Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Real Presence [Church Fathers on the Holy Eucharist, cont'd ]
The Church Fathers ^ | 100AD-431AD

Posted on 01/27/2011 10:16:20 AM PST by marshmallow

Irenaeus

“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] 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 offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. 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” (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“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” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“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 unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan

“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

Council of Ephesus

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last
Selected writings of those who followed the Apostles, demonstrating clearly that the doctrine of transubstantiation was alive and well in the early Church.
1 posted on 01/27/2011 10:16:24 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; MilicaBee; Martin Tell; Salvation; Lemondropkid31; BenKenobi

Church Fathers ping!


2 posted on 01/27/2011 10:17:19 AM PST by marshmallow ("A country which kills its own children has no future" -Mother Teresa of Calcutta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

wanted to get this in, as i usually see our separated breathern continue to insist it’s a wrong reading of the Word....these church fathers, no more infallible than any other christian sitting in a pew today...had access to the original scriptures, the original teachings of the infallible church, and some even walked and talked with the apostles....and yet others 2000 plus years removed will dare say they were wrong, and didnt understand the Word...very frustrating....


3 posted on 01/27/2011 10:21:39 AM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: raygunfan

>>the original teachings of the infallible church<<

Infallible church? You can’t be serious.


4 posted on 01/27/2011 10:41:13 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Selected writings of those who followed the Apostles, demonstrating clearly that the doctrine of transubstantiation was alive and well in the early Church.

That really isnt the relevant question though. Is the doctrine correct is what should concern people.

I find it inconsistent that the average RC accepts the sayings in John ... "I am the door" ... "I am the vine ..." ... etc. as drawing a clear analogy for instruction purposes; but when it comes to "this is my body, this is my blood" ... it has to be taken in a literal fashion.

Call me "separated" then ...

5 posted on 01/27/2011 10:48:31 AM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
I find it inconsistent that the average RC accepts the sayings in John ... "I am the door" ... "I am the vine ..." ... etc. as drawing a clear analogy for instruction purposes; but when it comes to "this is my body, this is my blood" ... it has to be taken in a literal fashion.

It is not inconsistent in the least once you dig deep into the Scripture.

Let's take one example. Christ says "My body is true food and my blood true drink." He expounds on that metaphor with complete literalness, to the extent that people walk away from His discourse. "This saying is hard...who can listen to it?" Did anything similar happen when he said "I am the door"? "I am the way?" No it didn't.

The closest Our Lord came to saying what he said with the Eucharist was when He said "I am the true vine". HOWEVER...note that the Greek word used for "true" there differs slightly. My flesh is true (alethes) food, but I am the true (alethinos) vine. There is an important distinction in those two related Greek words. Alethes means "true, real, genuine"...true as a matter of fact, true in substance. Alethinos means "true by analogy". So Our Lord's flesh was true food in fact, while He was the true vine by analogy. Don't forget, most of these writers marshmallow quoted were reading the New Testament in Greek. They would have seen that difference straight away.

6 posted on 01/27/2011 11:22:31 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

As this post is sure to draw heated responses from our non-Catholic brothers and sisters on FR, allow me to give them some questions as a starting point for discussion.

Why did Jesus say what He said in the Gospel of John chapter 6, knowing the radicalism of telling His followers they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life within them?

The prohibition against cannibalism and the drinking of blood was well known by the Jews and would surely be rejected. Some did in fact leave Jesus following those words and yet, Jesus did not clarify them as symbolic nor did He try to stop them from leaving. In fact, Jesus directly challenges the Apostles about His words as “difficult and hard to hear” and offers them the opportunity to also leave Him.

If God is able to create from nothing the entire world, i.e. everything seen and unseen, why is He not also able to make Himself present in the bread and wine?

Is God omnipotent and omniscient? Has He knowingly allowed millions of people to be damned eternally for following Catholic beliefs?

I have posed these questions before to no response.

Anyone who claims that the Holy Spirit guides them to all truth is making the same claim as the Catholic Church but without the history of her to back them up.


7 posted on 01/27/2011 11:31:33 AM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
I find it inconsistent that the average RC accepts the sayings in John ... "I am the door" ... "I am the vine ..." ... etc. as drawing a clear analogy for instruction purposes; but when it comes to "this is my body, this is my blood" ... it has to be taken in a literal fashion.

You also don't see Catholics plucking out eyes or cutting off hands and feet.

8 posted on 01/27/2011 12:40:19 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Is there really a question as to whether the early church faters believed in the Real Presence?


9 posted on 01/27/2011 12:45:47 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
Why did Jesus say what He said in the Gospel of John chapter 6, knowing the radicalism of telling His followers they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life within them?

Immediately after Jesus talks about the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood, in John 6:63 He says, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." It seems clear He was speaking to them in spiritual terms, but they were confusing it with physical terms. He was pointing that out to them, but they were stuck on the physical and would not/could not hear it.

Jesus did not clarify them as symbolic nor did He try to stop them from leaving.

Actually, He did clarify, as I pointed out above.

If God is able to create from nothing the entire world, i.e. everything seen and unseen, why is He not also able to make Himself present in the bread and wine?

No one is saying He can't. We are saying He doesn't. Don't get stuck on the physical - Jesus words are Spirit.

Is God omnipotent and omniscient? Has He knowingly allowed millions of people to be damned eternally for following Catholic beliefs?

I'm not one who believes that belief in the "real presence" is going to damn one to hell if they otherwise have received Jesus as their Savior and Lord. But drinking some wine and eating a bit of bread isn't going to save anyone. It's Christ who saves.

I have posed these questions before to no response.

You can't say that any more. You might not agree with my response, but you did get one. :)

10 posted on 01/27/2011 12:49:52 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky; Jvette; dartuser
The word “transubstantiation” derives from Latin — trans (across), and substantia (substance). The term is employed in Roman Catholic theology to denote the idea that during the ceremony of the “Mass,” the “bread and wine” are changed, in substance, into the flesh and blood of Christ, even though the elements appear to remain the same. This doctrine, has no basis in Scripture. There are traces of the dogma in some of the post-apostolic writings and the concept was vigorously defended in the early 9th century A.D. It was adopted by the 4th Lateran Council (A.D. 1215), formalized at the Council of Trent (A.D. 1545-63), and was reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

“Consubstantiation” is a term commonly applied to the Lutheran concept of the communion supper, though some modern Lutheran theologians reject the use of this term because of its ambiguity. The expression, however, is generally associated with Luther. The idea is that in the communion, the body and blood of Christ, and the bread and wine, coexist in union with each other. “Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, Ed., London: Oxford, 1958, p. 337).

Any dogma that attempts to place the “real presence” of the flesh and blood of Christ into the communion components, in a literal sense, is the result of a misunderstanding of the language employed in the Scriptures.

