Original Churches believe in the Eucharist

[hoser]

What I am curious about is why the two Churches that claim to be and can support the fact that they have been around since apostolic times (Catholic and Orthodox, even though Orthodox was united with the Catholic Church for the first 1000 years) have always believed that Jesus was truly present body, blood, soul and divinty in the Eucharist. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS believed this and the Orthodox Churches have ALWAYS believed this.

So my question is, since both Churches that are derived from apostolic times were taught at the time and have believed in ever since the true physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, how could they be wrong? How could churches that formed over 1500 years later actually understand this better than the Churches that were their from the beginning?

 

[HisKid1973]

I don't think EITHER are 100% correct in the sense that some traditions of men are followed and the real "Church" is His body of TRUE believers from all camps.. I still am thinking about that revelation that I read in GT that Christ himself and His diciples drank His actual blood at the last supper instead of the fruit of the vine(I hope I misunderstood)....K

 

[cristoiglesia]

I don't think EITHER are 100% correct in the sense that manmade ideas followed and the real "Church" is His body of TRUE believers from all camps.. I still am thinking about that revelation that I read in GT that Christ himself and His deciples drank His actual blood at the last supper instead of the fruit of the vine(I hope I misunderstood)....K

No, I can assure you that you did not misunderstand. Why does it bother you? Jesus explicitly said that it was His blood and history and Tradition show that the disciples believed that it was His blood. Had you never read the verses about the last supper before? It was a foreshadowing of His death on the cross.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

 

[Albion]

What I am curious about is why the two Churches that claim to be and can support the fact that they have been around since apostolic times (Catholic and Orthodox, even though Orthodox was united with the Catholic Church for 1500 years) have always believed that Jesus was truly present body, blood, soul and divinty in the Eucharist. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS believed this and the Orthodox Churches have ALWAYS believed this.

Simple. You're just a victim of poor history. In fact, they have NOT always believed this; they merely assert that they have. Quite the same as saying Papal Supremacy was ALWAYS believed or that Purgatory was ALWAYS believed. They weren't...and this wasn't either. Any good history of the Apostolic church will help you out.

 

[Illume]

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don't believe they same thing about the Eucharist.

Catholics define it as Transubstantiation, Eastern Orthodox leave it as undefined real presence.

 

[catlick]

many many eastern orthodox rites are Catholic and the supreem pontiff, the bishop of rome is the authority

 

[Albion]

many many eastern orthodox rites are Catholic and the supreem pontiff, the bishop of rome is the authority

Take note that he spoke of Eastern ORTHODOX not Eastern rite Catholic or Eastern Catholic which are under the bishop of Rome, unlike the ORTHODOX.

 

[cristoiglesia]

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don't believe they same thing about the Eucharist.

Catholics define it as Transubstantiation, Eastern Orthodox leave it as undefined real presence.

We all believe the same, that it is the real body and blood of Jesus that we receive. The Roman Catholics just choose to define it while the rest of us just accept it as a divine miracle and choose not to define it. There is really no difference from a practical standpoint.


In Christ
Fr. Joseph

 

[cristoiglesia]

Simple. You're just a victim of poor history. In fact, they have NOT always believed this; they merely assert that they have. Quite the same as saying Papal Supremacy was ALWAYS believed or that Purgatory was ALWAYS believed. They weren't...and this wasn't either. Any good history of the Apostolic church will help you out.

No poor history here. Having been a professor of early Church history I have never found evidence that any part of the Church believed or practiced differently. BTW, If you have any evidence I will be happy to consider it. Until then.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

 

[Albion]

We all believe the same, that it is the real body and blood of Jesus that we receive. The Roman Catholics just choose to define it while the rest of us just accept it as a divine miracle and choose not to define it. There is really no difference from a practical standpoint.


In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Yes, we "all"--Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, and others --believe that "it is the real body and blood of Jesus that we receive."

 

[Albion]

No poor history here. Having been a professor of early Church history I have never found evidence that any part of the Church believed or practiced differently. BTW, If you have any evidence I will be happy to consider it. Until then.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

OK, so your credentials don't match up to mine. No problem.

The point remains that the Apostolic Church was far different from the evolved Church of the Middle Ages and later on. Do you seriously doubt that?

 

[Egghead]

What I am curious about is why the two Churches that claim to be and can support the fact that they have been around since apostolic times (Catholic and Orthodox, even though Orthodox was united with the Catholic Church for 1500 years) have always believed that Jesus was truly present body, blood, soul and divinty in the Eucharist. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS believed this and the Orthodox Churches have ALWAYS believed this.

So my question is, since both Churches that are derived from apostolic times were taught at the time and have believed in ever since the true physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, how could they be wrong? How could churches that formed over 1500 years later actually understand this better than the Churches that were their from the beginning?

