What if the Protestant reformation never happened?

[Mama Kidogo]

Simvastatin, Lisinopril and vitamins. You?

The Eucharist.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

What meds are you taking?

​

Simvastatin, Lisinopril and vitamins. You?

Good for you.

The Eucharist.

Isn't there a difference in the way the RCC and EOC adminster the Eucarist?

1 Corinthians 11:24
and having given thanks/eucaristhsaV <2168> (5660), He brake and said, "Take ye! eat ye!, for this is My body, that for ye is being broken.
This do ye--to the remembrance/anamnhsin <364> of Me."

Reve 11:17
saying "we are thanking/eucaristoumen <2168> (5719) to Thee Lord! the God, the Almighty, the One being and the One was
That Thou hast taken the great power of Thee and Thou dost reign.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7514725/
ECFs and the Eucharist

Given the wealth of good old Eucharist threads popping up around here I thought I would start one myself focusing on the Early Church Fathers regarding the matter.

It is clear from the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus that all of these bishops, some of whom were students of the apostles themselves, believed in the Real Presance.

Clement of Rome- 1st Century AD (Consecrated bt St. Peter)

"Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity."

"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices."

-From his Epistle to Corinth regarding the unlawful deposing of Bishops
(Mentions sacrifices as one of the duties of the episcopate)

Ignatius of Antioch- 1st Century AD (Student of St. John the Apostle)

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." -Epistle to the Smyrnaeans

Clear condemnation of those who deny the Real Presance

The Didache- 1st Century (Early Christian Treatise)

"Regarding the Eucharist ... Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too, the saying of the Lord is applicable: Do not give to dogs what is sacred.
On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled."

Refers to the Eucharist as a sacrifice and considers it so important that only the baptised may be offered it and that it must be pure.

Justin Martyr- 2nd Century AD (Early Christian Apologetic)

"Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ
It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood'', and he gave it to them alone." - First Apology

Clear demonstration that the Real Presance was taught by the Early Church at the time of Justin's conversion.

Irenaeus of Lyons- 2nd Century AD (Student of Polycarp who was in turn Student to St John)

"If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies."

He taught the the new sacrifice of the New Covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: ```You do not do my will,' says the Lord Almighty, `and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offer to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the gentiles,' says the Lord Almighty.'' [Mal 1:11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to Him, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the gentiles.'

"It is not oblations as such that have met with disapproval. There were oblations of old; there are oblations now. There were sacrifices among the people of Israel; there are sacrifices in the Church. Only the kind of oblation has been changed: now it is offered by freemen, not by slaves. There is one and the same Lord, but the character of an oblation made by slaves is distinctive, so too that of an oblation made by sons: their oblations bear the mark of freedom. We must make oblation to God, and in all things be found pleasing to God the Creator, in sound teaching, in sincere faith, in firm hope, in ardent love, as we offer the firstfruits of the creatures that are his. The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator when it makes its offering to him from his creation, with thanksgiving. We offer him what is his, and so we proclaim communion and unity and profess our belief in the resurrection of flesh and spirit. Just as bread from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, made up of two elements, one earthly and one heavenly, so also our bodies, in receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, for they have the hope of resurrection."

-Against Heresies

Clear referance to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, Blood and Body of Chrits, and as having a "heavenly element".
--------------------------------------------------

Clearly belief of the Real Presance was an important part of the Early Church. Also if you believe that it is an unchristian practice not preached by the apostles then these are the guys to blame

Note: This is not a thread about whether the ECF's believed in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation (take that debate to another thread!). Rather it is about whether the ECF's believed in the Real Presance; that the Blood and Body of Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist.

.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Good for you.
Isn't there a difference in the way the RCC and EOC adminster the Eucarist?

1 Corinthians 11:24
and having given thanks/eucaristhsaV <2168> (5660), He brake and said, "Take ye! eat ye!, for this is My body, that for ye is being broken.
This do ye--to the remembrance/anamnhsin <364> of Me."

Reve 11:17
saying "we are thanking/eucaristoumen <2168> (5719) to Thee Lord! the God, the Almighty, the One being and the One was
That Thou hast taken the great power of Thee and Thou dost reign.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7514725/
ECFs and the Eucharist




.

In practice and frequency, yes if you are speaking of Roman rite.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not to minimize the differences, I think we both see it as the same thing. Christ, really and truly present.

Good for you.
Isn't there a difference in the way the RCC and EOC adminster the Eucarist?

1 Corinthians 11:24
and having given thanks/eucaristhsaV <2168> (5660), He brake and said, "Take ye! eat ye!, for this is My body, that for ye is being broken.
This do ye--to the remembrance/anamnhsin <364> of Me."

Reve 11:17
saying "we are thanking/eucaristoumen <2168> (5719) to Thee Lord! the God, the Almighty, the One being and the One was
That Thou hast taken the great power of Thee and Thou dost reign.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7514725/
ECFs and the Eucharist




.

 

[Albion]

Good for you.
Isn't there a difference in the way the RCC and EOC adminster the Eucarist?

You bet. Although they both think of it as a thanksgiving and believe in the Real Presence, the way it's administered--what you asked about specifically--is quite different.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Not to minimize the differences, I think we both see it as the same thing. Christ, really and truly present.

I agree. Must be another love fest as I agreed.
Let me fix that right away;

Anything you can do I can do better.avi - YouTube

 

[Rhamiel]

Hitler was baptized in the Catholic Church but I have never seen anything that said he practiced his faith beyond childhood

Nazism was filled with occultism, paganism and pseudo-science that is incompatible with Catholicism or any Christian denomination.