One of the most important skills necessary for the correct interpretation of the Bible is the ability to distinguish between language that is used in a figurative sense versus that which is employed in a literal sense. Human communication abounds with figurative expressions, and a common-sense approach must be taken in the consideration of speech.

One of the fundamental canons in identifying figurative language is this. Normally, a word should be viewed as literal, unless other considerations make it impossible to interpret the term in that light. Determinative factors that are essential to making the proper judgments are these: context, both immediate and remote (i.e., discussion of the same subject in other biblical references), grammar, consistency (the Scriptures do not contradict themselves), common sense (i.e., does a literal interpretation imply an absurdity?).

An appropriate application of these hermeneutic principles will force the serious Bible student to the conclusion that the biblical references to the Lord’s supper as the “body” and “blood” of Christ must be interpreted figuratively, not literally. Consider the following points.

1. When Jesus took bread and fruit of the vine, gave these objects to the disciples, and said, “this is my body . . .this is my blood” (Mt. 26:26-28), he quite obviously was not speaking literally, for he still possessed his literal body and blood! Moreover, at the same time, Christ specifically identified the drink as “this fruit of the vine” (v. 29). The nature of the substance had not changed.

2. There is a common figure of speech that is known as metaphor. The metaphor is a dramatic image by which one thing is compared to another, but being represented figuratively as that very thing.

Of the tribal descendants of Judah, Jacob said: “Judah is a lion’s whelp” (Gen 49:9) — certainly not literally, but having certain lion-like traits. When Jesus referred to Herod as a “fox” (Lk. 13:31-32), no one understood him to imply that the ruler was a four-legged animal with a bushy tail! Christ once said: “I am the vine, you are the branches” (Jn. 15:5).

Every careful student knows that the Savior employed symbolism by this language. An analogy was being drawn; the language was not to be pressed literally.

3. The fact that Jesus instructed the disciples to subsequently partake of the Lord’s supper “in remembrance” of him (Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24) contains the implication that he would not be present physically in the communion celebration.

A favorite “proof-text” that is used frequently in an attempt to establish the “real presence” of Christ in the communion is John 6:53-54. Here Jesus declared:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

That this passage does not yield the desired goal can be demonstrated both grammatically and contextually.

1. In verse 54, the terms “eateth” and “drinketh” are both present tense participles, signifying that the disciples were to be eating his “flesh” and drinking his “blood” at that very time, and continue doing so as a process.

A literal rendition would read: “He who continues eating my flesh and drinking my blood?” (see the translations of Charles B. Williams and Kenneth Wuest). The disciples were not eating and drinking the Savior’s flesh and blood at that moment! 2. The “eating” and “drinking” are said to result in “life”; yet, in this very context, that “life” is described as being the consequence of receiving Christ’s “words,” i.e., his teaching (v. 63). It thus becomes clear that the consumption of his body and blood are the equivalent of ingesting his sacred instruction — the former is a figurative expression; the latter literal.

This is further borne out of a consideration of the phrase, “abides in me, and I in him” (v. 56) That reciprocal relationship is said to be the result of “eating” and “drinking” the flesh and blood of Christ. However, in a complimentary passage, elsewhere in John’s writings, the apostle equates the “in me / in you” relationship with “keeping his commandments” (1 Jn. 3:24).

The accumulation of evidence is quite irresistible. The references to partaking of the Lord’s body and blood are figures of speech.

With all due respect to sincere people, it is a crassly materialistic methodology that turns the sacred memorial Supper into a cannibalistic ritual.

11 posted on 01/27/2011 1:34:36 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
“Consubstantiation” is a term commonly applied to the Lutheran concept of the communion supper, though some modern Lutheran theologians reject the use of this term because of its ambiguity. The expression, however, is generally associated with Luther.

Where did you get this? Wiki? As for the rest, is it your own work? How about a reference.

though some modern Lutheran theologians reject the use of this term because of its ambiguity.

No, Confessional Lutherans reject it because it is false claim. They also reject Catholicism's transubstantiation because it isn't a Scriptural answer to the True Presence.

12 posted on 01/27/2011 1:42:12 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jvette; All
Is God omnipotent and omniscient? Has He knowingly allowed millions of people to be damned eternally for following Catholic beliefs?

Yes because we have free will. God can do nothing to stop what we do, right or wrong. He also cannot stop what Satan does.

God could do nothing to stop Mohammed from starting Islam when your Church Father's gave the world the Doctrine of the Trinity and claim it is by God's inspiration.

How many souls are, and will, lost to that?

By our fruits we will be judged as will the Catholic Church be judged by it's fruits. BVB

13 posted on 01/27/2011 1:43:37 PM PST by Bobsvainbabblings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bobsvainbabblings
Doctrine of the Trinity

It is Scriptural, must have been a off day.

14 posted on 01/27/2011 1:51:53 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xone

Ooops. I’m sorry. I forgot to copy the source when I copied from my word processor. I didn’t copy far enough down. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/477-what-are-transubstantiation-and-consubstantiation


15 posted on 01/27/2011 1:52:30 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

No prob.


16 posted on 01/27/2011 1:58:59 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; All

You posted 16 earthly people or entities and their writings you, and the Church of the Magisterium, use as sources for one aspect of your belief system or religion. One wonders how many more you have for the rest of your religion.

I just smile to myself when I read Catholics condemning Mormons for one prophet and a couple of extra books in a seemingly never ending series of anti Mormon posts.

Who or what you base your belief system on is your god or gods.

I only have one God in my belief system who I go to for all truth. He has only authored one source for His truth, the Old and New Testament Scriptures. BVB


17 posted on 01/27/2011 2:24:07 PM PST by Bobsvainbabblings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
The references to partaking of the Lord’s body and blood are figures of speech.

"Figures of speech" which caused many of his disciples to leave him, and which he did not then attempt to clarify, and "figures of speech" which are used in the OT as metaphors for disastrous military defeat (which would result in the besieged/defeated being forced into cannibalism).

If John 6 is a figure of speech, it would be hard for Jesus to have been more opaque and misleading.

With all due respect to sincere people, it is a crassly materialistic methodology that turns the sacred memorial Supper into a cannibalistic ritual.

Funny, that's the same accusation the pagan Romans made against us. Some things never change.

That having been said, cannibals eat the dead bodies of their victims. We're eating the live Body of the True God. Big difference.

"Sincere people"? Like Ignatius of Antioch (d. AD 107) who wrote on his way to die in the arena in Rome, condemning heretics who "confess not that the Eucharist is the selfsame flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ" and said it was better not even to speak of such?

I'll cast my lot in with Ignatius over and against the people at the "Christian Courier". Ignatius walked and ate with Peter and Paul; they didn't.

