist in the Ante-Nicene Church

I have skimmed through that and there is nothing in there that talks about re-sacrificing.

 

[adstrinity]

I know you all are answering RedBert for the lurkers, but, I don’t think that’s RedBert’s position…and, even if it is, he was just answering on behalf of those on the “representative” side objectively. Not necessarily identifying with it.

 

[Palaeologos]

because many see the"Real Presence" as a re- sacrificing of Christ: which is a heresy.

Christ will never pour out his blood again : the body of Christ will be be broken again.!

“do this remember is one thing” : but to say this this the real blood /flesh crosses the line.

Thats why many feel it WRONG to believe tin the “Real Presence”

If they see the doctrine of Real Presence as entailing re-sacrifice, then they’re wrong. And I suggest that you have a look at the UMC document Holy Mystery, which enunciates a Methodist doctrine of the Real Presence that might surprise you (John Wesley, an Anglican priest in good standing until his unfortunate attempt to ordain presbyters, believed in the Real Presence as well).

The best treatment of the re-presentation of the “full, perfect and sufficient” sacrifice that I have read is in Gregory Dix’s The Shape of the Liturgy.

 

[cruisin]

My responses in read. I mean no disrespect. Just interjecting my thoughts. I did read your other posts but felt responding to this one would be the easiest at the moment. you sure piled it up girl…:hypno:

It is Lent…if you are out to disprove the Eucharist,
where would you get that idea. I never said that I was. If you got that impression i apologize. Just trying to engage in conversation.
then it is impossible to be in the place of liturgical Christians and experience the Holy Spirit question how can the holy spirit work through a well defined set of rules and rituals and rites?at work who unites and guides us…and the bottom line is that we are not living out rules and regulations,That’s great that your not living out rules and Regulation, for Paul wrote that when we live by those rules and regulation we will be judged by them as well. Read his letter to the Romans

We are living within the presence of God as a gathering of people, He carrying us forward together into eternal life, rather than a solitary-- however meritorious-- devotion to the Word of God.

But you are comparing apples to oranges…

The authority of defining, making pronouncements, the presence of authority always pointed to Rome…I disagree… see the book of Acts
St. Thomas was wrong on some issues he debated with the Church regarding Mary and women…Not sure what you are talking about here?

But a lived experience in God with others through the liturgy is mystical, transcendent, and most of all – ALIVE! This kind of sounds like Greek philosophy and some what gnostic? Maybe? the use of the words Mystical and transcendent triggered that comment… We are entering into the Body of Christ Himself at Mass…we are united in Him…a living and actual experience without the arbitration and the scruples…more a reflection on the angonizing doubts of an individual. I thought we are united with Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. How is this different? We are called to Christ in faith, not only as individual members, but as a gathering of the whole…

Just as in Catholicism, we do not look at Scripture in parts but in context of the whole and in the tradition, the way of understanding through the Holy Spirit.

My biggest question involving the Early church and who you call the early church fathers is " how did the Greek-Roman traditions and philosophy and thought effect the development of the early church and their writings?"

Since you like History I found this article and web site from a man who has a Doctorate in History. His writing seems to be very impartial and written more for informational purposes. I have no intention of trying to take you away from what you believe. I like to explore thought and engage in conversation.

historyguide.org/ancient/lecture16b.html

What I find interesting is that time and time again I read on these boards that if only us Heritics would read and study history we would come to the same conclusion as you Catholics. Who is right and who is wrong. I don’t know. I guess God will sort it out in the end. AT this time your view of the last supper, mass and the Eucharist doesn’t make logical sense to me. As pointed out in this thread neither do many Catholics and I know a few myself, and they are very well read and learned.

I get aggravated with myself and other people some times when we spout off without really thinking about what is coming out of our mouths. " do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths but that which is for the encouragement ( edification) of one another."

Oh and debate has been here as long as the Church has been here.

