Posted on 03/31/2015 2:42:14 PM PDT by RnMomof7
My wife is Catholic and she sees communion the same way I do. I am Presbyterian. It is symbolic.
Pretty strange to use THAT PARTICULAR NUMBERED PASSAGE, isn’t it???
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A
funny, Ignatius of Antioch quoted above learned the faith from the human author of John 6, the Apostle John.
I will leave it to the reader to decide if Ignatius believed the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ.
those following the 16th century tradition of men are merely recycling the unbelief of the Gnostics.
Saul/Paul was quite a man. Luke in Acts writes about Saul and his being blinded for 3-4 days from a vision and Paul went on to do wonderful things after accepting Jesus. Paul wrote many books in the New Testament.
Regarding Paul, its inspiring how the Lord turned around a Pharisee of Pharisees.
I think someone who learned the faith from the Apostle John would know if the Eucharist is the Body of Christ as Jesus declared and Christians have always believed or is it symbolic as was first taught in the 16th century.
please read post #23 to see what that man taught by John had to say on the subject.
he wrote this before he was put to death in Rome for his faith.
Why do they base their faith on being actively anti-Catholic? Why not just list your own beliefs and ignore Catholics?
Chapter numbers were added by Stephen Langton, who would later become the Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury in 1211 A.D.
The Chapter and verse numbers are not in the original documents, just like Sola Scriptura.
Yes, chapter and verse numbers are a tradition of men.
I would suggest finding a Bible that doesn't use them, if you don't want to follow a human tradition.
1 Corinthians 11:27-29
whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. for any one who eats and drinks without DISCERNING THE BODY eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
the words speak for themselves and have been understood for 2,000 years now.
I'm not Catholic, but I suppose that other forms of argumentation may be more convincing than what people call "attacks." Since Matthew 23 keeps getting quoted on the Religion Forum, seemingly as evidence of divine permission to call people "fools" more often than we probably should, I've noticed in verse 15 that even the Pharisees made a convert once in a while. Now, numbers of converts are no proof of truth, but what fruit is there from certain styles of posting?
for those who don’t understand what the word “discerning” means in 1 Corinthians 11. it means recognize.
Msgr. Ronald Knox did a translation that has the verse numbers in the margins. Reading the Bible without those artificial pauses changed the way I read and understood Sacred Scripture.
Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body (Against Marcion, Bk 4).Ignatius is saying the same thing. It is a quite typical mode of expression under the platonic mode of relating type to archetype. There is a relationship, and it can be expressed very directly, "A is B," and still have the sense of what we moderns would think of as a symbolic reference.
quoted from an article here: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm
These are not the droids you're looking for?
St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus are then cited extensively for this literal view of the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ. Stone continues concerning Tertullian’s view of the Eucharist and Sacraments —
“A very imperfect idea of the Eucharistic doctrine of Tertullian would be given if attention were confined to those passages in his writings in which he describes the Eucharist as the ‘figura’ of the body of Christ and the means by which our Lord ‘makes His body present.’ To understand it rightly, it must be viewed in the general setting of sacramental principle which Tertullian emphasizes. In his eyes the Incarnation has introduced new aspects of the relation of man to God. The human flesh which the Lord then took is an abiding reality. ‘That same Person who suffered,’ he declares, ‘will come from heaven; that same Person who was raised from the dead will appear to all. And they who pierced Him will see and recognize the very flesh against which they raged’ [De carn Christi, 24]. With this Christ, thus retaining His human body and blood, Christians are closely united. The baptised are clothed with Christ; in them Christ lives [De fug 10; De poen 10]. By the daily reception of the bread of life there is continuance in Christ and abiding union in His body [De orat 6]. Before the Incarnation the flesh was far off from God, ‘not yet worthy of the gift of salvation, not yet fitted for the duty of holiness’; but Christ’s work, accomplished in the flesh, has changed all that [De pud 6]. Since the Incarnation Sacraments have become necessary and effectual [De Bapt 11,13]; and that which in the ordinances of the Church touches the flesh benefits the soul [De carn res 8].
“It is in harmony with these general sacramental principles that Tertullian not only calls the Eucharist ‘the holy thing’ [De spectac 25], but also often and naturally refers to it as the body of Christ.” (Stone, vol 1, pg 36-37)
Stone then gives six clear examples of Tertullian’s literal view —
(1) It is a matter of anxious care that no drop of the wine or fragment of the bread should fall to the ground (De cor 3).
(2) It was the Lord’s body which the disciples received at the Last Supper (Adv Marc iv,40).
(3) It is the Lord’s body which the communicant receives in the Church or reserves for his Communion at home (De orat 19).
(4) It is the Lord’s body with the richness of which the Christian is fed in the Eucharist (De pud 9).
(5) It is Christ’s body and blood with which “the flesh is clothed, so that the soul also may be made fat by God” (De carn res 8).
(6) Even in unworthy Communions it is the body of the Lord which wicked hands approach, the body of the Lord which wicked men outrage and offend
for a more complete view of Tertullian and the Eucharist.
Zwingli and old school Baptists did not believe anything like this.
“It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” - John 6:63
If you want to know the truth, you have to go to the source
This is My Body
Jesus Christ, 33ad
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.