18 posted on 01/27/2011 2:27:33 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bobsvainbabblings
He has only authored one source for His truth, the Old and New Testament Scriptures.

We can prove this belief from those as well, but people just tell us we're misunderstanding a "figure of speech". Helps to see that men, some of whom personally knew the Apostles, didn't think it was a "figure of speech".

19 posted on 01/27/2011 2:29:39 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

CynicalBear, I must respectfully disagree. A figure of speech is when I say, “It’s raining cats and dogs.” When Our Lord says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life within you,” at no point does He say, “this is symbolic.” Instead, when the disciples are unsure of the meaning, he reiterates and underscores his remarks. Perhaps this will help. It is a lengthy piece, but really covers what the Catholic Church teaches about both the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Holy Eucharist. Even if you do not agree with it, I hope that it at least helps you to gain understanding.

(http://www.fisheaters.com/mass.html)

This topic is so huge, so wondrous, it’s hard to know where to begin, so I’ll guess I’ll start with explaining what the Church teaches about the Sacrifice of the Mass and about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

*

The Mass is a true Sacrifice: Christ, as the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, offers the graces of His once and for all Sacrifice on the Cross to us sacramentally under the appearances of bread and wine through the ministry of His ordained priests

*

Christ’s ordained priests offer Christ to the Father under the appearances of bread and wine. Christ is really and truly present, under the appearance of bread and wine, in every way: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

*

The Church, as the Body of Christ, offers Herself to God. Each member, as a part of the royal priesthood (”the priesthood of believers”) offers his or her own sufferings and prayers, uniting them with Christ’s offering of Himself. This includes the entire Church: Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant.

*

Christ is not recrucified; the Sacrifice of the Mass is unbloody — after the order of Melchizedek. Christ died once at a finite point in History; but God is outside of time and His offering of Himself is eternal. The Grace Christ offers in the Divine Liturgy and what He offered on the Cross are of the same sacrifice; therefore, in no way can the liturgical Sacrifice be a “repetition” of the Crucifixion. His sacrifice is re-presented (”made present again in some way”). As the Council of Trent put it, “The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former.”

*

The Sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, that is, it is made for the remission of sins and for the appeasement of the Father. The Old Testament sacrifices were ineffectual, but the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, which the Mass re-presents, is effectual because Christ Himself is both the High Priest and the perfect Victim. Partaking of His Body (with right intention, as with all Sacraments) remits venial sin and sanctifies.

All Christians agree that Jesus Christ is a High Priest, a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 6:17-20) and that we are members of His royal priesthood, “the priesthood of believers,” as Protestants say (1 Peter 2:9-10, Revelation 1:6, Revelation 5:10 , Revelation 20:6). And Catholics, Orthodox, and a few Protestants know that there is an ordained priesthood (the Greek word for “elder” is “presbuteros,” which became “presbyter” in Latin and “priest” in English. So whenever you see “elder” in the New Testament, see the word “priest”!). In all these cases, the word “priesthood” entails “sacrifice” as sacrifice is what priests do. The question becomes, then, what is being offered by each kind of priest? The answer is found by looking at how the Old Testament sacrifices prefigure and culminate in the New Testament once and for all time perfect sacrifice made by Jesus Christ on that one day (by Jewish reckoning) from sunset Holy Thursday to sunset Good Friday.

Old Testament Sacrifices

Bread and Wine

Let’s first look at Old Testament sacrifices, starting with the enigmatic Melchizedek. What a shadowy figure! He shows up, one time and mysteriously, almost at the very beginning of the Bible — in Genesis 14, after Abram (soon to become Abraham) rescues Lot from the all these warring Kings. After the rescue, there he comes, Melchizedek, King of Jerusalem and “High Priest of the God Most High” (this is the first time the word priest, kohen, is used in the Bible!). He blesses Abraham (indicating a position of authority), who gave him a “tenth of everything.” And what does this High Priest of the God Most High, this King of Righteousness, this man who deigns to bless Abraham offer? Bread and wine. An unbloody sacrificial offering.

Melchizedek is mentioned no more in the Old Testament until Psalm 110:4:

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

...but his offering is alluded to in Malachi’s prophecy:

Malachi 1:10-11
Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [”Sacrifice” in the Douay-Reims] shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering [”clean oblation” in the Douay-Reims]: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

Then the Bible is again silent about Melchizedek until the Book of Hebrews, which tells us that Our Lord is a priest after the order of Melchizedek forever and, in Hebrews 7:11-12, that “ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” Here we can see that the priesthood still exists — but it is changed and is now after the order of Melchizedek. We know that Melchizedek offered bread and wine. We know that the offering will be pure!

Now let’s back up again and see more of how the Old Testament prefigures the Eucharist:

Leviticus 23:12-13
[And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying...] And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD. And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin.

The offering was to be flour mixed with oil, and it was to be offered with wine.

Leviticus 24:5-9
And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake. And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD. And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD. Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant. And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute.

And it was so:

1 Kings 7:48
And Solomon made all the vessels that pertained unto the house of the LORD: the altar of gold, and the table of gold, whereupon the shewbread was

2 Chronicles 2:4 2
[And Solomon sent to Huram the king of Tyre, saying...] Behold, I build an house to the name of the LORD my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the LORD our God. This is an ordinance for ever to Israel.

Thanksgiving Offerings, or “Korban Todah”

Another type of Old Testament Korban (or quorban), i.e., “offering,” is the thanksgiving offering or “todah,” a form of Zebach Sh’lamim (”peace offering”) which was initiated in Leviticus 7:11-15:

And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the LORD. If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried. Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings. And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the LORD, and it shall be the priest’s that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings. And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.

Interestingly, even the Jewish rabbis said in the Midrash that, when the Messiah comes, all offerings will be abolished except the thanksgiving todah offering (Vayikra Rabba 9,2).

Blood and the Korban Pesach (Passover Offering)

In the Exodus account of the Passover, God commands the Israelites to take an unblemished, male lamb, sacrifice it, and spread its blood on their doorposts as a sign. They were told to eat the flesh of the lamb that night, with unleavened bread. When He sees the blood on the doorposts, those houses would be saved from having their firstborn slain — and this Passover was to be kept as a feast as an ordinance forever (since the destruction of the Temple, the paschal lamb could no longer be sacrificed; the post-Temple Jews replaced Passover practices with the seder.).