''Do this in remembrance of Me''......and we do.
Dont worry about the details, just do it

 

[Egghead]

Simple. You're just a victim of poor history. In fact, they have NOT always believed this; they merely assert that they have. Quite the same as saying Papal Supremacy was ALWAYS believed or that Purgatory was ALWAYS believed. They weren't...and this wasn't either. Any good history of the Apostolic church will help you out.

and with things like the False Decretals floating around, its hard to say what has been ''changed'' over the centuries, then passed off as ''always was''

 

[Albion]

''Do this in remembrance of Me''......and we do.
Dont worry about the details, just do it

An excellent point. If the differences don't matter between the churches that believe in the Real Presence (all of whom have slightly different takes on the subject) then Real Presence vs. Representationalism shouldn't matter either. "Do this is remembrance...." was, after all, the only specific instuction that Jesus made about the re-enactment of the Supper.

 

[cristoiglesia]

OK, so your credentials don't match up to mine. No problem.

The point remains that the Apostolic Church was far different from the evolved Church of the Middle Ages and later on. Do you seriously doubt that?

In regards to the Eucharist , yes I do doubt it. My primary area of knowledge is the early Church up to the Canonization of Scripture or the pre Biblical Church. But I am willing to consider evidence from any time in history that supports your claims.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

 

[cristoiglesia]

An excellent point. If the differences don't matter between the churches that believe in the Real Presence (all of whom have slightly different takes on the subject) then Real Presence vs. Representationalism shouldn't matter either. "Do this is remembrance...." was, after all, the only specific instuction that Jesus made about the re-enactment of the Supper.

What are you talking about? There are not any differences in the Apostolic Churches except one calls the miracle Transubstantiation and the others just call it a miracle. We all accept Christ's words as literal and believe that we are receiving His actual, corporeal body and blood. There is no difference. You can not divide and conquer on this issue. We are all of one voice on Christ's teaching.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

 

[Albion]

What are you talking about? There are not any differences in the Apostolic Churches except one calls the miracle Transubstantiation and the others just call it a miracle. We all accept Christ's words as literal and believe that we are receiving His actual, corporeal body and blood. There is no difference.

The difference is more than wording, and not all churches that believe they receive the true body and blood of Jesus take it literally.

I also believe that Egghead made an excellent, persuasive point. That's why I told him so.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

We have so precious little of the actual events of Christ's life and His Words recorded. The longest continuous discourse of Christ recorded in scripture is on this very subject. It is hard for me to imagine something of little importance or eternal significance would be given such a treatment in the Gospels. Of all the many conversations they could have recorded in detail for us, why would the writer record so much of Christ speaking on this than say baptism or making it to heaven?

 

[GenemZ]

What I am curious about is why the two Churches that claim to be and can support the fact that they have been around since apostolic times (Catholic and Orthodox, even though Orthodox was united with the Catholic Church for 1500 years) have always believed that Jesus was truly present body, blood, soul and divinty in the Eucharist. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS believed this and the Orthodox Churches have ALWAYS believed this.

So my question is, since both Churches that are derived from apostolic times were taught at the time and have believed in ever since the true physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, how could they be wrong? How could churches that formed over 1500 years later actually understand this better than the Churches that were their from the beginning?

You mean the same church that brought us the Inquisitions? Indulgences for salvation? Idol worship? Self flagellation? You mean, that church? How could it be wrong?

I just don't know what those reformers were looking at. There was nothing wrong with that church's thinking. It has always been right about everything. Its the perfect church.

And, Peter had a wife. Hmmmmmmm. I am so glad that church came along and told us that pastors must be celibate!

And, speaking of Peter. Peter was sent to the Jews. Paul, was sent to the Gentiles. Yet, this church corrected that problem, and re-assigned Peter to the Gentile church. Amazing how right on this church has been all these years.

And, while we are at it? Here is a good web page to see how right this church has always been. Never made mistakes.

http://www.richard-2782.com/tynd.htm

Those darn reformers! They had to mess up everything for all of us. Who were they so say the "mother church" was wrong about anything?

(you may not like what I say. but everything I speak of, is historical fact).....

Tongue in cheek, GeneZ

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Thanks GeneZ, personally find the Enquirer much more entertaining and at least Chic Comics have some funny pictures to look at. Maybe you should suggest to the site owner that he add some cartoons of the Pope in red with horns sticking out of his head.

The writer of that page wants us to believe that English (and indeed other non-Latin- general vernacular) versions of the Bible did not exist before Tyndale. Boy are those poor folks at Wycliff going to be mad when they find out about that! The site also fails to mention that the "Church" in England and "Biships" in question were more interested in serving a King and his interests than God. But hey, real history is never as much fun as comic book versions of it.



Are these the things you meant tongue in cheek when referring to such references as "history"?