How to convince R. Catholics that the ('host' wafer) is not Christs flesh and bone? (2)

[Standing Up]

If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15

If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. John 15:10

He commanded, saying "this do ..."

He demonstrated what He commanded before the Crucifixion; and this He repeated after the Resurrection - and when He did this, "their eyes were opened ...".

Don't think anyone disputes this. The question is about the circumstances.

Eucharist/thanksgiving OR sacrifice.

Priesthood of believer OR unique office of priest.

God with us OR only "present" in the priest's sacrifice.

Body of believer as temple OR building as temple with relics.

That's about it.

 

[Thekla]

Don't think anyone disputes this. The question is about the circumstances.

Eucharist/thanksgiving OR sacrifice.

Priesthood of believer OR unique office of priest.

God with us OR only "present" in the priest's sacrifice.

Body of believer as temple OR building as temple with relics.

That's about it.

The Eucharist (good or best blessing) concept has been explained to you; you seem to insist on relying on a misunderstanding to prop your taking offense.

The iereus of all believers and the presbyteros/episkopos as proistamenos has also been explained - again here, you are "taking offense" at what is actually a misunderstanding.

God with us is not a matter of the existence of a priest - other than Christ.

As for the temple issue -- relics are temples, as we all are to be. That we also often worship in a building is a "problem" I do not understand. The living room in my house can barely fit our family of eight; I am pleased that our parish has a large enough building that more than eight can assemble.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Standing Up;God with us OR only "present" in the priest's sacrifice.

...Or perhaps Eucharist as metaphor or miracle (or both).

Body of believer as temple OR building as temple with relics.

I am a temple, becoming a relic (56yrs old)

 

[Thekla]

...Or perhaps Eucharist as metaphor or miracle (or both).I am a temple, becoming a relic (56yrs old)

You're relic-ing six years ahead of me ... my knees hurt sometimes and I need reading glasses

 

[Andrew Ryan]

Perhaps I should start a thread titled "how to convince Protestants that the holy eucharist is indeed Christ's flesh and bones."

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So no problem condeming mine then. since your right. I said you can do it your way if you wished. again the four four gospels dont contradict each other. So if Christ says believe in me for forgiveness and have eternal life. thats ALL i need to do. the rest of scripture shows this more clearly. Its not a simple i blieve and nothing else i do either that you try to place on it. God knows the heart. its believe in christ live by the SPirit and Love one another. simple. everyone can do this without exception. no loop holes needed nothing needed at all. YOu cannot be as great as God. satan tried that and see where it got him. but i think you meant it differently. thats mormon talk. I will reread the OP

If you think it is "mormon talk" then I do not think you understand, still.

When you do you will know it is Christian talk.

 

[Rick Otto]

Perhaps I should start a thread titled "how to convince Protestants that the holy eucharist is indeed Christ's flesh and bones."

I'm game. Sounds at least as plausible as the title of this one.
Aside from the laughable "bones" part, that is.
I've been chucklin' about that for awhile now.

 

[Philothei]

Don't think anyone disputes this. The question is about the circumstances.

Eucharist/thanksgiving OR sacrifice.

Priesthood of believer OR unique office of priest.

God with us OR only "present" in the priest's sacrifice.

Body of believer as temple OR building as temple with relics.

That's about it.

1. Both
2. Both
3. Both
Why it has to be one or another? There is no conflict there was not conflict in the first centuries why now ?

 

[Philothei]

scripture does not contradict itself. I gave you a verse that \clearly says we obey his commands AND THIS IS HIS COMMANDS. God commands us to LOVE that is it period. We do this through Christ. PERIOD. All t he stuff you add is nothing without love. God doesnt need our worship in this way. He asks us to LOVE to bring others to his saving grace. What we do in church buildings is to strengthen the members of that church and the Church as a whole. If the things you do do that fine. but to say we must do it is wrong because God did not send his son to give us burdensome rite and sacraments he sent his son to free us from the curse of sin being death and so that we might live through Him so we can truely show LOve to others. Christianity is not rite ot sacraments or ordances. the Jews did al this stuff and God was not pleased with it. these do not give us the Love to others. Doing these things doesnt show love to those who need it shown to them. Your idea of christianity is a bit off sorry. And way to complicated for me. I will just seek the lord in me and live by the spirit stronger and stronger each day so that i may show the Love to others God asks of me.

SIMPLE:
Christ said the greatest of all is love NOT the ONLY One is love...