Now, this Passover offering is intimately associated with (rabbis even call the yearly memorial a form of) Korban Todah insofar as a Korban Todah is obligatory when one has been saved from danger, as what happened when God spared the Hebrews’ firstborn. These two korbanot go hand in hand. 1

Finally, another blood offering is described in Exodus 24:8:

And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

The Red Heifer
After Melchizedek, one of the most enigmatic phenomena of the Old Testament involves the sacrifice of the red heifer, described in Numbers 19. Outside the city — and this was the only sacrifice to be made outside the city — a perfect, unblemished, never-been-yoked red heifer was to have its blood sprinkled seven times in front of the tabernacle, and its body burned along with cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet, in front of the priest. Then the ashes were to be mixed with pure water and sprinkled over those who are impure because of contact with the dead and for the purpose of purification from sin (Numbers 19:9).

Christ’s Once and For All Historical Sacrifice Brings Together all the Old Testament Korbanot

All of these Old Testament sacrifices were infeffectual in the eternal sense, but they prefigure the New Testament Sacrifice instituted by Christ from Maundy Thursday (the day before Good Friday) to His Crucifixion — actually the same day by Jewish reckoning, from sunset to sunset. Recalling the Korban Pesach, He’d told his disciples beforehand that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. That He was understood to mean this literally is obvious when one reads that people were offended, disgusted, when they heard Him say so! They were so revolted, that many walked away — but Jesus didn’t stop them and clarify, “You idiots, you misunderstand! I speak in spiritual terms and am not talking literally!” No. What He did was let them go:

John 6:51-69
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? [Note: if all Our Lord was talking about was a monthly-or-so gathering together to sing “Shine, Jesus, Shine” and eat some bread in memory of Him, how could it be such a “hard saying”?]

When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Some Protestants say that when Jesus said “This IS my body, this IS my blood,” His use of “is” means “symbolically represents.”

Hmmm... Where have I heard “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” before?

He told what was to come about and then, on that Thursday, He fulfilled Passover, taking bread and wine, after the order of Melchizedek, and saying “This IS My body, this IS My blood.” (Matthew 26:26-27; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20 — absolutely parallel in the synoptic Gospels). In Luke 22:20, recalling Moses in Exodus 24:8, He says, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” He took bread and gave thanks (todah). “Do this,” He said, “in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19). On that day, this “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29) prepared for His once and for all, perfect Sacrifice.

Then He was taken, tried, scourged, and, as prefigured by the sacrifice of the red heifer, draped in scarlet and taken outside the city to be immolated for the sins of the world, hung on wood (cedar? 2) and given vinegar upon hyssop to drink.

After His resurrection, He ascended into Heaven where He appears at the Altar of God, as both our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, and the Perfect Victim — a “Lamb as it had been slain” (Revelation 5:6). He offers the graces of His once and for all historical sacrifice to us forever, sending to us the “hidden manna” He’d promised (John 6:35, Revelation 2:17).

Melchizedek’s bread and wine, korban todah, korban pesach, the sacrifice of the red heifer, the Old Testament manna, Malachi’s “pure offering” — all these sacrificial effects, gifts, and prophecies were brought together when Christ instituted the Mass at His Last Supper and then, on that same Jewish day, shed His blood for the remission of sin.

At the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Catholic priest offers that same Sacrifice to the Father, and then eats and offers to us the glorified Body of Christ in a form whose “accidents” look like bread and wine after the order of Melchizedek. Calvary is pulled out of time and re-presented before our very eyes! Read again: St. John’s Heavenly vision of our Lord, glorified and ascended, is that of a “Lamb as it had been slain” (Revelation 5:6) with an Altar (Revelation 8:3), whence He offers Himself to us in “hidden manna” (Revelation 2:17), the Eucharist. Even in Heaven, the resurrected, glorified Christ, the King of Kings, appears as a “lamb as it had been slain,” the perfect Oblation.

Read the prophecy of Malachi again:

Malachi 1:10-11
Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [”Sacrifice” in the Douay-Reims] shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering [”clean oblation” in the Douay-Reims]: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

“In every place...” How can there be predicted pure sacrifice in every place in the New Covenant if Protestant theology is true, if Christ’s once and for all Sacrifice is not to be re-presented as it is at the Catholic Mass?

In Jerome’s (A.D. 340-420) Vulgate, the word that the King James Bible renders “incense” is “sacrificatur,” and “offering” is rendered “oblatio.” Where in your community’s worship is “incense,” let alone the true translation, “sacrifice,” offered? Most of all, where is this pure oblation? I’ve heard Protestants explain this away by saying that Malachi was speaking about “spiritual offerings,” but I challenge them to defend their own purity, especially in light of the Calvinist theology of “utter depravity,” and Luther’s “Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have stronger faith and rejoice in Christ, who is the victory of sin, death, and the world. Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin must be committed...sin cannot tear you away from Him, even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders.” Luther and Calvin, the Father and Prince of Protestantism, viewed man as anything but capable of offering God anything pure!

Protester, where are this incense and pure oblation offered? This sacrifice is prophecied! Where is it? Are your grape juice and saltines a “pure offering”? Are they pure in themselves? Or do your undoubtedly good intentions and personal holiness make them pure? Are they an offering worthy of God Almighty?

We Catholics believe that God is the only One able to offer something pure enough to please Him — His Son! At the Mass, the bread and wine become Christ by the power of Christ. And it is God the Son — not bread or wine, or grape juice and saltines — Who is offered to the Father at each and every Mass, drawing on that once and for all Sacrifice, making it present again. We have the fulfillment of Malachi’s prediction (even, ironically, in terms of the faulty King James “incense” translation!); do you? Does Christ the High Priest drink the cup with you at your grape juice and saltine “services”?:

Matthew 27:27-29
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

Will eating your grape juice and crackers unworthily make you sick and possibly die? How do you make sense of Paul’s words to the Corinthians?

I Corinthians 11:23-30
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

John 6:66
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

“Not discerning” what (say it out loud now!)? What did Paul say the apparent “bread” and “wine” are?

If consuming your grape juice and saltines unworthily can’t make you sick, then you are not eating what Paul was eating!

But “the Spirit quickeneth and the flesh profiteth nothing”!

Some Protestants claim that this part of John 6, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing” proves that Jesus was speaking only symbolically. But how can He mean BOTH

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

AND

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing

How can both of these verses be true if understood in the sense that Protestants understand them? Is He schizophrenic? A liar? A contradicter of His own words? Did He change His mind in between verses 58 and 63?

Whom was Christ addressing when He spoke those words? That section of the chapter begins (verse 24) with our Lord saying

Amen, amen, I say to you, you seek Me not because you have seen miracles [He had just gotten done feeding the thousands with the five loaves], but because you did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.

