Refuting Rome

[dvd_holc]

But Jesus did not say the lamb that was slaughter eat it's flesh...In the the sequence of the meal, in that time period, the flesh of the sacrifice is actual lamb, but Jesus did not point to actual flesh. Instead, he pointed to bread. Why bread? What is the pray for bread? Secondly since refered to the difference in the bread between the bread of this time and the time of the exodus, what does that imply? Thirdly, Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi who spoke in word-picture and the use of metaphor to draw out the hand of God in ways people can experience. Jesus used metaphors and stories to speak to the heart rathering than having lines of logical progression formulating a proof text. What Jesus did is draw upon the popular cultural imagery and habit to speak about his ministry rather than meaning you will eat my flesh and become me....No, the way a person became just like Jesus is by living in harmony with God as a present reality through the grace of God. Lastly, John wrote other letters....in those letters did he mention anything about eating the flesh of Jesus? In fact, all of his letters center around having eternal life by living in faith through Jesus Christ by living in love.

Oh yeah...there is doctorate programs just on the passover...so if you go just as far as you did into investigating the passover and the meal...you have no interest in getting truth out of it because you already have all that you need.

 

[Trento]

Lastly, John wrote other letters....in those letters did he mention anything about eating the flesh of Jesus? In fact, all of his letters center around having eternal life by living in faith through Jesus Christ by living in love.

.

St. Ignatius[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] was the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. St. Ignatius is given the title of Apostolic Father of the Church since he was a disciple of the Apostle John. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch during the reign of the Roman emperor Trajen (98-117), [/FONT]


Eucharistic Teachings of St. Ignatius of Antioch
[SIZE=+2]Letter to the Smyrnaeans[/SIZE] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Eucharist is the true participation in the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Here he directly challenges the Docetists who found no reason to celebrate the Eucharist since they denied the humanity of Christ:[/FONT]

Observe those who hold erroneous opinions concerning the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how they run counter to the mind of God! They concern themselves with neither works of charity, nor widows, nor orphans, nor the distressed, nor those in prison or out of it, nor the hungry or thirsty.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness.[/FONT]
Let no one do
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.[/FONT]

 

[dvd_holc]

St. Ignatius[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] was the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. St. Ignatius is given the title of Apostolic Father of the Church since he was a disciple of the Apostle John. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch during the reign of the Roman emperor Trajen (98-117), [/FONT]


Eucharistic Teachings of St. Ignatius of Antioch
[SIZE=+2]Letter to the Smyrnaeans[/SIZE] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Eucharist is the true participation in the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Here he directly challenges the Docetists who found no reason to celebrate the Eucharist since they denied the humanity of Christ:[/FONT]

Observe those who hold erroneous opinions concerning the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how they run counter to the mind of God! They concern themselves with neither works of charity, nor widows, nor orphans, nor the distressed, nor those in prison or out of it, nor the hungry or thirsty.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness.[/FONT]
Let no one do
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.[/FONT]

How much of the bible is about taking care of the needy and how much of the bible is talking euchrist? And, you did not refute that John actual mention eating the bread and wine in his leters...

 

[a_ntv]

? Thirdly, Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi who spoke in word-picture and the use of metaphor to draw out the hand of God in ways people can experience. Jesus used metaphors and stories to speak to the heart rathering than having lines of logical progression formulating a proof text.

Jesus used parabolas for most of the people, but NOT when He spoke to his discepoles. Mark 4:11 And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables;
It is you to decide when Jesus speaks in metaphor or not? Or to check it we can simply shall check who were lissening Him.
As per Mark 4:11, when Jesus spoke to his disciples, like in the Last Supper, He did not used parables!

And I dont think that the Eucharistic is a "lines of logical progression". Eucharist (a real change in matter, a doing new that is not doing a diffeent) is surely the more illogical idea on this earth.

 

[truebluefan24]

Once again, You can not say that this speech by jesus was a symbol. You try to explain it away, you say that he used common symbols and well-understood metaphors. If he was actually speaking in symbols and metaphors then why did people get upset. The bible doesn't say that one or two left, if that happened then maybe we could say they just didn't understand. But it says that many left and Jesus did nothing and he even asked his apostels. Jesus as a rabbi, a teacher would have had an obligation to correct his students. AN OBLIGATION.

 

[dvd_holc]

"If he was actually speaking in symbols and metaphors then why did people get upset."

Meaning people got upset at his parables...this was not the first time and was not the last...