 

[Philothei]

So no problem condeming mine then. since your right. I said you can do it your way if you wished. again the four four gospels dont contradict each other. So if Christ says believe in me for forgiveness and have eternal life. thats ALL i need to do. the rest of scripture shows this more clearly. Its not a simple i blieve and nothing else i do either that you try to place on it. God knows the heart. its believe in christ live by the SPirit and Love one another. simple. everyone can do this without exception. no loop holes needed nothing needed at all. YOu cannot be as great as God. satan tried that and see where it got him. but i think you meant it differently. thats mormon talk. I will reread the OP

Christ said many "commands" IMHO that is the minimum to do ... I agree that commitment is important too...no doubt about it But Christ said this in a command "do this" thus we do it. I see no mormon claiming this The love part is valid but again NOT the ONLY one commandment we are supposed to observe

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'm game. Sounds at least as plausible as the title of this one.
Aside from the laughable "bones" part, that is.
I've been chucklin' about that for awhile now.

I didn't even notice that until now

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440554/#post54140481
Valley of Bones

YouTube - Dem' Bones... - StevieRyan

 

[Standing Up]

The Eucharist (good or best blessing) concept has been explained to you; you seem to insist on relying on a misunderstanding to prop your taking offense.

The iereus of all believers and the presbyteros/episkopos as proistamenos has also been explained - again here, you are "taking offense" at what is actually a misunderstanding.

-snip-

Evidently you missed this (again):

The earliest organization of the Christian churches in Palestine was similar to that of Jewish synagogues, who were governed by a council of elders (presbyteroi). In Acts 11:30 and 15:22, we see this collegiate system of government in Jerusalem, and in Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains elders in the churches he founded. Initially, these presbyters were apparently identical with the overseers (episkopoi, i.e., bishops), as such passages as Acts 20:17 and Titus 1:5,7 indicate, and the terms were interchangeable.

Shortly after the New Testament period, with the death of the Apostles, there was a differentiation in the usage of the synonymous terms, giving rise to the appearance of two distinct offices, bishop and presbyter. The bishop was understood mainly as the president of the council of presbyters, and so the bishop came to be distinguished both in honor and in prerogative from the presbyters, who were seen as deriving their authority by means of delegation from the bishop. The distinction between presbyter and bishop is made fairly soon after the Apostolic period, as is seen in the 2nd century writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who uses the terms consistently and clearly to refer to two different offices (along with deacon).
Presbyter - OrthodoxWiki

Please note that they admit the same thing I have been saying (again Vines says the same thing. And NewAdvent.org admits the same thing).

In the beginning, there was no separate office of priest. Bishop and presbyter were used interchangeably.

"Ignatius" is the sole witness to the differentiation. Scripture (as is noted), Clement, Polycarp, Hermas, and Irenaeus maintain only bishop and deacon. And keep in mind that "Ignatius" also counselled that the bishop is above all (including apostles and scripture apparently).

So, why do those EO and RC on this thread want to continue to argue against what even their own group admits to? Argue away, just don't make the false claim that it's tied to apostles. Else change OrthodoxWiki while you're at it.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip- No development took place

The earliest organization of the Christian churches in Palestine was similar to that of Jewish synagogues, who were governed by a council of elders (presbyteroi). In Acts 11:30 and 15:22, we see this collegiate system of government in Jerusalem, and in Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains elders in the churches he founded. Initially, these presbyters were apparently identical with the overseers (episkopoi, i.e., bishops), as such passages as Acts 20:17 and Titus 1:5,7 indicate, and the terms were interchangeable.
Shortly after the New Testament period, with the death of the Apostles, there was a differentiation in the usage of the synonymous terms, giving rise to the appearance of two distinct offices, bishop and presbyter. The bishop was understood mainly as the president of the council of presbyters, and so the bishop came to be distinguished both in honor and in prerogative from the presbyters, who were seen as deriving their authority by means of delegation from the bishop. The distinction between presbyter and bishop is made fairly soon after the Apostolic period, as is seen in the 2nd century writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who uses the terms consistently and clearly to refer to two different offices (along with deacon).
Presbyter - OrthodoxWiki

It changed. AFTER means after. "Everyone" knows it.

and if we look at the oldest manuscripts of Divine office (coptic liturgies) we see the sacrifice right there

How old? Apostolic or sometime after?

... Indeed it is a continuation of the Jewish Temple practice

Why do you think this?