The crowd then goes on to ask for manna — and what did manna do? It physically kept the Israelites alive. It was a non-salvific, non-grace transmitting Heaven-sent bread given for physical sustenance. By saying to His disciples that the “Spirit gives life, the flesh profiteth nothing,” He is not saying the His flesh is not meat indeed (which He DEFINITELY goes on to say); He is admonishing those who only want a bellyful and who think only carnally instead of seeing things spiritually and seeking life everlasting. He is admonishing those who care more for their earthly pleasures than heeding His words, “he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”

Here is what St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (A.D. 347-407) says about the verse:

Ver. 63. ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.’ His meaning is, ‘Ye must hear spiritually what relateth to Me, for he who heareth carnally is not profiled, nor gathereth any advantage.’ [in fact, Paul later says in I Corinthians 11:23-30 that he who eats the Body of Christ without discerning the Body of Christ, he who eats it unworthily, eats damnation on himself. He says that this is the reason why some of the Christians get sick even.]

It was carnal to question how He came down from Heaven, to deem that He was the son of Joseph, to ask, ‘How can he give us His flesh to eat?’ All this was carnal, when they ought to have understood the matter in a mystical and spiritual sense. ‘But,’ saith some one, ‘how could they understand what the ‘eating flesh might mean?’ Then it was their duty to wait for the proper time and enquire, and not to abandon Him. ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.’ That is, they are divine and spiritual, have nothing carnal about them, are not subject to the laws of physical consequence, but are free from any such necessity, are even set above the laws appointed for this world, and have also another and a different meaning.

Now as it, this passage He said ‘spirit,’ instead of ‘spiritual,’ so when He speaketh of ‘flesh,’ He meant not ‘carnal things,’ but ‘carnally hearing,’ and alluding at the same time to them, because they ever desired carnal things when they ought to have desired spiritual. For if a man receives them carnally, he profits nothing. ‘What then, is not His flesh, flesh?’ Most certainly. ‘How then saith He, that the flesh profiteth nothing?’ He speaketh not of His own flesh, (God forbid!) but of those who received His words in a carnal manner. But what is ‘understanding carnally’? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally.

But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is seeing spiritually. He that eateth not His flesh, and drinketh not His blood, hath no life in him. How then doth ‘the flesh profit nothing,’ if without it we cannot live?

Seest thou that the words, ‘the flesh profiteth nothing,’ are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing? Ver. 64. ‘But there are some of you that believe not.’ Again, according to His custom, He addeth weight to His words, by foretelling what would come to pass, and by showing that He spake thus not from desire of honor from them, but because He cared for them. And when He said ‘some,’ He excepted the disciples. For at first He said, ‘Ye have both seen Me, and believe not’ (ver. 36); but here, ‘There are some of you that believe not.’ For He ‘knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray Him.

See also What the Earliest Christians Wrote About the Eucharist, and “The Order of Melchisedech,” a sermon by St. Ambrose (A.D. 340-397)

But — how can any of this be? We are the priesthood of believers! We can’t possibly need an ordained priesthood to confect the Eucharist!

Yes! We are members of what Catholics call the “royal priesthood” and what Protestants call “the priesthood of believers,” no doubt. But so were the ancient Israelites:

Exodus 19:6
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

.. and this nation of priests still had their Aaronic priesthood whose members were the only ones allowed to offer certain sacrifices. The Aaronic priesthood was based on genetic succession; it descended from Aaron, through his sons, and their sons after them. The priesthood of the New Covenant, having changed (Hebrews 7:11-12), is based on Apostolic succession, and every validly ordained Catholic priest has been made a priest by the laying on of hands: he has been ordained by a bishop who’s been ordained by a bishop who’s been ordained by a bishop...who, going back two millennia, was ordained by the Apostles who were ordained by Christ.

And if you just can’t stand the idea of hierarchy and think that blurring the distinctions between the royal priesthood and the ordained priesthood is no big deal, consider Jude 1:11 (yup, that’s the New Testament, folks):

Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

The “issues” with Cain and Balaam are explained in Hebrews 11 and 2 Peter 2, respectively. But who’s this “Korah” and why was Jude “woe-ing” those like him? See Numbers 16:3:

They [Korah and company] gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”

Korah et al knew they were part of the common priesthood but wanted more: they wanted the powers of the ordained and got in Moses’ face about it; in their pride, they were offended by the idea of a “priestly class.” Moses challenged them to offer incense to God, as do the priests, the next day. They did. And they died.

Jude has warned you — in the New Testament, after the coming of our Lord Whom many believe didn’t come to fulfill the Law but to destroy it. “Why, we’re under a doctrine of Grace, and in Him there is neither male nor female and such as that, so that means hiearchy and ‘religion’ make no sense. All I need is my Bible and the Holy Spirit to interpret it for me; I don’t need priests!” Not according to Jude. Not according to the very earliest Christians. Think about it.

Final Notes

It’s so sad, and so infuriating, that Catholics are accused of “worshipping bread.” Yes, the Blessed Sacrament looks like bread and tastes like bread. If one were to walk into a traditional Catholic Mass (that is, a Mass offered according to pre-Vatican II rubrics), one might think Catholics are crazy as they kneel down when the priest holds up what looks like a “piece of bread” for them to adore. “Why, those Catholics are bread-worshippers! I guess that hunk of dough must be some serious “Wonder Bread” to those idiots, hahaha!” -— but the Creator of the Universe said that it is not bread but His very Flesh, which is meat indeed. What God Almighty, Who made the earth and the moon and stars says, is. Once God, through the priest, has changed the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, they should never, ever be referred to as “bread and wine”; they are the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ Jesus. In other words, we don’t worship bread; we worship Christ!

It takes the eyes of faith to “see” that the apparent mere bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood of Christ; it takes an intellectual assent to divine revelation, not emotional “feelings” (though one might experience tremendous emotion, too; I’ve wept out of sheer gratitude to my Savior for humbling Himself for me in such a way at the Mass!). Sometimes one might struggle to “feel” that what appears to be “bread” and “wine” are what He said they are, especially at many modern Masses during which the Body and Blood are so often treated with irreverence. The proper response to doubt, though, is, “Lord, I believe! Help Thou mine unbelief!” (Mark 9:24), not mockery.

Bottom line: one either reads Scripture, listens to the Church, and intellectually assents to what they’ve taught for two millennia, in spite of one’s “feelings,” in spite of the accidents (the appearances) of “bread” and “wine,” or one doesn’t. To those who not only don’t, but feel compelled to mock, well, mock on. They scorned Jesus, too. Just know that you are in bad company; many walked away in the 1st century, too, when hearing these “hard sayings”:

John 6:58, 60, 66
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever... Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?... From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Footnote:
1 Note: most fascinating, and relevant to the common Protestant accusations of Catholics “re-crucifiying” Jesus and denying the efficacy of His once and for all sacrifice at Golgotha, is the Seder practice of quoting from the Haggada, “ v’hi sh’amda l’avoteinu... sheb’chol dor v’dor omdim aleinu l’chaloteinu...,” that is: the Israelites’ national redemption was not only a “one-time historical event” but perpetual in every generation. See http://www.tanach.org/special/pesach/shiur3.htm

2 The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1917, in its entry for “Archaeology of the Cross and Crucifix,” notes that microsopic analysis of relics of the Cross (taken to Rome by Constantine’s mother, Helena) were found to be of pine; cedar is of the pine family. Cedar, too, is mentioned all throughout the Bible as a building material, including for the building of the Temple itself, and in more poetic terms, such as in Psalm 104:16-17 “The trees of the LORD are full of sap; the cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted; Where the birds make their nests: as for the stork, the fir trees are her house.”