 

[dvd_holc]

Last time, how much of the bible is about taking care of the needy and how much of the bible is talking euchrist?

 

[SeraphimOCA]

What does it matter about how much proportionate is about this thing or that thing. What is important in Scripture is not measured in screen time. How many times does it have to say not to murder before you understand murder is wrong and that not murdering is an important point of morality? If you put all the NT portions that relate in some way to the Holy Eucharist...you might end up with two or three pages if that much. That is enough I think to learn what it is about and how important it is.

 

[Trento]

Last time, how much of the bible is about taking care of the needy and how much of the bible is talking euchrist?

If the Eucharist was not Bibically important why would Paul say that if one eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? 1 Corinthians 11:27 In a Semitic culture, to be guilty of another’s body and blood is to be guilty of murder. Yet how could one be guilty of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ? Paul goes on to say that some are dying because of this.

 

[dvd_holc]

Well, my intent with my questions would have lead you specific direction because I would have a lot to say about this subject...the pursue of your thread is obvious not a search because you won't gone...so I leave because you will not come.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Deleted duplicate post.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

I have no bone to pick and worship with my Roman Catholic brethren once or twice a month, but I can not return because I have to say "I believe transubstantiation is correct." If I only had to admit that I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that it is a means of grace, then (on this issue I would happily comply). Sadly, that will never happen.

Then your troubles are over, my friend. Transubstantiation is simple a term that states that The bread and wine truely change into the actual Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. If you believe that, then you believe in Transubstantiation.

May the grace of Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Then your troubles are over, my friend. Transubstantiation is simple a term that states that The bread and wine truely change into the actual Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. If you believe that, then you believe in Transubstantiation.

May the grace of Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for the note, but believing in the real presence of Christ in Eucharist is not the same as believing in Transubstantiation. I can not say that I agree with that. Many Christians (most Protestants) have alwasy believed that we truly partake of CHrist in the Eucharists, yet we have not held to Transubstantiation.

Thanks again,
Kenith

 

[Trento]

Dear Sir,

Thank you for the note, but believing in the real presence of Christ in Eucharist is not the same as believing in Transubstantiation. I can not say that I agree with that. Many Christians (most Protestants) have alwasy believed that we truly partake of CHrist in the Eucharists, yet we have not held to Transubstantiation.

Thanks again,
Kenith

Opposition to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrifice of the Altar was virtually nonexistent until the dawn of the Protestant Reformation.
The confusion began with the Reformers, who could form no doctrinal consensus on the Eucharist. At the Marburg Conference in 1529 they were sharply divided and departed the conference in utter disarray. In contrast, the Catholic Church has maintained unity and the fullness of the apostolic teaching by unabashedly proclaiming for two thousand years that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.
The Catholic doctrine is the result of the organic development of the doctrine taught by the apostles and faithfully preserved by the bishops in the apostolic succession.

St. Justin Martyr offers a glimpse of the Eucharistic sacrifice in 150 AD and this foodis called among us Eucaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both 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,1, 62).

Though the early Fathers did not use this exact terminology, the teaching was essential to their theology. The Fathers unanimously held to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Synonyms: alteration, change, changeover, evolution, mutation, rebirth, transfiguration, transfigurement, transformation, translation, transmogrification, transmutation, transubstantiation

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Opposition to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrifice of the Altar was virtually nonexistent until the dawn of the Protestant Reformation.
The confusion began with the Reformers, who could form no doctrinal consensus on the Eucharist. At the Marburg Conference in 1529 they were sharply divided and departed the conference in utter disarray. In contrast, the Catholic Church has maintained unity and the fullness of the apostolic teaching by unabashedly proclaiming for two thousand years that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.
The Catholic doctrine is the result of the organic development of the doctrine taught by the apostles and faithfully preserved by the bishops in the apostolic succession.

St. Justin Martyr offers a glimpse of the Eucharistic sacrifice in 150 AD and this foodis called among us Eucaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both 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,1, 62).

Though the early Fathers did not use this exact terminology, the teaching was essential to their theology. The Fathers unanimously held to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Synonyms: alteration, change, changeover, evolution, mutation, rebirth, transfiguration, transfigurement, transformation, translation, transmogrification, transmutation, transubstantiation

Hello Trento,

Thanks for your comments. I just recently read all of Justin Martyr's works (I'm now reading Iraneous) and I remember the quote you give very well. It is in Chapter 66 of his First Apology.

Roman Catholics. Lutherans and Reformed Christians all claim this text and it does not prove any one of their differing views of the Eucharist.