 

[Philothei]

SU the original manuscripts of the Bible were found ever? NO the copies were found so what do you try to say here is moot. Realy... though I mean the coptic liturgy is knows to be a copy from a copy from a copy of the original of St. James. You believe in the Bible even if it was NEVER found in its present form from and ORIGINAL copy ...but from a copy actually from the Byzantine Codex. Applying that logic then to the manuscripts of the Liturgical text we come to the same conclusion. Actually there are not too many manuscripts thank God Addai and Mari (my husbands master's thesis) and old Syriac Liturgy also was found to contain the same "Anaphora" as the contemporary Basil one. There are scholars who have reviewed all these and they agree to the 'sacrifice" element as well as thanksgiving they are interconnected.
Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession".[4] The anaphora contains, for instance, the declaration: "The body of Christ and his precious blood are on the holy altar." This has been compared to the Eastern Orthodox Church declaratory formula for absolution: "The servant of God N. is absolved", in contrast to the Western "I absolve thee". A similar contrast is found in the Eastern and Western formulas for baptism.
Though this decision by the Catholic Church is arguably not irreformable, it is of undoubted ecumenical importance.
Chaldean Catholics, who also use this anaphora, have traditionally inserted the Words of Institution into it; they are now beginning to cease adding this interpolation.[citation needed]

I will not post any more information maybe you can look them up

Scholars like Bradshaw, Wybrew, Robert Taft and but few liturgical scholars that are not RC but also Protestants who verify the truth about the Real presence.

Now you know why "i" not only think this but we have evidence that the Jewish Temple worship continued to the Christian. James was a converted Jew ... It is claimed that the first liturgy did started in Jerusalem after all wheren he was the Bishop. That is verified in the Scripture for one thing. ...

Ah...the scripture that the original texts were never found ...but their copies

 

[Philothei]

In "The sources of the Tradition" from his book "The Orthodox Liturgy" Wybrew writes:

"(Acts 20.9).There were many light to the make the room bright. Everyone had brought their contribution to teh common meal. I was not always a seemly performance, as Paul rebuke to the Corinthians makes clear. Some ate and drank only too well, failing to discenrn the Lord's Body; by which Paul probabl means the presence of the Lord both in the sacrament and in the community, whose poorer members had less than a fair share of the food and drink.

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread we break is not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the same loaf 1 Cor. 10.16-17
................................

Also he writes that the service we have today is a continuation of the temple and synagogue service:
'the combined Christian synagogue service and memorial meal came at an early period to be held on Sunday morning rather than Saturday evening..... Liturgy of the Catechumens and the liturgy of the faithful came together to one (I am paraphrasing here on this )

(p. 14)

Also Clement writes:
"To the high priest (i.e. the bishop) his special liturgies have been appointed, and to the priests (i.e. the presbyters) their special place is assigned, and the Levites (i.e. the deacons) their special services are imposed; the layman is bound by he ordinances of the laity. let each of you , brethren make eucharist to God according to his own order, keeping a good onscience and not transgressing the appointed rule of his liturgy'(1 Clem. 40, 41) P. 15.

If Wybrew uses Clement's epistles then that good enough source for me

BTW all major scholars believe that Chrstian worship has its roots in the Jewish assembly and temple worship and I would rather take their word for it

 

[Standing Up]

SU the original manuscripts of the Bible were found ever? NO the copies were found so what do you try to say here is moot. Realy... though I mean the coptic liturgy is knows to be a copy from a copy from a copy of the original of St. James. You believe in the Bible even if it was NEVER found in its present form from and ORIGINAL copy ...but from a copy actually from the Byzantine Codex. Applying that logic then to the manuscripts of the Liturgical text we come to the same conclusion. Actually there are not too many manuscripts thank God Addai and Mari (my husbands master's thesis) and old Syriac Liturgy also was found to contain the same "Anaphora" as the contemporary Basil one. There are scholars who have reviewed all these and they agree to the 'sacrifice" element as well as thanksgiving they are interconnected.
Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




I will not post any more information maybe you can look them up

Scholars like Bradshaw, Wybrew, Robert Taft and but few liturgical scholars that are not RC but also Protestants who verify the truth about the Real presence.

Now you know why "i" not only think this but we have evidence that the Jewish Temple worship continued to the Christian. James was a converted Jew ... It is claimed that the first liturgy did started in Jerusalem after all wheren he was the Bishop. That is verified in the Scripture for one thing. ...

Ah...the scripture that the original texts were never found ...but their copies

Good point on the bible, except we all agree about it (at least the NT part).

Most scholars place the James thing to the 4th century.

And there's this:

Saint James was martyred at the hands of a mob incensed at his preaching about Jesus and his "transgression of the Law" - an accusation made by the Jewish High Priest of the time, Hanan ben Hanan.
Liturgy of St James - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly he wasn't upholding the Law, the Levitical sacrificial system, but was martyred evidently for saying that system was over. Why do folks try to insist it's ongoing?! Look at the differences:

One sacrifice once vs. offered daily.

Thanksgiving vs. sacrifice.

Priesthood of believer vs. OT levite type priest.

Surely you can see the difference, even if you disagree.

