Question about history of Eucharist views

I suppose David Hill is entitled to his wrong opinion in the same manner that you are entitled to yours.

The fact of the matter is this: Jesus did not build his church upon human flesh, or human confession, but rather, upon spiritual truth that was revealed to humanity by the Father in Heaven. Human confession of, and belief in, the truth are the building materials of the Church that Jesus Built!

Other than your opinion that the Church is built upon one man, can you name for us any other organization that is built upon one man that has lasted more that 100 years? Let me remind you the longest continuous dictatorship does not outlast its dictator. A follow-on dictatorship may happen, but then the follow-on dictatorship is a new dictatorship. Neither does a Kingdom outlive its king. When David Died and Solomon took over, the Davidic Kingdom ended, and the Solomonic Kingdom commenced. Yes the subjects were the same, but the King was different.

Let's make this just a bit more interesting, is there another organization in existance that was built by deity? If yes, was it built upon humanity?

I believe you will find there is no such organization preceding nor following Jesus' anouncement.

Other than faulty logic there is no reason to think that Jesus would build his church upon a man. Man consistantly fails God. Even Peter denied Jesus three times after Jesus made his "Upon this Rock" statement. Why then would God rely on man who has consistantly, from the creation, failed to meet God's standard. For many of you, man is totally depraved, completely unable to obey God. So, how is it that the Church of Jesus the Christ can be built upon a man.

Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ! What a wonderful foundation for a church!

 

There is an organization mentioned in the scriptures that is built upon a man, one that puts himself in the place of God. As any man does that puts themselves between humanity and Christ.


II Th 2:3-4 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


The church of Rome is this organization. It claims that the church is built upon a man, and the men that suppossedly follow him. Antichrist, being in the place of Christ.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

The assumption that Christ and the Apostles did not "know what the OT scriptures were until the CC told them" is not based in history but in "hope".

The assumption that the Catholics of the 15th and 16th centuries did not know what the OT and NT were so they "took a Protestant Bible" and started the "Protestant church" is also an assertion based in "hope" rather than fact.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I will answer on the "Sincere Question for Catholics" thread.

 

Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "I suppose David Hill is entitled to his wrong opinion in the same manner that you are entitled to yours."

Wrong according to who's standards? Yelsew's? *Grin* I smell a hint of blind triumphalism.

I really don't think that you're interested in learning the Biblical foundations of the Catholic position because you aren't interested in a dialogue, which involves listening.

But, if by some chance that I'm wrong (God forbid), here's an article, written by a former Baptist on the issue (it's well written):

http://www.catholicoutlook.com/rock.html

God bless you!

 

When I was in college I wrote a paper for grade. The topic was one in which I refuted a standing belief regarding Supply Chain Management. The professer returned my paper with the comment, "this is well written" but he gave me a grade point of only 1.2, 5 being the best. So, being well written does not make it right, or acceptable to the reader. The reader has a perspective and that which he reads is evaluated on that perspective.

The writer's religious persuasion makes no difference to the reader.

I have stated my persuasion on the foundation of the Church and on what "the Rock" truly means. You have not! You are merely parroting what someone else has said. In order to continue a viable discussion, it is time for you to state your own innermost personal beliefs, the beliefs that you rely upon that are those that support your religious persuasion, and not those of someone else.

 

Did I already mention that?

It seems like it "might" relate to the thread's subject title.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "So, being well written does not make it right, or acceptable to the reader. The reader has a perspective and that which he reads is evaluated on that perspective."

That's all wonderful, really.. but it is pretty meaningless unless you read and evaluate the actual article.

Did you?

You are merely parroting what someone else has said. In order to continue a viable discussion, it is time for you to state your own innermost personal beliefs

And if what this someone else says is, in essence, exactly what you would say.. how is this a bad thing? You see, Gary Hoge and I share the same faith and our answer to the Matthew 16:16-19 controversy is essentially the same because the truth of the matter hasn't changed in 2,000 years. Our "innermost personal beliefs" with regard to this dogma are identical. We're not Protestants, remember.

Yelsew, you're not interested in what I or anyone else has to say. That's quite obvious. To you, I'm simply "wrong" and that's that. There's no analyzing the issue; there's no considering the Catholic position; there's no rational, distanced analysis of the position I hold. There's simply anathema sit from the chair of Yelsew. God bless you.

 

I have asked questions such as:</font>

• "For what possible reason would Jesus build his church upon one human being?"</font>
• "How is it possible to build that which is spiritual and eternal upon that which is material and temporal?"</font>
• "Did not Abraham demonstrate more powerful even more dramatic faith than Peter?"</font>

No responses were forthcoming.

I have not seen anything in scripture or on the earth that would support building a church on one sinner. Unlike Nicodemus, I know the difference between the natural and the spiritual, and I have no difficulty recognizing a Spiritual truth like who and what Jesus is, and that truth is what the church is built upon. If you can't see that then I must ask you how you will understand anything spiritual when You do not understand the natural?

