P
paul_c
Guest
This is Justin Martyr’s view of the Mass. It is very, very close to what we use today.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
There is no teaching of transubstantiation in Justin (off topic from Pope). In the biblical account, if by his words Jesus changes the substance of bread and cup into his real flesh and blood, then by the same logic, he changes it back again before the apostles partake.This is Justin Martyr’s view of the Mass. It is very, very close to what we use today.
Read carefully:
The bread and cup change into the body and blood of Jesus in verse 26-28, then in verse 29, it changes back into the fruit of the vine**!**
Matt 26:26-29
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 **This is my blood **of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of **this fruit of the vine **from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Transubstantiation that developed in early Catholicism is reactionary theology against docetism.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Ummm…what? Not sure I understand. “Transubstantiation” did not come up as a term or theory occur until later in the Middle Ages, in the Scholastic period, while Docetism as you mention was an early heresy. I guess I’m confused on what relevance “transubstantiation” would have in “early Catholicism” since the term itself didn’t occur until so many centuries (almost a millenium) later.T
Transubstantiation that developed in early Catholicism is reactionary theology against docetism.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
You can discuss it amongst yourselves, but I see early signs of transubstantiation as a reactionary theory to docetism in some of the ECF’s.Ummm…what? Not sure I understand. “Transubstantiation” did not come up as a term or theory occur until later in the Middle Ages, in the Scholastic period, while Docetism as you mention was an early heresy. I guess I’m confused on what relevance “transubstantiation” would have in “early Catholicism” since the term itself didn’t occur until so many centuries (almost a millenium) later.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No, that’s ok, if you brought it up but don’t want to discuss, that’s fine. Thanks anyway.You can discuss it amongst yourselves, but I see early signs of transubstantiation as a reactionary theory to docetism in some of the ECF’s.
Y
YADA
Guest
I have read carefully … no where does jesus change the bread and wine back into simple bread and wine … perhaps you should stop reading with an anti-cathilic bias …There is no teaching of transubstantiation in Justin (off topic from Pope). In the biblical account, if by his words Jesus changes the substance of bread and cup into his real flesh and blood, then by the same logic, he changes it back again before the apostles partake.
Read carefully:
The bread and cup change into the body and blood of Jesus in verse 26-28, then in verse 29, it changes back into the fruit of the vine**!**
Matt 26:26-29
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 **This is my blood **of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of **this fruit of the vine **from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Transubstantiation that developed in early Catholicism is reactionary theology against docetism.
Paul tell us that to partake of the Eucharist without perceiving the Body and Blood is to drink to our death and condemnation … That the Eucharist is a participation in the death and resurrection of Christ … Symbols [pure symbols] do not have the power to cause sickness or death let alone cause a person to lose salvation … Jesus tells us that we must partake of His Flesh and Blood. That we must eat of the food from Heaven [eat, chew and knaw upon] that we might have life everlating …
We have “computers” … what is a computer? … computer is a term used to describe a piece of equipment - a specific item that performs specific tasks …
Photosynthesis existed before a word was developed to describe what occurs … that the term came into use at a specific moment in time does not mean that “photosynthesis” did not exost before the term was coined …
The Trinity existed from before Creation …
Genesis states "Let us make man in our image … "
John tells us that “In* the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God*” …
Our God is One - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - called Trinity … God existed in all His Oneness and as Father, Son and Holy Spirit before the term Trinity was coined …
A
anthony022071
Guest
Would it make sense for Paul to give Timothy instructions for appointing bishops unless he expected Timothy to do so? In the letter to the Colossians,the postion of biship is called an office. An office has successors and does not come to end when at death.Paul gave qualifications for bishops (plural) and deacons. There were no singular bishops in the early church until Ignatius.
A bishop is basically a priest who has authority over a region rather than just a parish. The apostles were certainly not limited in their authority to single parishes.
Paul ordained Timothy as bishop of Ephesus.
2 Timothy 1:6
For which cause I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands.
“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).
Apostolic succession refers to the ministry that began with the apostles. It does mean a succession of actual apostles.In scripture there is only the succession of truth, not of apostles, and this truth must be passed on by reliable men who are qualified to teach others also.
The perpetuation of the apostolic teaching requires the perpetuation of the apostolic ministry.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
To eat Jesus means to hear and obey his word. See John 6:63Jesus tells us that we must partake of His Flesh and Blood. That we must eat of the food from Heaven [eat, chew and knaw upon] that we might have life everlating …
John 6
51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. **58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” **59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
P
paul_c
Guest
No, it doesn’t mean to simply hear and believe his word. If thats all it meant, none of the disciples would have left, would they? In John 6, he was clearly setting the stage for the last supper, where he explained more fully that the bread was his body and the wine was his blood and that this was spiritual food that brought graces with it. Those that weren’t called to the faith didn’t and don’t understand this. Hopefully, some day you will understand it and be saved…To eat Jesus means to hear and obey his word. See John 6:63
John 6
51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. **58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” **59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
Y
YADA
Guest
hear and obey … obey his command to “EAT” … you have forced your personal interpretation upon this passage … clearly the words of Jesus meant to “eat” his body and blood … why was this so hard for those who heard Him? … canabalism and eating blood were taboo to the hebrews … that is why this “saying was too hard” … Did Jesus correct their misunderstanding … “hey, I mean that metaphorically not really” … No He did not … He did not correct it because He meant what He said …To eat Jesus means to hear and obey his word. See John 6:63
John 6
51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. **58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” **59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
Why Jesus would let his disciples loose their salvation because they thought He instructed them to break the Mosaic Law on eating Flesh and Blood … if He was only speaking in metaphores … if He did not really mean what they thought … Jesus would have corrected them - elaborated - told them He ws only speaking symbolically …
No, instead Jesus asked the ones who remained if they would leave Him as well? … Did Jesus comfort them with platitudes about symbols or parabals? No, Jesus offered no softening of His statement …
You need to read the scriptures without your bias against the Church …
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Jesus said in John 6:63 “The words I speak are spirit and life.” and in verse 35, he explains that one’s hunger is satisfied by coming to Jesus and believing on him. So what does it mean to eat his flesh and drink his blood?hear and obey … obey his command to “EAT” … you have forced your personal interpretation upon this passage … clearly the words of Jesus meant to “eat” his body and blood … why was this so hard for those who heard Him? … canabalism and eating blood were taboo to the hebrews … that is why this “saying was too hard” … Did Jesus correct their misunderstanding … “hey, I mean that metaphorically not really” … No He did not … He did not correct it because He meant what He said …
Why Jesus would let his disciples loose their salvation because they thought He instructed them to break the Mosaic Law on eating Flesh and Blood … if He was only speaking in metaphores … if He did not really mean what they thought … Jesus would have corrected them - elaborated - told them He ws only speaking symbolically …
No, instead Jesus asked the ones who remained if they would leave Him as well? … Did Jesus comfort them with platitudes about symbols or parabals? No, Jesus offered no softening of His statement …
You need to read the scriptures without your bias against the Church …
Before saying this, Jesus said:
John 6:33
For the **bread of God **is he who comes down from heaven and **gives life **to the world."
John 6:35
Then Jesus declared, I am the bread of life. He who **comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me **will never be thirsty.
John 6:48
I am the bread of life.
John 6:51
I am the **living bread **that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (Here Jesus speaks of his death on the cross.)
John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
P
paul_c
Guest
Here’s what the Lord says in Matthew 26: 26-28Jesus said in John 6:63 “The words I speak are spirit and life.” and in verse 35, he explains that one’s hunger is satisfied by coming to Jesus and believing on him. So what does it mean to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
Before saying this, Jesus said:
John 6:33
For the **bread of God **is he who comes down from heaven and **gives life **to the world."
John 6:35
Then Jesus declared, I am the bread of life. He who **comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me **will never be thirsty.
John 6:48
I am the bread of life.
John 6:51
I am the **living bread **that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (Here Jesus speaks of his death on the cross.)
John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
Here’s how luke see’s the same episode (Luke 22: 19-20)
Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
And Mark: (Mark 14: 22-24)
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.
And St. Paul: (1Corinthians 11: 23-29)
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
All of them are unified with John in declaring the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. Why should we believe your interpretation on this? What are your credentials or the great signs from heaven that would suggest that your view on this is more accurate than scriptures or the tradition of the Catholic Church?
M
Mickey
Guest
The denial of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist was not widely accepted by some protestants until Ulrich Zwingli came forth with his odd interpretations. Luther and Calvin would not even go so far. I would think this is problematic for you.To eat Jesus means to hear and obey his word.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
I can only give you the words of John 6 and hope you will take all into account within that chapter/passage. Is it what the text says?All of them are unified with John in declaring the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. Why should we believe your interpretation on this? What are your credentials or the great signs from heaven that would suggest that your view on this is more accurate than scriptures or the tradition of the Catholic Church?
If the bread and cup were **transformed into real flesh and blood **when Jesus spoke the words “my body” “my blood,” then **were they changed back **when he said “this fruit of the vine” before they drank it?
Will you or anyone respond to me about this?
Again, like John 6, it is about reading the whole text and understanding the context.
Matt.26:26-29 "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is **my blood **of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of **this fruit of the vine **from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Since I am not a Protestant, these men are not problematic for me. I follow Christ revealed in Matt.26:29 when he said “this fruit of the vine” before they drank it.The denial of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist was not widely accepted by some protestants until Ulrich Zwingli came forth with his odd interpretations. Luther and Calvin would not even go so far. I would think this is problematic for you.
S
stephraim
Guest
As far as Apostolic succession goes, check out Numbers 27:12-23, where God actually commands Moses to lay hands on Joshua and impart his authority to him. This is exactly what the Apostles do in Acts 6:3-6; 10:15-19.
In regards to John 6, if the flesh profit nothing, then why did Christ die on the cross? What was the purpose of His suffering? John 6:63 is used often to prove that Our Lord was speaking symbolically, yet in Hebrews 1:14 (speaking of angels as spirits) and John 4:24 (saying God is Spirit), *spirit *(πνεῦμά and its forms) is very real. No Christian would say that God is symbolic. We know from Tobit (and other sources) that angels are not symbolic either. They are real. Further, the verb “eat” (φάγῃ) is changed to the much more emphatic “gnaw, chew, munch” (τρώγων), emphasizing the literal interpretation of eating His flesh. Yes, coming to Him and believing His words are required, but so is actually eating His true Flesh and drinking His true Blood.
Why also, did Our Lord ask only Peter to “feed His sheep”? If it was just to confirm his faith, why did He not ask the other Apostles who also fled and hid at His arrest?
In regards to John 6, if the flesh profit nothing, then why did Christ die on the cross? What was the purpose of His suffering? John 6:63 is used often to prove that Our Lord was speaking symbolically, yet in Hebrews 1:14 (speaking of angels as spirits) and John 4:24 (saying God is Spirit), *spirit *(πνεῦμά and its forms) is very real. No Christian would say that God is symbolic. We know from Tobit (and other sources) that angels are not symbolic either. They are real. Further, the verb “eat” (φάγῃ) is changed to the much more emphatic “gnaw, chew, munch” (τρώγων), emphasizing the literal interpretation of eating His flesh. Yes, coming to Him and believing His words are required, but so is actually eating His true Flesh and drinking His true Blood.
Why also, did Our Lord ask only Peter to “feed His sheep”? If it was just to confirm his faith, why did He not ask the other Apostles who also fled and hid at His arrest?
A
agbasinger
Guest
Bingo.It was in place from the start. The Church predates Scripture.
S
stephraim
Guest
Were the scribes and Pharisees turned into snakes when Our Lord called them “serpents, [and a] brood of vipers” in Matthew 23:33? No, intent must play a part. It is typical to refer to something made new by its old name, for example, John 9:17 still calls the man who had been born blind (though now cured by Our Lord) “the blind man”; also, Exodus 7:12 still calls the snake (changed from a staff) “Aaron’s staff.”I can only give you the words of John 6 and hope you will take all into account within that chapter/passage. Is it what the text says?
If the bread and cup were **transformed into real flesh and blood **when Jesus spoke the words “my body” “my blood,” then **were they changed back **when he said “this fruit of the vine” before they drank it?
Will you or anyone respond to me about this?
Y
YADA
Guest
YEs and you leave put the passages where he reiterates that His “flesh is TRUE FOOD” and His Blood is “TRUE DRINK” … True food …Jesus said in John 6:63 “The words I speak are spirit and life.” and in verse 35, he explains that one’s hunger is satisfied by coming to Jesus and believing on him. So what does it mean to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
Before saying this, Jesus said:
John 6:33
For the **bread of God **is he who comes down from heaven and **gives life **to the world."
John 6:35
Then Jesus declared, I am the bread of life. He who **comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me **will never be thirsty.
John 6:48
I am the bread of life.
John 6:51
I am the **living bread **that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (Here Jesus speaks of his death on the cross.)
John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
Is a picture of an apple truely an apple? No … it merely represents an apple … so why did Jesus emphasize that He was the TRUE BREAD … TRUE FOOD and then GIVE HIS BODY and BLOOD at the Last Supper …
As Paul wrote … to eat the Bread that is Broken and drink the Cup of Blessing without discerning the Body and Blood is to eat and drink to your death … he is not speaking of some metaphor, he is speaking about the Eucharist … the True Body and Blood of Christ … really partaking [eating, chewing and swollowing] … the Christians came together to be feed on the Word of God and on the True Flesh and Blood … the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist … A profound Mystery to be sure but with Jesus - all things are possible and Goddoes not lie, nor does He lead his followers wrongly …
Paul understood the Eucharist - literally - so much so that to take it without understanding or to recieve it while not in a state of grace could make you sick, evendie and perhaps cost you your salvation … no mere symbol could do this …
to argue otherwise is absurd …
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
You want to believe the bread and cup change in substance. I want to believe the meaning is changed but not the substance. I say, “Lord we ask you to bless this bread for which we give thanks, that to us as Christians is the body of Christ that took on the sins of the world.” And so we discern the body of Christ.Were the scribes and Pharisees turned into snakes when Our Lord called them “serpents, [and a] brood of vipers” in Matthew 23:33? No, intent must play a part. It is typical to refer to something made new by its old name, for example, John 9:17 still calls the man who had been born blind (though now cured by Our Lord) “the blind man”; also, Exodus 7:12 still calls the snake (changed from a staff) “Aaron’s staff.”
Want to talk about was Peter regarded as the head of the church by Paul, John, James, Jude, and by Peter himself?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.