 

[Thekla]

Evidently you missed this (again):

The earliest organization of the Christian churches in Palestine was similar to that of Jewish synagogues, who were governed by a council of elders (presbyteroi). In Acts 11:30 and 15:22, we see this collegiate system of government in Jerusalem, and in Acts 14:23, the Apostle Paul ordains elders in the churches he founded. Initially, these presbyters were apparently identical with the overseers (episkopoi, i.e., bishops), as such passages as Acts 20:17 and Titus 1:5,7 indicate, and the terms were interchangeable.

Shortly after the New Testament period, with the death of the Apostles, there was a differentiation in the usage of the synonymous terms, giving rise to the appearance of two distinct offices, bishop and presbyter. The bishop was understood mainly as the president of the council of presbyters, and so the bishop came to be distinguished both in honor and in prerogative from the presbyters, who were seen as deriving their authority by means of delegation from the bishop. The distinction between presbyter and bishop is made fairly soon after the Apostolic period, as is seen in the 2nd century writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who uses the terms consistently and clearly to refer to two different offices (along with deacon).
Presbyter - OrthodoxWiki

Please note that they admit the same thing I have been saying (again Vines says the same thing. And NewAdvent.org admits the same thing).

In the beginning, there was no separate office of priest. Bishop and presbyter were used interchangeably.

"Ignatius" is the sole witness to the differentiation. Scripture (as is noted), Clement, Polycarp, Hermas, and Irenaeus maintain only bishop and deacon. And keep in mind that "Ignatius" also counselled that the bishop is above all (including apostles and scripture apparently).

So, why do those EO and RC on this thread want to continue to argue against what even their own group admits to? Argue away, just don't make the false claim that it's tied to apostles. Else change OrthodoxWiki while you're at it.

I'll leave the Wiki to others

It has been explained previously, that the episkopoi may have the presbyters stand in their place, that either may act as proistamenos.

The apostles appointed others - this you can find in the Scriptures, or you may look for a Wiki-entry

That there was a laying on of hands - ordination - you can find in the Scriptures as well.

 

[Philothei]

Good point on the bible, except we all agree about it (at least the NT part).

Most scholars place the James thing to the 4th century.

And there's this:

Saint James was martyred at the hands of a mob incensed at his preaching about Jesus and his "transgression of the Law" - an accusation made by the Jewish High Priest of the time, Hanan ben Hanan.
Liturgy of St James - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly he wasn't upholding the Law, the Levitical sacrificial system, but was martyred evidently for saying that system was over. Why do folks try to insist it's ongoing?! Look at the differences:

One sacrifice once vs. offered daily.

Thanksgiving vs. sacrifice.

Priesthood of believer vs. OT levite type priest.

Surely you can see the difference, even if you disagree.

I disagree becasue there are no differences and I sbstantiated why. Now if this is your opinion and take on this then it is your call I would agree with scholars rather than the wikki... James might not upheld the Law but this has nothing to do with what I just posted... this is but a generalization on James... that is irrelevant... Of course he did not uphelf the law as the worship changed to Sunday morning. What is your point?

 

[Standing Up]

I'll leave the Wiki to others

C'mon, that's OrthodoxWiki. Besides, Vines and Thayers say the same thing. Here's NewAdvent.org.

This word (etymologically "elder", from presbyteros, presbyter) has taken the meaning of "sacerdos", from which no substantive has been formed in various modern languages (English, French, German).

It has been explained previously, that the episkopoi may have the presbyters stand in their place, that either may act as proistamenos.

The apostles appointed others - this you can find in the Scriptures, or you may look for a Wiki-entry

That there was a laying on of hands - ordination - you can find in the Scriptures as well.

Again, no one denies that. What's not found very early on is the separate office of priest or this (NewAdvent.org).

The Christian law also has necessarily its priesthood to carry out the Divine service, the principal act of which is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the figure and renewal of that of Calvary.

Eucharist is defined as thanksgiving very early on. It never meant sacrifice.

I don't expect any agreement, just a nod that you see the priest and the sacrifice arising together later.

 

[Standing Up]

I disagree becasue there are no differences and I sbstantiated why. Now if this is your opinion and take on this then it is your call I would agree with scholars rather than the wikki... James might not upheld the Law but this has nothing to do with what I just posted... this is but a generalization on James... that is irrelevant... Of course he did not uphelf the law as the worship changed to Sunday morning. What is your point?

Your point was that the NT carried on the Levitical priest/sacrifice system. You cited James as "proof". But, James disagrees and was martyred evidently for that "transgression of the Law".

The apostles taught the priesthood of believer and eucharist as thanksgiving. Folks, like James and Blandina, were martyred for believing that. Others taught Levite-type priest/sacrifice and they survived.