I have great admiration for Justin, but he is not a promoter of Transubstantiation, but like the other Fathers he does believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as Reformed, Lutheran, Orthodox and Roman all agree on. It is the how that is the problem that divides us.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[a_ntv]

Hello Trento,

Thanks for your comments. I just recently read all of Justin Martyr's works (I'm now reading Iraneous) and I remember the quote you give very well. It is in Chapter 66 of his First Apology.

When you read so ancient writers, please consider the use of the early Church: only baptized were allowed to attend Eucharist: Eucharist was considered a 'mistery' clear only to batized (and it cound be interesting understand the reason of that). That is extremply well documented.

A first result of the fact that Eucharist was reserved only to baptized, is that the writers did NOT write explicitaly on the Eucharist in any book that could be read by pagans or hereticals (like apologies). Teachings on the Eucharist were given only at baptized people.

So, if you want to look at the older teaching on Eucharist, you shall look at the older liturgical writings (where anyway the Eucharist Sacrifical aspect is by far more present than the 'communion' with Christ aspect, or the Transubstantion aspect)

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

When you read so ancient writers, please consider the use of the early Church: only baptized were allowed to attend Eucharist: Eucharist was considered a 'mistery' clear only to batized (and it cound be interesting understand the reason of that). That is extremply well documented.

A first result of the fact that Eucharist was reserved only to baptized, is that the writers did NOT write explicitaly on the Eucharist in any book that could be read by pagans or hereticals (like apologies). Teachings on the Eucharist were given only at baptized people.

So, if you want to look at the older teaching on Eucharist, you shall look at the older liturgical writings (where anyway the Eucharist Sacrifical aspect is by far more present than the 'communion' with Christ aspect, or the Transubstantion aspect)

Hello a_ntv,

I agree with most off your post. Even today, the Eucharist is not for un-baptised peoples.

I certainly agree that the Eucharist is a mystery and that in it we recieve grace and truly partake of Christ (real presence). I also believe that it is a communion and a form of sacrifice.

Still, on this subject what I say above, which is a traditional (non-baptist) Protestant view does not put me in line with the teaching of Rome, which says that I MUST hold to Transubstantiation to be a member or come to Rome.

Believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not (necessarily) Transubstantiation. Rome insists that I agree with Fourth Lateran Council's pronouncement on the matter (which borrows much from Aristotle).

Thanks again and God bless you all.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[a_ntv]

Rome, which says that I MUST hold to Transubstantiation to be a member or come to Rome.

?????

I dont understand you.
Catholic Church is made for people who are looking the Truth, not for people who have already the Truth in their pocket.
If you are as perfect as an angel, which is the use of the Church? It is not required you to be perfect to be a member of the Church.
Some denominations, that base all on the faith, require members to have a correct faith.
Catholic Church requires that people try to life as christians, bc that is what is loved by Christ.

If you dont understand some doctrines, it is not terrible: some doctrine cannot be undestood at all, and many need years to be undestood. You will not be jugded on your intellectual believes, but on your live, on your heart.
The Church is like a teacher....for unlearned students.
And no teacher thinks that the students can easily learn everything, or that undestand all in a while.

The questions asked in a Catholic Baptism Liturgy are only:
- do you renounce Satan? And all of his works? And all his pomps? (the correct answer is: I do renounce him)
- do you believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth? (the correct answer is: I do believe. )
- Do you believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, Who was born and Who suffered? (the correct answer is: I do believe. )
- Do you believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting? (the correct answer is: I do believe. )

 

[Dale]

Truebluefan24 in OP:
"If the Catholic Church is wrong why did it take 1500 years for the reform?"

The veneration of Mary didn't really get going in Western Europe until after 1000 AD.
Canon law that believers must confess to an ordained priest in the confessional wasn't firmly established or enforced until after 1000 AD.
The RCC didn't adopt the method of succession where Popes are elected by Cardinals until the 1200's.

If these things are the right way of doing things, why did it take so long?

 

[Dale]

Truebluefan24 in OP:
"And how come none of the early church fathers spoke out against tradition and the catholic eucharist as being the actual flesh of jesus? "

Maybe they'd never heard of the one-sided hyperliteral interpretation that you have have.

In Baptist Churches, Disciples of Christ, and non-denominational Churches you see a communion table with the words:
"This do in remembrance of me."

What's wrong with that? These words are a direct quote from Christ at the Last Supper. Christ did not tell us to re-create his death in every church service. He did tell Christians to remember, yes, remember, what He did.