A part of the titulus — the sign with the words “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew — that is kept in the Church of San Croce in Rome, is made of a type of walnut. The other half of the titulus was kept in Jerusalem, but was lost when Jerusalem, then Christian, was sacked by Jews and Persians in the 7th century. It may have survived that sacking as there is mention that it was seen at Sainte Chapelle in Paris, having been bought by King Louis IX (St. Louis) from Constantinople, where it was stored away after it was saved from the Jerusalem wreckage. If this is the case, that second half was destroyed during the French Revolution.

Relevant Scripture

Genesis 14:18-20
And Melchizedek king of Salem [ie, Jerusalem] brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Exodus 12:1-14
And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire. And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD’s passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

Exodus 12:24
An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

Exodus 19:6
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. [Note that the “priesthood of the people” did not obviate the need for Temple priests!]

Exodus 16:15
And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.

Exodus 24:8
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words. [see Matthew 26:28]

Leviticus 7:11-15
And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the LORD. If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried. Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings. And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the LORD, and it shall be the priest’s that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings. And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.

Leviticus 23:12-13
And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD. And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin.

Leviticus 24:5-9
And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake. And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD. And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD. Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant. And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute.

1 Kings 7:48
And Solomon made all the vessels that pertained unto the house of the LORD: the altar of gold, and the table of gold, whereupon the shewbread was

2 Chronicles 2:4 2
[And Solomon sent to Huram the king of Tyre, saying...] Behold, I build an house to the name of the LORD my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the LORD our God. This is an ordinance for ever to Israel.

Psalm 51:17
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Psalm 110:4
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Isaiah 66:18-21
For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory. And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD. And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD. [priests and Levites — those specially ordained to the priesthood]

Malachi 1:10-11
Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a PURE OFFERING: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament [NKJV, RSV, NIV, NASB, etc.: “covenant”], which is shed for many for the remission of sins. [see Exodus 24:8]

Luke 22:19
This IS my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. [Note: the word used here for “remembrance” is “anamnesis,” which is used exclusively to refer to sacrifices in the Old Testament: Leviticus 2:2, 9,16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7; Numbers 5:26; 10:10 — and in the New Testament: Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25; Hebrews 10:3. This is in contradistinction to the word “anamimnesko,” used in Genesis 8:1; 41:9; Exodus 23:13; 2 Samuel 18:18, etc., and which refers not to a sacrificial re-presenting, but to a mere memorial Both Greek words are used together in Numbers 10:9-10 — verses which clearly distinguish between the two words and which show that Luke 22:10 refers to a true sacrifice.)

John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John 6:32-36
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

John 6:51-69
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Acts 2:42
And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

1 Corinthians 10
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

I Corinthians 11:23-30
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. [Note: eating a “symbol” unworthily would bring damnation on one’s self and make one guilty of the body and blood of Christ? Only Catholic theology makes sense of these verses! Also note that the the use of “and” in “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily” is King James usage. St. Jerome’s Vulgate, the Douay-Reims, New King James Version, NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, ASV, etc., all use the proper “or” — “vel” in Latin. This is important because it shows clearly that the “bread” and “wine” each become the Body and Blood of our Lord because eating or drinking unworthily makes one guilty of both. This is why one can receive Christ entirely by consuming either.]

Hebrews 2:16-17
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 3:1
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus

Hebrews 4:14
Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Hebrews 5:1-10
For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 6:17-20
Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. [RSV: So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he interposed with an oath, so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God should prove false, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchiz’edek.]

Hebrews 7:11-12
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. [Note: “for the priesthood being changed,” not eradicated!]

Hebrews 7:24-28
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Hebrews 9:22-24
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us [NIV: “It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.”; YLT: “[It is] necessary, therefore, the pattern indeed of the things in the heavens to be purified with these, and the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” In other words, sacrifices — plural — are still necessary.]

Hebrews 9:28
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. [Yes, His death on the Cross was once and for all, but His offering of Himself is eternal, or else He could not be a “priest after the order of Melchizedek.” The Mass is an unbloody sacrifice!]

Hebrews 13:10
We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. [an altar indicates sacrifices!]

1 Peter 2:5
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:9-10
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Revelation 1:6
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 2:17
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 5:6-8
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

Revelation 5:10
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.


20 posted on 01/27/2011 2:54:13 PM PST by sayuncledave (A cruce salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Yes I did and I thank you.

The flesh profiteth nothing.

Just as Jesus foretold the Eucharist when He spoke this to Satan, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”, what Jesus says about the flesh and the spirit does not diminish the value of His flesh in anyway. This directly relates to the true natures of Jesus and puts to rest any question as to whether He was truly man and truly God. For had Jesus been merely human, He would not then have been able to atone for humanity’s sins. It quite clearly is His way of solidifying the truth that He is present in the bread for without Him, God, we have no salvation.

As far as getting stuck on the physical, I think it is Protestants who do this and not Catholics. After all, we accept that though the physical appearance and taste of the bread and wine remain, they are in fact what Jesus claimed they are, His body and His blood.

The admonition sounds a little like Gnosticism or is it Manicheanism? I can never keep those two heresies straight.

Whatever, it was OUR flesh which profits us nothing. Jesus is saying, “What I am giving you is spirit and life, for through the spirit, (The Holy Spirit) we have His flesh and His blood which He told us we need to have life.

Do you not see the contradiction is saying that eating bread and drinking wine will not save anyone Christ saves, yet it is Christ under the guise of bread and wine which saves us. I agree that the bread and wine or grape juice consumed in Protestant services does in fact not save. I remind you once again of Jesus’ words, “Man does not live by bread alone but by every word which proceeds out of the mouth of God.”

Jesus is the only Word breathed by God and the only one whose presence in the Eucharist can save us.


21 posted on 01/27/2011 6:13:39 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sayuncledave; CynicalBear
CynicalBear, I must respectfully disagree. A figure of speech is when I say,

There are various types of “figures of speech.” Examples would be when Jesus said, “I am the door of the sheep” or “"I am the light of the world” or “I am the true vine.” Jesus never took the appearance of an grape vine or flashlight.

at no point does He say, “this is symbolic.”