 

[KathleenGee]

Another poster made a mispelling and called me “Girle” and I took it a little farther and teased him about his slip to call me ’ Girlie’. I wish I still was…

I was reacting to your comments about rules and regulations, a bunch of old rituals, and so on…since I am having nostalgia regarding my girlie past…now understand why women my age call others ‘the girls’…and what I was responding to you was the action of the liturgy that transcends all the old stuff and the rules and regulations.
We have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us…At Mass, the priest at the consecration calls down the Holy Spirit to turn the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus…this is called the epiclesis.

It was St. Thomas Aquinas that restored philosophy and the erudite position…stating just as one can use metaphysics to prove God does not exist, St. Thomas can take the position and prove the God does exist from the point of logic. God is the Unmoved Mover…and our understanding of God can be compared to that of an eye of an owl next to the sun…hmmm…the owl’s eye only works in darkness…

But when he started talking on the subject of women, it is better for one to go St. Francis and the Franciscans…they find God in the Descent…down to the feet of their neighbor taking the position, not of erudite scholar, but that of a poor servant.

In my girlie heart, I am more just that – heart, intuition, spirituality, nature. In my profession study Catholicism through my diocese for more than 5 years, my favorite subject ended up being the liturgy…Can I take off on that one!!! And with you, I certainly did! I did review your link and it looks pretty good…

I think at the beginning of Christianity, Christ Himself opened up a brand new life to all the believers, and the first 400 years or so was to ecclesiastically define Who Christ was…True God and True Man, this fully defined at the Council of Nicea. The Nicene Creed is what we profess at Sunday liturgies, during the week it is the Apostles’ Creed.

I think people get scrupulous in how peoples’ holidays were Christianized…I mean, we Christians celebrate harvest time and other events, not because we are pagan, but because we are human. So you have to go back and separate whatever it is that is false deification and that which is simple, basic human expression of life.

And the final point about rules and regulations, frankly, I don’t walk around in my faith bound by any of it. The laws of the Church for Catholics is pretty simple: don’t miss Mass on Sunday, don’t eat meat on Ash Wednesday and Friday’s during Lent…and if you are marginal, you have to go to Mass at least once a year, particularly during the Easter season.

Have you ever had a copy of the Universal Catechism? It divides up many subcategories into the Profession of Faith…this will give you our development of thought, the Celebration of the Christian Mystery in the Liturgy…that is a hard one for some people to understand but it includes the sacraments, it then goes into the Life in Christ regarding morality, conscience, virtues and sins, and the human community which reflects Vatican II, finally Christian prayer.

It is through Councils and great discussions in the past that laid down the framework of our faith today. It took many people and many years to compile the bible, the work of the Church. St. Athanases greatly promoted the study of science and reason with faith…I believe he lived in the 300’s…

And so that is why the study of early Christian history is vast…just as in the tradition of the Church, you can’t take parts out of Scripture and disjoint them…God is the author and they all interconnect, it is the same with those who helped build the early church…no one stood on their own…

People need to take note of the use of anthropology, sociology and history because Christianity spread into many regions of different peoples and customs…we have models of churches at the beginning and the common problems they had…The acculturation of faith into a given culture takes time, and it needs to be defined and recorded for future generations…

No one stood on their own in the development of the Church…it is the work of the Holy Spirit…and I gave you an example of how the Holy Spirit worked in sustaining the faith of the laity in a diocese a number of years ago when the abuses of Vatican II were happening. We say it is Sts. Peter and Paul who hold the keys to the church…but you have to understand the phrase and what it means…and it is hard for a fundamentalist to break out of the literal to understand the nature and mission of the Church…we are mystical.

The different philosophers…it makes me think of when st. Paul went to Athens where the people there savor sitting out in cafes and savoring intellectual conversations…he made quite a stir…

God answers our needs in His time…St. Thomas and his predecessor brought in the use of philosophy, and he drew on Aristotle…

 

[KathleenGee]

ps Cruisin, I saw your post last night and it made me want to go to sleep. A previous poster gave you a link on the early church.

I enjoyed Michael Aquina’s book on the early Mass. I am reading at present Fr Ed Foley’s book, ‘From Age to Age’, on the origins and practices of the liturgy from a Jewish Nazarene Christian perspective and that from a Gentile’s perspective…how we believe, we pray…