As for the Catholic Church being "friendly" with the Third Reich
well that is just silly, many Catholics were also persecuted by the Nazis
the Bishops of the Netherlands were very vocal about the horrors of the Nazis, as a result, many many many more Jews in Holland were put to death then in all of Italy.
We can say that maybe the Pope should have tried something different, but I believe the silence was intended not to allow evil to go unmolested but rather so that more lives could be saved, both Catholic and Jewish
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/piusdef.html

The vindication of Pius XII has been established principally by Jewish writers and from Israeli archives. It is now established that the Pope supervised a rescue network which saved 860,000 Jewish lives - more than all the international agencies put together.

After the war the Chief Rabbi of Israel thanked Pius XII for what he had done. The Chief Rabbi of Rome went one step further. He became a Catholic. He took the name Eugenio.

 

[Albion]

As for the Catholic Church being "friendly" with the Third Reich
well that is just silly

Nope. That is well-known and well-documented. It also was critically important in bringing about the Third Reich. At several points in post WWI history.

many Catholics were also persecuted by the Nazis

Many "everybodies" were persecuted by the Nazis and the Nazis were not known for remaining loyal to those who had sided with them.

 

[GoingByzantine]

Nope. That is well-known and well-documented. It also was critically important in bringing about the Third Reich. At several points in post WWI history.



Many "everybodies" were persecuted by the Nazis and the Nazis were not known for remaining loyal to those who had sided with them.

Well known and documented by those who do/did not like the Catholic Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You bet. Although they both think of it as a thanksgiving and believe in the Real Presence, the way it's administered--what you asked about specifically--is quite different.

So what? How do you like YOUR coffee? (Does the way you like it make it any more coffee or less coffee?)

 

[Standing Up]

You bet. Although they both think of it as a thanksgiving and believe in the Real Presence, the way it's administered--what you asked about specifically--is quite different.

How do they administer it differently?

 

[Harbingr]

What would society be like today?

Well, the feudal system was already undergoing decline before the Protestant Era.

So probably not a lot, even though I'm sure many protestants who love to pride themselves as being the likes of alleged 'saviors from the Idolatress' would never accept that

 

[GoingByzantine]

How do they administer it differently?

Roman Catholics normally use unleavened bread, occasionally dipped into the wine by the priest, but normally each element is delivered separately. Easterners use leavened bread that is soaked in the wine, delivered with a spoon into the layman's mouth.

There are other methods as well. A Melkite church I went to for instance, used large chunks of leavened bread and the priest dipped them by hand into wine before then administering it to us, also by hand.

 

[Albion]

Well known and documented by those who do/did not like the Catholic Church.

What a lame comment, GB. Don't know the facts so claim prejudice.

But OK, tell us what evidence you have that shows that all the evidence and history has been fabricated by "those who do not like the Catholic Church." Show us, for example, how the voting in the Reichstag didn't actually happen, but that it's a big "Truther" type conspiracy to say it did.

 

[Standing Up]

Roman Catholics normally use unleavened bread, occasionally dipped into the wine by the priest, but normally each element is delivered separately. Easterners use leavened bread that is soaked in the wine, delivered with a spoon into the layman's mouth.

There are other methods as well. A Melkite church I went to for instance, used large chunks of leavened bread and the priest dipped them by hand into wine before then administering it to us, also by hand.

Thanks. Knew of the bread difference, but not the separate/soaked difference.

 

[Albion]

Thanks. Knew of the bread difference, but not the separate/soaked difference.

Or spooning it into the communicant's mouth?

 

[Standing Up]

Or spooning it into the communicant's mouth?

That too. From where did that practice arise?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Nope. That is well-known and well-documented. It also was critically important in bringing about the Third Reich. At several points in post WWI history.



Many "everybodies" were persecuted by the Nazis and the Nazis were not known for remaining loyal to those who had sided with them.

The documentation of the Church's involvement with the Third Reich before the evil reared it's ugly head is one thing. There were periods in the Third Reich. Just like today, do you think that Hitler could have gone in and installed his political agenda if he had told everyone what he was up to? Same can be said about the current POTUS. If he had said exactly what he planned to do, he wouldn't have been elected.

When the Third Reich became totalitarian, the Church protected the Church's interests, and no more. So "In bed with the Nazis" is a blatant falsehood. And classified as fiction.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That too. From where did that practice arise?

I'd like to know how this materially changes anything? In the Catholic Church, some receive on the tongue, some in the hand, some kneeling, some standing, some drink from the communal cup, some don't. Or any combination, including the priest intincting the host. So the Orthodox soak (for lack of a better term) the body of Christ in His blood, and serve it in a spoon, very reverent, if my opinion matters. Does it change that we are receiving the body and blood of our Lord Jesus? That he's really and truly substantially present?

Again, does the way you imbibe your coffee change the fact that you're drinking coffee?

 

[Mama Kidogo]

I'd like to know how this materially changes anything? In the Catholic Church, some receive on the tongue, some in the hand, some kneeling, some standing, some drink from the communal cup, some don't. Or any combination, including the priest intincting the host. So the Orthodox soak (for lack of a better term) the body of Christ in His blood, and serve it in a spoon, very reverent, if my opinion matters. Does it change that we are receiving the body and blood of our Lord Jesus? That he's really and truly substantially present?

Again, does the way you imbibe your coffee change the fact that you're drinking coffee?

Some good points. The use of the spoon for the laity is to lessen the chance of spilling the host to the ground. The clergy receive from the chalice. Prior to the spoon tongs were used. It began around the 9th century.