He rarely does, even when He is using symbolism. See above.

22 posted on 01/27/2011 6:40:42 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- an error of Biblical proportions.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

It’s fairly obvious from all these quotes that whatever the ECF taught regarding the “real presence” it is far removed from the RC dogma of transubstantiation.


23 posted on 01/27/2011 6:48:39 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- an error of Biblical proportions.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

the gnostics walked away also.


24 posted on 01/27/2011 7:01:14 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

your unorthodox belief was unknown until the 16th century...what about “the pillar of truth” don’t you understand?


25 posted on 01/27/2011 7:04:57 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Ignatius walked with Peter and John ( probably Paul as well, but i never read that one )


26 posted on 01/27/2011 7:06:39 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sayuncledave

Beautiful post.


27 posted on 01/27/2011 7:08:04 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

LOL! Thanks for the laugh. Either something is “REAL” or it is symbolic. can you be a little pregnant?
the 16th century tradition of men is a very strong delusion.


28 posted on 01/27/2011 7:11:16 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

>> what about “the pillar of truth” don’t you understand?<<

You would have to explain to me what you mean by “pillar of truth”.


29 posted on 01/27/2011 7:19:05 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

You have presented nothing new here. That Scripture does not support the Real Presence is a matter of opinion and not fact, since for centuries Catholics have believed otherwise.

The word transubstantiation is merely a human word which may or may not inadequately explain a Mystery of God which is beyond our human knowledge. Man cannot know the mind or ways of God for he is not God.

And, really, cannibalism? That’s why all those who could not take this hard teaching left.


30 posted on 01/27/2011 7:29:29 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
It’s fairly obvious from all these quotes that whatever the ECF taught regarding the “real presence” it is far removed from the RC dogma of transubstantiation.

Regarding the above excerpts and the dogma of transubstantiation, "slam dunk", is the appropriate phrase here, I believe.

I'm glad you find them to be compatible with Protestant theology.

Progress.

You're probably the first so spread the word.

31 posted on 01/27/2011 7:55:28 PM PST by marshmallow ("A country which kills its own children has no future" -Mother Teresa of Calcutta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Claud
Not sure where you are getting your information on the Greek language. I have 6 Lexicons, 7 Grammars, and 4 Reference works and none of them suggest the nuance in meaning for the forms of the Greek words you are citing. They mean 'true, genuine' ... nothing more or less.

Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, Second Edition, pp. 36-37

32 posted on 01/27/2011 7:58:01 PM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

do you accept the Greek Orthodox Church understands the Greek language? If yes, look up what they believe about the Eucharist.


33 posted on 01/27/2011 8:10:25 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

Gotta go with BAG on this one ... the standard Lexicon for NT and early Christian Literature.


34 posted on 01/27/2011 8:15:48 PM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

that’s fine, but you still might want to check out the Orthodox belief on the Eucharist.


35 posted on 01/27/2011 8:29:40 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
And, really, cannibalism? That’s why all those who could not take this hard teaching left.

Oh, WELL SAID. Every time I read one of the protestants saying that the Real Presence would be cannibalism, I want to know if they've read the entire passage.

36 posted on 01/27/2011 8:36:30 PM PST by Judith Anne (Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bobsvainbabblings

I do not accept that, obviously.

Jesus said seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you.

Does God ignore the sincere desire to know Him and Love Him?

It is one thing to know and reject. It is another to honestly follow what one believes is the truth.

I don’t believe that God would allow so many of the latter to be lost to Him.


37 posted on 01/27/2011 8:37:31 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
Yes! It's a benign presence. Its elements supernaturally to qualify for this Real Presence. Not cannibalism.

Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 - we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a Perpetual ordinance. It lasts Forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Christ initiates this on Passover to be the everlasting passover as promised. To be consumed as the old testament lamb was also. Otherwise God did not keep his promise forever.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

38 posted on 01/27/2011 8:44:19 PM PST by johngrace (God so loved the world so he gave his only son! Praise Jesus and Hail Mary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

Oh they have read it, Judith.

They reject it, just as many of His disciples did upon hearing Him say it.

When I get a response such as that, I resolve in the future to be very wary of the one who made it.

It seems these debates follow a pattern. When presented with Scripture, when presented with the words of those closest to the Apostles, when given well thought out and reasoned Catholic theological and doctrinal reality, the debate spirals into accusations of idolatry, cannibalism and such.

When told that all Christian Protestant sects accept as truth doctrines which came from the Catholic church, something no honest Protestant can deny, they resort to bringing up the Inquisition, the Crusades and lately, the priest abuse scandals.

I don’t get mad, or at least I do my very best not too.
I remind myself that I am grateful for the faith I have been given and the gifts I receive as a member of Christ’s Church.


39 posted on 01/27/2011 8:44:34 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html


40 posted on 01/27/2011 8:45:23 PM PST by johngrace (God so loved the world so he gave his only son! Praise Jesus and Hail Mary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

Thanks for weighing in johngrace:)

Truly one does need a Catholic heart to see, but some have hardened their hearts to His words.

“Come back to me. With all your heart. Don’t let fear, keep us apart.”

“Long have I waited for your coming, home to me and living, deeply our new love.”

One of my favorites.


41 posted on 01/27/2011 8:48:10 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

Oh, I love that hymn!


42 posted on 01/27/2011 8:49:16 PM PST by Judith Anne (Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; Jvette; Judith Anne; one Lord one faith one baptism; sayuncledave; raygunfan; Claud; ..
This is the one that seals any remaining doubt to the Mass . I also sense the Holy Spirit confirm it. Of course I speak for myself.

Irenaeus

“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] 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 offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. 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” (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

I never seen a writing from a early Father on this verse before Irenaeus. The sacrifice was only in one place in Jerusalem. Then this reads every place. Only the sacrifice of the Mass explains this old testament verse. No other explanation can make any sense of this verse. IMHO.

Also notice this is God's point of view from eternity. He is outside of time and space which comes from his creation( The cosmos). He sees the future like in the present thus this verse spoken to the prophet:

"and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]

When he spoke the prophet was in creation but God spoke outside of this creation which is eternity. The prophet probably did not know what God meant but took it on faith never the less. Just like we do when say the Mystery of the Faith on certain matters.

43 posted on 01/27/2011 10:16:21 PM PST by johngrace (God so loved the world so he gave his only son! Praise Jesus and Hail Mary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
Jesus is the only Word breathed by God and the only one whose presence in the Eucharist can save us.

Whether Jesus is present in the Eucharist or not has no bearing on my salvation or yours as practiced by your earthly church.

Members of the heavenly Church instituted by the God of the Old and New Testament are saved by Jesus the Christ's blood having been sprinkled on the mercy seat in God's heavenly sanctuary one time for all.