 

"No OTHER foundation can anyone lay other than Christ"

1 Cor 3
9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

That truth is harder on some denominations than others.

In Christ,

Bob

 

For what possible reason would Jesus build his church upon one human being?

With the pope as the vicarious head of the Church, the Church has a visible head and thus is able to retain unity in faith. Christ shepherds his Church through his bishops, and it is the job of the pope to support and uphold the faith of the other bishops, thus giving unity to the Church.

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep." (Jn 21:15-17)

"How is it possible to build that which is spiritual and eternal upon that which is material and temporal?"

Isn't that what happened in the Incarnation?

"Did not Abraham demonstrate more powerful even more dramatic faith than Peter?"

I would agree that Abraham did have greater faith. So what? There are individuals who have suffered greater pains than Jesus did. Does that make them our Saviour? Does Abraham's great faith make him the first pope?

The papacy is God's gift to the Church, founded upon the words and promise of Jesus Christ.

By the way, this may be of interest to you.. today's solemn blessing for the Sunday liturgy of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church:

The Lord has set you firm within his Church which he built upon the rock of Peter's faith. may he bless you with a faith that never falters. Amen.

 

The church has "one Foundation" 1Cor 3:11 above - shows that conclusively.

And 1 Cor 10 states conclusively that the "PETRA of the Church - is Christ" by saying "That PETRA is Christ" - that Spiritual Rock of the Church - is Christ 1Cor 10:4.

One Church, One Rock, One Foundation.

Hard to miss.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The church is called "the bride of Christ". If it is of such importance as to be the Bride of 'God the Son', how could God leave it up to sinful man? He did not, He established His Bride based on Her FAITH in Him. ALL parts of "her" must have such FAITH in order to be part of the Bride.

Carson, You have shown that you do not take every word of scripture literally as in the case of Peter. Why is that? Why is this one scripture so important to you that you take it so literally?

 

Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "Carson, You have shown that you do not take every word of scripture literally as in the case of Peter. Why is that? Why is this one scripture so important to you that you take it so literally?

I take every part of Scripture literarily; this entails deriving and understanding the intention of the human author of Sacred Scripture.

Jesus is the foundation of the Church. He is the "chief cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20). However, at the moment, He is also seated at the right hand of the Father. (Heb. 1:3). Therefore, in His absence, He designated his disciple Simon to be the visible, subordinate rock upon which the Church would be built. (Matt. 16:18). This is typical of the generous way God allows us to participate in His kingdom. For example, Jesus is the ultimate foundation of the Church, yet the Bible says that the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20); Jesus is the ultimate shepherd of the Church, yet the Ephesian elders were also called shepherds (Acts 20:28); Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man, yet we are commanded to intercede for each other in prayer.

Peter is only the foundation of the Church in a secondary, derivative, subordinate sense. He is like the Old Testament "chief steward" (compare Matt. 16:18-19 with Isaiah 22:22). This in no way detracts from Christ's kingship, rather, it shows it's glory.

click here for Peter in Patristic Thought

 

Well, we may be drawing closer to agreement on this one thing, however, If your declarations concerning the church insist on ignoring that the "who and what of Jesus Christ" is the foundation of the church and that belief in Jesus Christ is the morter that provides the church it's strength, and that Peter is but a participant in the churches building as all "who make disciples, baptising them..." are participants in the building. Then we may never arrive at full agreement!

 

Bob,

In the Eucharist, I worship Jesus Christ, the very and only Son of the Living God, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. I may see bread. I may taste bread. I may smell bread. But I worship the living Jesus Christ.

Thus, even if Christ was not present in the Eucharist (although He IS), I would not be committing idolotry, because I am never once worshipping bread, which would be silly, but worshipping Jesus Christ. When you close your eyes and pray in worship to God, are you worshipping your eyelids? Or how about the sky when you look up to Heaven? Yes, it is different in the Eucharist where Christ is PHYSICALLY present, and yet we do not worship the accidents (bread and wine), but the substance, which is Christ Himself.

And when "the Catholic Church" (which is most likely one or two individuals whom you are "quoting," which likely is not from the Magesterium), their argument is poorly worded. I have never worshipped bread; I only worship the Living God.

God bless,

Grant

 

So, GraceSaves, you are telling everyone that you BELIEVE that Jesus is in the Eucharist, But that the Elements themselves are not the real Christ. Welcome to the CHRISTIAN community, for that is what the SCRIPTURES tell us. It is a matter of Belief and not physical reality.

By believing that you are partaking of the Real Christ, you are truly partaking of the Real Christ. But that is not traditionally what the RCC teaches.
How did you arrive at your belief?

 

Yelsew,

That is not what I said. I said the "accidents," not the "elements." My belief did not conflict with the Catholic belief; it IS the Catholic belief. We pay no homage to bread, but to the living Christ.

God bless,

Grant

 

Then by all means define "accidents" for me. I've always understood Accident to mean, "that which was not planned to happen", or unavoidable mishap, etc.

 

Sounds "good".

Here is what the CC has published..

In Christ,

Bob