Catholicity key to Church Unity

Bob:

The unity in Jesus Christ is His body__the body of Christ___His church.

“Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?? Since there is one bread , we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.â€￾ 1 Corinthians 10:16-17

We don't play at being one. The Church is one. The Catholic Church doesn't teach "unity" at the cost of truth. This is why we are not members of the World Council of Churches, where it is agreed upon one church is as "true" and "equal" as another.

 

Kathryn it seem to me that you are receiving the wine at your mass. One other Catholic said, on this board, that he never did receive the wine during his years in the Catholic Church. The Catholic people that I know around here take pride that no matter which church you attend in another state, that they use the same liturgy and Gospel readings.

You see my problem. Some of you claim you receive both elements in the service of Holy Communion and other Catholics are telling us that they never had the chalice offered to them. There seems to be a division of practice within your branch of the church. Here there appears to us-- a lack of unity as to the official practice within the Roman Catholic Church.

The church that Christ founded was the Apostolic church and not the Roman Catholic Church. There is no Biblical proof that the Apostle Peter was ever in Rome. After his writing of the Epistles he 'went to be with the Lord.' [John 21:18 & II Cor. 5:8 & Philippians 1:23] The Apostolic church died and went to be with Christ; the Roman Catholics die and go to Purgatory.

A lady just stopped at our home with her daughter who in the last year moved her membership to a Lutheran Church in Nazareth. I asked her if she ever received the wine-the blood of Christ in the Roman Catholic Church. She said "Never." She is in her late 30's., and just stopped by here after the Good Friday service.

 

You are interpreting it. You're tearing it right out of its context, where we see that they didn't recognize Him for awhile, then at the breaking of bread, did recognize Him. That is clear. Nothing about Him being the bread, because then, as I keep saying, there would be TWO "Flesh"s.

As for the Fathers, we see in John 6, that the Jews take Christ's statement "eat my flesh" literally, and are offended. (thinking it is a gross violation of the Law). Likewise, the church fathers apparently would make the same error; mistaking a spiritual metaphor for some mystical transformation. The first one, Ignatius, is a bit ambiguous, as even his statements "the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ", and "the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ" can still be allegorical. "IS" is used this way in Hebrews, regarding Rachel vs. Hagar. (are those two mountains really the flesh of these women?). So as leaders kept calling the bread and wine the body and bllod of Christ, then it began to be understood literally, mystically. Take into consideration all the pagan philosophy and mysticism coming in, it is understandable this would happen. So the next batch of fathers (except Clement) then speak of a "change" in the elements. There is nothing in any of the scriptures on any 'change' of the bread and wine into something else; no mention of Christ or the or the word, or prayer/invocation doing anything to them. It was assumed that as the church sat to eat, they represented the body and blood. This was added as people began teaching a mystical view of the elements. So then by the time of Theodore in the 5th century, now you have a dispute between "symbol" and "is" understood literally. This is how the "ancient catholic church" gradually became the Roman Catholic Church". One may have sprung out of the other, but there was clearly an ongoing change of doctrine and practice. That is why people reject the current Church and do not see it as the "one Church".

But no matter how early they began teaching this, it is not scriptural, and can openly be justified by admittely extrabiblical "tradition". But that is an excuse for men to canonize any unbiblical teaching they come up with.

 

Eric: I put the verse in context of the whole story. I had even asked the question why the disciples did not recognize Jesus Christ or remember correctly what they were to remember. I asked why Jesus had called them foolish? It was the breaking of the bread that was the cause, according to them, of them recognizing Jesus Christ and Him opening their eyes. You can claim it was a coincidence, just happened at the same time, if you like.

 

Eric B,

This is a true understanding as to how this commemoration in Apostolic times evolved into the concept of Transubstantiation. Thanks for the enlightenment and your perception as to how the Christian Church became apostate because of her add-on theology.

 

OK, I see what you are getting at. They recognized Him as He gave the bread and wine. But still, this does not say that the bread and wine WERE Him, especially as the real "Him" was right there in handing it to them! It does not even say that it was the bread and wine that made them recognize Him. I'm sorry, but that is still reading something into the account. Yes, there is a very importand spiritual significance in the communion. This is what opened their eyes. But this says nothing about any mystical power in or transformation of the elements themselves.

 

Eric: I put the verse in context of the whole story. I had even asked the question why the disciples did not recognize Jesus Christ or remember correctly what they were to remember. I asked why Jesus had called them foolish? It was the breaking of the bread that was the cause, according to them, of them recognizing Jesus Christ and Him opening their eyes. You can claim it was a coincidence, just happened at the same time, if you like.

Ray, can you answer the questions. You seem to prefer to distort my words like Eric, so that you don't have to deal with what Holy Scripture says.

 

Eric:

Thank you. This was my point. I can now see you are not trying to distort what I am saying. Ray, has been telling me what was taking place was not even Communion, but just a normal meal.

 

I am not surprised with the obsession of some with the words, ' . . . He was known of them in the breaking of bread.' [Luke 24:30 & 35] Roman Catholics focus heavily on the Mass and the Eucharist.

After the resurrection in this chapter you will see that two people the one is named Cleopas and the other person is apparently unnamed in the Bible. Jesus in verse 15 draws near to them and talks to them as they walk toward Emmaus. The next verse tells us that Jesus would not allow them to know that He was the Messiah. Jesus plays dumb with them and asks them about what had happened in the last few days. In verses 25-28 the disguised stranger expounded the deep things of God to these two men. After Jesus' detailed message it is getting later in the afternoon and they ask the stranger to stay with them, [vs. 29] After Jesus was assured that these two heard His highly important message, as they were eating, he then opened their eyes and the Bible says, ' . . . and they (then) knew Him.' [vs. 31]

In verse 30 Luke says that 'He sat at meat with them' these two fellow travelers to Emmaus. The Greek word for 'meat' is {sitometron} meaning 'a grain-measure' or by implication an allowance of food-a portion of meat.' When they reclined with Him (after Biblical style) He blessed and broke the loaf among them. There is no hint of a subtle Holy Communion service in this passage. He later ate fish and honeycomb to prove to the apostles that it was really Jesus. In verse 45 He opened their understanding as to enlightenment of the Scriptures.

Mark the last chapter which is sixteen in verse twelve, St. Mark explains all of the above. Only in this passage it says, that Jesus appeared to these two, Cleopas and the other person as they walked into the country, which was without doubt, Emmaus. To me it is very interesting that the Bible says, that JESUS APPEARED IN ANOTHER FORM unto the two of them. Again, in verse 14 Jesus reclines with the eleven apostles as they eat together. After their meal, He instructs them as to their mission for Him after His ascension into Heaven.

Why did Jesus hid His familiar countenance? Because He wanted them to hear His message and to not focus on the stupendous, miracle of His resurrection. After His message was heard and understood, Jesus revealed Himself to them as they reclined to eat.

He taught them the deeper things of God as to how His death and resurrection was foretold 'and written in the law of Moses, in the prophets and in the Psalms. [Luke 24:44] After all of this He revealed His true countenance and Personhood to His apostles. They finally believed that Jesus had risen from the dead and was alive forevermore.

These two passages in no way suggest a contrived and created service of the Eucharist.

On Maunday Thursday before Good Friday Jesus taught them about the meaning of the Lord's Supper, the service of Holy Communion. He further instructs the Church of Corinth in I Corinthians chapter eleven.

Cleopas and the other person were so excited that they return from Emmaus back to Jerusalem even though it was so late in the day, to tell the apostles all that had happened on the road. On this evening of the resurrection of Christ Jesus appeared in the room where the eleven apostles had gathered.

Ray Berrian, Th.D

 

Ok - then all Christian are in fact one - as they each celebrate communion - but then you argue that these Christians should not be "allowed" to celebrate communion "with you".

Obviously then you are using communion as a tool for division - but in a double-speak kind of way.

As for 1Cor 10:16-19

The twist you give to it - makes it appear that demons are capable of continually sacrificing themselves.

How do you define "cup of demons" in the context of 1Cor 10 where you also find "cup of blessing"?

As for unity - notice the argument for division you make in your position below.

You reject the communion service of all non-Catholic churches - true?

So that communion then is the "key to division" as you define it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Details details Eric ... You are looking at the Bible to get truth and to explain truth.

Though Bible reading is not always welcomed if it is too long -- perhaps the "details" are of some interest here.

In this section we notice these key facts.
#1. These unnamed followers did not proclaim Jesus as Messiah, or Lord, or Son of God, or Savior of the World, Or an atoning sacrifice.
#2. They considered the events of His death to spell doom for all that He claimed.
#3. Sunday is the 3rd day SINCE the events they described had happened ( and they described the arrest and condemnation and torture and death)

Notice again – the key details of vs 22-24
#1. The women’s report of the Angels message is not believed.
#2. Christ is not known to these 2 disciples to have appeared to anyone as of yet –
#3. The “todayâ€￾ they speak of – is the day of the resurrection and since early in the morning Christ has been risen.

Notice – the key details of vs 25-31
#1. Christ chastises NT post-cross, post-resurrection disciples for unbelief and lack of attention to the “Detailsâ€￾ of God’s Word – the OT prophets.
#2. Christ begins His gospel “proofâ€￾ starting with Moses.
#3. Christ shows clearly – the OT is the “scripturesâ€￾ and relies on “Scriptureâ€￾ for “proofâ€￾.
#4. Christ does not simply “show Himself and say believe whatever I say for I am Godâ€￾ Rather He builds trust in the Word of God for “proofâ€￾.
#5. The disciples do not see Him as the Messiah or as God or as the Savior of the World – and do not even know He is Jesus until He leaves.
#6. The evening meal is not “another Passoverâ€￾ nor is it “another communion serviceâ€￾ where He would say “This is my body broken for youâ€￾ Nothing is mentioned other than praying and preparing to eat food. No focus at all on sacrifice in the food, nor any hint that these disciples “stillâ€￾ thinking of Him as a “That prophetâ€￾ expect to be “biting Christ todayâ€￾.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan,

Your post said, 'Originally posted by Kathryn:


Kathryn said, 'Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of
Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of
Christ?? Since there is one bread , we who are many are one
body; for we all partake of the one bread." 1 Corinthians
10:16-17

We don't play at being one. The Church is one.'


Bob said, 'Ok - then all Christian are in fact one - as they each celebrate communion -
but then you argue that these Christians should not be "allowed" to
celebrate communion "with you".

Obviously then you are using communion as a tool for division - but in a
double-speak kind of way.'

Ray is saying, 'The pope calls us 'separated brethren' for ecumenical purposes, so we will return to his one fold. The hypocrisy of his above noted term, is duly noted by you in that we are not welcomed at the altar in a Roman Catholic Church.

I think there is a lot of truth in the fact that whenever God's people receive the elements of Holy Communion we are in fact in His one Body. Many Christian denominations make up the one true church.

I always welcome people who love Jesus to received the body and blood of Christ. I believe in open Communion. I believe the Missouri Lutheran Church has a closed Communion service. I do not know if that rule applies to them today.

 

Ray,

Officially, the policy of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod remains closed Communion. But there are many LCMS churches that practice open communion. I think there is a similar situation in the RC Church with many priests permitting non-catholics to commune.

I don't believe closed communion is a tool for division. Unworthy guests eat and drink damnation unto themselves. But the American culture is driving open communion because churches do not want to appear unfriendly.

[ April 10, 2004, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

John chapter seventeen does not say that the sacrament is the means into grace. The way to grace is found in verse three. The way into the faith is by receiving Christ [John 1:12] and not through baptism or the chalice.

We are one in Christ not because we all agree exactly theologically speaking, but because we love Jesus and He is making us one through His prayer to the Father. Verse eleven is our Lord's prayer to God the Father that those who know Him, [vs. 3] will be made one in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Verse seventeen finds Jesus praying that His truth, the Word of God, will sanctify and purify our hearts and lives. He does not pray for the worldlings but only for His people who love Him.

I think Jude said, that unity has not happen since 1055 or some date like this. The Lord knows that all Christians are not going to march together 'in lock step' with each other. His unity for us in the Holy Spirit is already a fact, because Jesus' prayer to the Father has been heard and already answered. All who love Jesus are one, whether Catholic, Lutheran, Nazarene, Baptist and so on and on. We are already His catholic/universal church.

St. Paul speaks about those who were not orthodox and yet Jesus claims them as His own. [II Timothy 2:17-21] Hymenaeus and Philetus were saved but believed the resurrection was already in the past. God speaking through Paul tells us that though they were one with Christ they were two among others in later centuries who would be a 'dishonor' [20] to His perfection of Divine truth.

There never will be a unity of Divine truth in human congregations and denominations, so don't look for it to happen.

Jesus has made us one in the Godhead because of the power and authority of His prayer in John chapter seventeen.

 

Agreed. Open communion is a good way of recognizing that all are Christians - even though we are in different denominations like RC or Lutheran or Baptist etc.

But even better - it is a way of recognizing "One Gospel" - and that salvation is only through the New Covenant - and that all saved come to God through that ONE door, that ONE plan -- the New Covenant.

It is the RC position that the New Covenant is confined to the Catholic mass, that non-Catholics are not saved under the Bible ordained means of the New Covenant - rather "some other means of grace" has to be invented for non-Catholics outside of the Word of God.

So the good news is that they still accept that non-catholics are saved, the bad new is they reserve the New Covenant for themselves alone.

They propose "Division" even in the Gospel plan of salvation.

In Christ,

Bob