Read Hebrews to understand the concept. There is no need for a New Testament earthly church as the Church of the Magisterium teaches.

That is why Jesus gave Peter, and us, keys to the kingdom of heaven.  BVB
 


44 posted on 01/27/2011 11:28:01 PM PST by Bobsvainbabblings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sayuncledave; CynicalBear
From:www.biblebelievers.net

In Hebrews 10:8-14 is a very clear pronouncement from God that when Christ died on the cross, that did away with all other sacrifices. It reads:

"Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt-offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the whichwill we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. "

This Scripture explicitly says certain things. It says (a) "Sacrifice and offering and burnt-offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law." (b) He expressly says that He did away with the old sacrifices to establish a second. (c) And then He expressly says that the offering of Jesus Christ "once for all" settles the whole matter of sin. Again, He says, "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God." When Jesus had paid for all sins and offered the last sacrifice which settled things forever, then He sat down because His sacrificial work was done. (d) There is no need for further sacrifice, "for by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified," that is, them that are set apart for God by the blood of Christ.

Then in the following verses the Lord reminds us of the promise in the Old Testament that He would make a new covenant with men, that He would put the law in their hearts and minds, and He says: "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin" (Heb. 10:17, 18).

Now notice the one grand summing-up statement: "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." When one has trusted Christ and had his sins forgiven, then "there is no more offering for sin," no more animal sacrifices, no more of any other kind of sacrifices.

So to make the mass a sacrifice, to claim that in the mass Jesus is sacrificed again and again, that the bread becomes His body, that the wine becomes His blood, and that there is saving virtue in this sacrifice-that is a blasphemous rejection of the Bible in favor of traditions of men. That is a false religion, not the Christian religion. Thus Roman Catholic friends, however good their intentions, have made in vain the commandments of God by their traditions.

There is not a single hint anywhere in the entire New Testament that New Testament Christians had any kind of sacrifices. The Lord's Supper was a memorial supper, a simple object lesson, a spiritual reminder that Christ had died for us and we are saved by His blood, and a simple and sweet reminder to all Christians that we belong to God and ought to love Him and serve Him and enter into His death. There is not a single hint in the entire Bible that there was any saving virtue in the communion. There is no hint that anybody ever was invited to take the communion or the Lord's Supper in Bible times except as he had already found peace with God and was already forgiven and saved.

The Roman Catholic Church has perverted the Bible and substituted tradition in making priests out of preachers or elders.

Since the Bible clearly teaches that now there is to be no more sacrifice for sins, and since the Old Testament priesthood has been succeeded by one priest, Jesus Christ, who has offered one sacrifice forever, then there is no teaching of a priesthood to offer sacrifices in the New Testament. There are elders, preachers. Some of these elders had official positions as pastors or supervisors of local congregations. It is true that in the spiritual sense, all Christians are to be "kings and priests unto God" (I Pet. 2:9; Rev. 5:10). But there was no official priestly work done by anyone as an officer of a church, as an elder or bishop in Bible times. It was not even specified that an elder or bishop should even be present when people took the Lord's Supper. It had no official significance. It was a simple little object lesson, a ceremony of remembrance. And there is not a single hint anywhere that the Lord's Supper had any saving power. It was not a sacrifice. It was never called that in the Bible. That is a false doctrine, manufactured by the Church of Rome, which contradicts the Bible, adds to the Bible, and so brings the plagues of the Bible upon the Roman Church.

45 posted on 01/27/2011 11:43:43 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
I do not accept that, obviously.

Jesus said seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you.

Does God ignore the sincere desire to know Him and Love Him?

It is one thing to know and reject. It is another to honestly follow what one believes is the truth.

Jesus told us he would send the Spirit of truth to guide us. The Church of the Magisterium tells it's followers that Scripture is to hard for individuals to understand and they must depend on what the Church Fathers have decided it means.

As I stated before, we have free will. God can only suggest how we find truth. We have to decide who we listen to.

I don’t believe that God would allow so many of the latter to be lost to Him. I am sure He grieves at every lost soul. He can only keep trying to show us the right way desiring all will use their free will to chose salvation, not through a Church, but through His Son. BVB
 


46 posted on 01/28/2011 12:27:31 AM PST by Bobsvainbabblings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dartuser; marshmallow

Vine’s Expository dictionary of New Testament Words:

http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible/vines/get_defn.pl?num=3090

“Note: “Alethinos is related to alethes as form to contents or substances; alethes denotes the reality of the thing, alethinos defines the relation of the conception to the thing to which it corresponds = genuine” (Cremer).”

But lest you think I am pinning everything on one obscure note in one Greek dictionary, I’d like to point out the absolute mountain of historical evidence on this one. The Church Fathers and indeed the Greek Orthodox Church for 2000 years all held solidly to the doctrine of the Real Presence—and the opposite view was always roundly condemned.


47 posted on 01/28/2011 2:41:44 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

Here’s another lengthy discussion as well, complete with etymological and other cognate citations:

http://studybible.info/trench/True

“Alethes lays bare what is not true and not real; alethinos lays bare what is incongruous with the concept in question. The standard applied by alethes is reality; by alethinos it is the concept. In alethes the concept is congruous with the matter at hand; in alethinos the matter at hand is congruous with the concept.”


48 posted on 01/28/2011 2:44:48 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

“There is not a single hint in the entire Bible that there was any saving virtue in the communion. There is no hint that anybody ever was invited to take the communion or the Lord’s Supper in Bible times except as he had already found peace with God and was already forgiven and saved.”

Respectfully, are you sure? I do not say this to be smarmy or sarcastic. I take My Lord at His word.
(http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm)

[48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

The old Covenant fulfilled, in the New. I really do not want to threadjack here, and I believe that you have stated your personal beliefs. All I have humbly done is to expound a bit on those of the Church. But I will add this: it was, as we believe and are taught, a propitionary sacrifice. If the phrase is unfamiliar, please, look it up. If then, you choose to believe otherwise, that is, of course, up to you. But again, this is not just yours truly’s humble belief, it is what the Church teaches. I hope that this helps, whether or not you and I agree.


49 posted on 01/28/2011 3:38:53 AM PST by sayuncledave (A cruce salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Amen and Amen!

Is it any wonder why the simple answer to the question “what must I do to be saved” was “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved - and your house”? The bride of Christ, the church, is made up of childlike believers who trust in Jesus as their only hope of salvation. It is not an earthly organization or building.

Once you have believed in your heart and confessed with your mouth that Jesus is your Lord and Savior you become a “child of the King” and can have a personal relationship through prayer with no intermediaries.

Praying “in Jesus name” means that you appear before the Father washed clean of all your sins.

50 posted on 01/28/2011 5:08:19 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson