Catholic Eucharist vs the Bible version - are they the same?

[BobRyan]

I even have the writings of the Church Fathers. My questioning and subsequent study lead me to study more about Catholicism. And I went into it confident that I could quiet my father once and for all by disproving it and ended up coming back to it. When I started leaning Catholic I discussed this with my pastor and suggested that I stop teaching sunday school though I had grown the class significantly and discussed with him some of my delemmas about certain subjects. He wasn't as helpful
... What in the end sent me over the Roman side was the Eucharist. Fortunately my wife came with me and I'm still friends with people at my old baptist church.

Here we have what at least one of the Baptist-turn-Catholic posters says is the most compelling evidence for a Baptist thinking of becoming Catholic.

Let's take a good look at the subject - from a Baptist POV. So I am asking the Catholic posts to be in that frame of mind - as they would have been thinking while Baptists - considering the option of becoming Catholic.


So to start - when Baptist wants to see what the Catholics are claiming when they talking about the Eucharist - that Baptist will find this.
=====================

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
[FONT=&quot]Transubstantiation[/FONT]
The “[FONT=&quot]change of substance[/FONT] ” of bread into the Body of Christ and wine into the Blood of Christ at the Consecration of the Mass. Although this fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church was held by the faithful since apostolic days, the term “transubstantiation” was adopted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, to describe the Eucharistic mystery. This was reinforced by the Council of Trent (1545-63), which spoke of “a wonderful and singular conversion” of the Eucharistic elements.


Only a validly ordained priest can confect the Eucharist. Because of the reality of transubstantiation, [FONT=&quot]reference to the Eucharistic Species as “bread and wine” is wrong.[/FONT] They are properly called [FONT=&quot]the Body and Blood of Christ.[/FONT]
Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.L. Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994, Our Sunday Visitor.
Also from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1376.[/FONT] "The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: 'Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called TRANSUBSTANTIATION.'[Council of Trent (1551): DS 1642; cf. Mt 26:26 ff.; Mk 14:22 ff.; Lk 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor 11:24 ff.]"
To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/euch2.html#presence


1413. "By the consecration the TRANSUBSTANTIATION of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine [FONT=&quot]Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity[/FONT] [cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651.]."

=====================

So what is that priest "confecting"??

Catechism
[FONT=&quot]Paragraph 1374 of the CCC: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Q[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The entire 1374 statement in the Catechism is as follows.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1374[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore[/FONT][FONT=&quot], the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]makes himself wholly and entirely present[/FONT][FONT=&quot]."203

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]St. Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized [Ref. Unknown] (C. 373 AD):

"Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so as long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus is His Body confected."
[FONT=&quot][/FONT] ==========================================================================

The above is not quoted to prove what is happening at Communion - rather it is quoted to prove what is actually being claimed by the Catholic Church.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So fine - God Himself it appears is confected in the mass - or is He?

What is the significance of this? (Parenthetical insert below is mine)

====================================

Catholic Digest. May 1994. Fr. Ken Ryan … page 124

the lead question for the month of May---

“Your June 1993 issue had a most interesting question regarding the New Covenant. Your answer said that people come under the New Covenant by joining the Catholic Church and taking part in the Catholic Mass, but said nothing about there being any other ways of entering the New Covenant or about limiting salvation to those under the New Covenant. Are there (in Catholic thought) any other ways of salvation, and if there are, doesn’t that fact make the Catholic New Covenant (joining the Catholic church and attending Mass) unnecessary?” Bob.

The Answer – By Fr. Ken Ryan

“Not in Catholic theology. God is fair to everyone so He offers His salvation to everyone. The invitation is issued through the New Covenant, and human acceptance of the invitation is properly expressed by membership in the Catholic Church And participation in Christ’s sacrifice of Himself in the Mass. The New Covenant, in its Catholic meaning, is the ordinary way of salvation (getting to heaven).

God’s expressed command is that everyone belong to the Catholic Church He founded. “He who hears Me” was spoken to the 70 disciples whom He had organized to speak for Him in places He did not personally visit.

The invitation to membership in the New Covenant is for all people in general, but the acceptance has to be by the individual. One certainly can’t decline an invitation he or she has never heard of. Accordingly, the Catholic Church does not deny the possibility of salvation except to those who have heard the invitation, understood its meaning, and nevertheless rejected it. Those who have never heard it, never understood it, or never made any deliberate rejection of the invitation can still be saved in some extraordinary way (not listed in the Bible, not via the New Covenant)., some way other than joining the Catholic Church and participating in the Mass. All these possible ways can be summarized by saying that all persons who sincerely try to have a properly informed conscience and then follow that conscience in their moral actions can be saved by this extraordinary way God offers to all.

New Covenant as a term is much more prevalent in non-Catholic popular literature than it is in Catholic writings, and has various meanings. But it was Christ Himself who identified it with the Mass which non-Catholics have rejected.

“This cup which is poured out for youis the new covenant in my blood” was spoken at the Last Supper (the first Mass).
So, according to Catholic thought the New Covenant is the ordinary way to heaven, commanded for our use by Christ, which nevertheless allows salvation by the extraordinary action of God.
==========================================

Non-trivial because the Bible says there is only ONE Gospel Gal 1:6-11 and that the New Covenant IS the Gospel. So if non-Catholics must be saved outside of the New Covenant - because as stated above the New Covenant IS the Catholic Mass alone - then the answer is that non-Catholics are not saved via the Bible Gospel - but rather in some "other way" not mentioned in the Bible but that is opened up by the Catholic Church to non-Catholics after Vatican II.

So we might as well let us non-Catholics know what we are risking.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Still looking at the significance of the teaching and the claims made for the Mass -- from the Catholic POV so as to state clearly for the Baptist Context - "What is being claimed".

=====================================



The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”

--------------------------------------------------
The Faith Explained – Page 350

“On this, the last night before His death, Jesus is making His last will and testament.

Ibid. Page 351
A last will is no place for figurative speech (in the Catholic opinion); under the best of circumstances (human) courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words that night, untold millions of people would be worshipping him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. if he would not really be present under those appearances, the worshippers would be adoring a mere piece of bread, and would be guilty of idolatry,. Certainly that is something that God Himself would set the stage for, by talking in obscure figurative speech.
…
IF Jesus was using a metaphor; if what He really meant was, “This bread is a sort of SYMBOL of My Body, and this is a SYMBOL of My Blood (not yet spilled – so they were not then participating in sacrifice); hereafter, any time that My followers get together and partake of the bread and wine like this, they will be honoring Me and representing My death”; if that IS what Jesus meant (as many protestants claim), then the apostles got Him all wrong (in the Catholic option here). And through their misunderstanding (can the Catholic document blame the Apostles instead of the Catholic church’s tradition that interjects this idea of confecting Christ body and soul??),mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”

 

[Zenas]

Yes, the Catholic Eucharist is the same as the Bible version. I won’t get into the matter of transubstantiation in this post but I do know that scripture supports the idea that the Eucharist is the Christian version of a sacrifice. It is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ. The early church fathers spoke of this, but more to the point scripture speaks of it.

It was prophesied in Malachi 1:11:

For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD of hosts.

From the rising of the sun to its setting implies a worldwide practice. “The nations” implies that this will be a practice among the Gentiles. And what grain offering could be more pure than the bread that becomes the body of Christ! This is a very clear and detailed prophecy of the Eucharist.

Paul alluded to the sacrifice of the mass in 1 Corinthians 3:16:

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

Here he is speaking to the church and the word “you” is the plural, i.e., “you all.” He said “you are a temple.” He might have said “you are a synagogue” because at the time there was only one Jewish temple but many synagogues. But the Christians were a temple wherever they met. Why? Because a temple is a place of sacrifice and he was referring to the sacrifice of the mass.

 

[BobRyan]

So in the posts above - I present the "largeness" of the claim that is made -- at least in first pass. In the following posts we look at evidence for and against these ideas as well as more claims made regarding the mass.

But first I want to look at the "powers" to confect the body and soul of Christ. Retained by the priest even if he is excommunicated as a heretic to Christianity itself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cath Digest – no formatting

Catholic Digest – Jan 1995, pg 126

Q: Our former priest has been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church and h as opened his own Church, which he calls “Christ Catholic Mission”. He now has some kind of connection with what he calls the “Catholic Church of God and Christ” with headquarters in Missouri. More and more people are attending his church. Some are former Catholics, but those I asked did not know whether this priest still had the power of consecrating the bread and wine for Communion. Does he? M.M


A.Yes. But he commits a grave sin of disobedience if he is excommunicated… The priest’s Consecration can be valid, that is, there can be the real change of bread and wine INTO the body and blood of Christ, but it is illicit because of his excommunication and brings him no actual graces.

You sometimes hear that the reason the Church recognizes the validity of an excommunicated priest’s Mass, and his continuing power to forgive sin, is the salvation of the dying in cases of necessity. But the deeper reason is the mark of the Holy Orders, along with Baptism and Confirmation, puts on the soul.

Of course “Mark on the soul” is just a figure of speech to indicate the difference between the baptized and the nonbaptized , the confirmed and the nonconfirmed, the ordained and the nonordained. Once the status of a soul is established by any of the three sacraments, it cannot be changed by any human power so as to be like it was before the reception of these sacraments.

The apostate priest does not lose the power to confect the Eucharist or forgive sins through the sacrament of Penance. He does, by his apostasy, lose the power to do these things licitly, without sin.

The legal mechanics of all this is that only the bishop has the fullness of the priesthood, the power to govern. Consequently, the ordained priest must have the permission of a bishop to exercise the powers of Consecration and absolving. The bread and wine consecrated by an excommunicated priest truly becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, but the priest and anyone who knowingly receives Communion from him is guilty of extremely serious sin.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Before I've had a chance to post anything you have already put in a lot of writing. Before spending time reading your post I want you to summarize your argument. You tend to want me to argue on your ground by throwing a lot of accusations which I can only respond to one at a time. So tell me in short your argument and we'll take it from there. Then I'll read all your quotes to review your reasoning.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, the Catholic Eucharist is the same as the Bible version. I won’t get into the matter of transubstantiation in this post but I do know that scripture supports the idea that the Eucharist is the Christian version of a sacrifice.

And Fr. Ken Ryan of Catholic Digest appears to agree with your 'sacrifice' idea --

The Answer – By Fr. Ken Ryan

“Not in Catholic theology. God is fair to everyone so He offers His salvation to everyone. The invitation is issued through the New Covenant, and human acceptance of the invitation is properly expressed by membership in the Catholic Church And participation in Christ’s sacrifice of Himself in the Mass. The New Covenant, in its Catholic meaning, is the ordinary way of salvation (getting to heaven).

--------------------------------------------------

The question to be answers is this - does the Bible teach a "once for all sacrifice" completed at the cross - or a "forever unending sacrifice" repeated in the mass?

Non-Catholics take one view - and Catholics the other.

The claim for the forever unending continued sacrifice can be found here -

=========================================



Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992):
No. 1367: The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."


St. Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized [Ref. Unknown] (C. 373 AD):
"Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so as long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus is His Body confected."

St. Ambrose of Milan, Commentaries on Twelve of David’s Psalms 38, 25 (Inter C. 381-397 AD):
"We saw the Prince of Priests coming to us, we saw and heard Him offering His blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests; and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. And even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. For even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is He Himself that is offered in sacrifice here on earth when the Body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer Himself He is made visible to us, He whose word makes holy [b] the sacrifice that is offered."


The Second Vatican Council succinctly outlined the Church’s teaching on the Mass as follows:

"At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us."4


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Before I've had a chance to post anything you have already put in a lot of writing. Before spending time reading your post I want you to summarize your argument. You tend to want me to argue on your ground by throwing a lot of accusations which I can only respond to one at a time. So tell me in short your argument and we'll take it from there. Then I'll read all your quotes to review your reasoning.

in my posts so far - I am simply establishing "What is the claim" I have posted no substance in favor of the claim or opposed to it -- I am just defining what it is. Thus my posts do not prove that the Catholic teaching is wrong and they provide no evidence that it is right. I only state the full size of what is being claimed.

I leave it to you and fellow Catholics to find evidence that these claims are legit according to a sola-scriptura model that you as a Baptist would have considered important when you were making your decision.

I leave it to non-Catholics to find evidence that the claims that are being made are not supported by the Bible - more specifically fail the test of scripture by contradicting the Bible. A situation that as a Baptist considering Catholicism - would have been a huge deal.

It is the same exercise you would have gone through as a Baptist considering this as the greatest incentive to make a change.

For my part I will start by admitting that failing the test of the Bible must go beyond "wearing ties to church" something not mentioned in the Bible but also not condemned by it, a man-made tradition that is neutral and morally binding only to the extent that showing respect for the practices of a local congregation and church leadership is required as a Christian duty - to the extent that it does not violate the truths of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here we have what at least one of the Baptist-turn-Catholic posters says is the most compelling evidence for a Baptist thinking of becoming Catholic.
Let's take a good look at the subject - from a Baptist POV. So I am asking the Catholic posts to be in that frame of mind - as they would have been thinking while Baptists - considering the option of becoming Catholic.
in Christ,

Bob

I find this funny. Because you state:

Let's take a good look at the subject - from a Baptist POV. So I am asking the Catholic posts to be in that frame of mind - as they would have been thinking while Baptists - considering the option of becoming Catholic.

After which before you chided me for using validated Catholic sources for determining the Catholic Position and ask me to only use "Baptist" sources or sources Baptist would be familiar with and you go right around and quote Catholic sources.
See what I mean You are trying to limit me but aren't limiting yourself.

Your first error is as a Baptist I didn't set out to determine what Catholics believed about the Eucharist. As a Baptist I was confident in what I believed about communion. I didn't feel that was an area to immediately look at. What I did was determined what the early Christians believed and the Eucharist came up. Then I studied the Eucharist. So what did I see? Well lets take a look at it. Well scripturally there is evidence to support the Eucharistic view but also it could be argued for the Baptist position. However, I do think there is strong scriptural support for the Eucharist. However, as a Baptist I thought to myself that surely the Eucharist was a later development and therefore we should see a gradual development of the belief. So I took a look at the earliest writings just after the apostles to see what was believed. However even at this point I wasn't really looking for the teachings of the Eucharist but what was generally believed. Like many Baptist My assumption was I would see clear indications of Baptist teachings especially the fundamentals. But what I found was quite different. Ignatius letter to the Smynaeans says this "Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils." At this point I wasn't using a Catholic source I got it from a secular source ie Penguin Classics "Early Christian Writings" translated by Maxwell Staniforth. However to verify the accuracy of the translation I compared it to The Apostolic Fathers Greek Text and English Translations Third Edition by Michael W. Holmes and Bruce M. Metzger and found it was correct. What did I notice? Well it was quite obvious and looking at the book I see my surprise indicated in a margin note I made. "Did the early church really believe in the real presence?" I became further perplexed as I read his letter to the Philadelphians "Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is one body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his blood, and one single altar of sacrifice - even as there is but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the Word of God." It was this that began my study on the Early Church's view of the Eucharist. But several things of note Identifying it with the actual flesh of Christ. He uses sacrificial language like altar. He indicates a hierarchy showing only one Episcopate for each church and larger group of Clergy. This isn't Baptist language. Had Ignatius been Baptist he certainly wouldn't have used these concepts and language as he did. So I reviewed Scriptures and studied the Eucharist more in Depth.

Note before getting into Transubstantiation it is clear that defining terms must be made. People will read modern connotations into words like substance. But they would be mistaken. In order to understand certain concepts in Catholic Theology it becomes apparent that one must be made aware of the historical connotations for words. Thus During the early church science as we have it now did not exist. What was "scientific" for their day was Greek Philosophy. Which considered everything. So concepts like substance which is a philosophical technical term that has a specified meaning. And it doesn't mean what makes up the parts as in modern vernacular. In its origin Substance means that the matter was a reflection of the reality behind it. Thus the reality behind it is the substance. The best way I can describe it is by relaying to you Socrates Caverns. In a cave you see shadows reflecting what was going on outside the cave. The shadows (ie the observable world or Matter or the Material world) were what we see but they themselves are only a poor representation of the reality that caused the shadows. The reality ( or how you and I may put it in modern vernacular the spiritual world) is the substance. Or the real essence which directs the matter to mold it into its material shapes. What gave a rock its rockness? Its substance.

 

[BobRyan]

I find this funny. Because you state: After which before you chided me for using validated Catholic sources for determining the Catholic Position and ask me to only use "Baptist" sources or sources Baptist would be familiar with and you go right around and quote Catholic sources.
See what I mean You are trying to limit me but aren't limiting yourself.

Well I admit that IF I were using Catholic sources to PROVE that Catholic doctrine is correct - I would be doing the opposite of what I asked for.

But my purpose is simply to state what the Catholic view is and THEN ask the question "so is that valid according to the Bible - or not"?

The answer of yes or no CANNOT be provided from a Catholic source because showing that a Catholic agrees with Catholic doctrine only shows bias or preference of that Catholic - it proves nothing about the validity of the Doctrine - especially on a Baptist board.

So step 1 - define the subject.
Step 2 - determine if the claims made are valid.

I don't mind using Catholic sources to accurately define Catholic doctrine - or show how it evolves over time. But stating it is not the same thing as proving that it is good doctrine and passes the test of scripture.

But I do mind using Catholic sources to test or prove Catholic doctrine - since that is not something you can present to a Baptist sunday school and the whole point is to address a Baptist that is considering the Catholic option.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well I admit that IF I were using Catholic sources to PROVE that Catholic doctrine is correct - I would be doing the opposite of what I asked for.

But my purpose is simply to state what the Catholic view is and THEN ask the question "so is that valid according to the Bible - or not"?

The answer of yes or no CANNOT be provided from a Catholic source because showing that a Catholic agrees with Catholic doctrine only shows bias or preference of that Catholic - it proves nothing about the validity of the Doctrine - especially on a Baptist board.

So step 1 - define the subject.
Step 2 - determine if the claims made are valid.

I don't mind using Catholic sources to define Catholic doctrine.

But I do mind using Catholic sources to test or prove Catholic doctrine - since that is not something you can present to a Baptist sunday school and the whole point is to address a Baptist that is considering the Catholic option.

in Christ,

Bob

I think to get a better idea of how I approached the subject as a Baptist without as you say "using Catholic sources to proof test" you should read the rest of my post. Also note that just because you quote a Catholic source as you did with transubstantiation doesn't mean you are accurately understanding what you read as my explanation with regard to substance. May I be permitted to use a Catholic Source to prove my discussion with regard to how substance is defined in Transubstantiation? Since we are trying to define what it is Catholic believe in regard to the topic?

 

[BobRyan]

as a Baptist I didn't set out to determine what Catholics believed about the Eucharist. As a Baptist I was confident in what I believed about communion. I didn't feel that was an area to immediately look at. What I did was determined what the early Christians believed and the Eucharist came up. Then I studied the Eucharist.

I think we both agree that Baptist communion is the same subject as Catholic Eucharist. It is the two options - either one is correct or the other.

So what did I see? Well lets take a look at it. Well scripturally there is evidence to support the Eucharistic view but also it could be argued for the Baptist position. However, I do think there is strong scriptural support for the Eucharist.

As a Baptist (and Baptists on this board would have to qualify) the idea that something would be condemned by the Bible would settle "its hash" then and there.

Also true of Adventists.

I think we both agree on that point.

However, as a Baptist I thought to myself that surely the Eucharist was a later development and therefore we should see a gradual development of the belief.

Later than what?

Did you as a Baptist notice this statement from Paul?

Acts 20
28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.
31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

Paul did not say "no worries because heresy will not arise in your life time but long afterwards".

Paul tells Timothy to get to work trying to hold down the fort - try to squash the rising tide of heresy.

1 Tim 1
3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith.

5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith,

6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

Paul tells Timothy these wolves already exist.

Jude says he wants to write a nice cheery letter but instead must address the rising tide of heresy in the church.

Jude 1
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.


Paul tells Titus to try and silence the heretics who have already been succesful in subverting whole households



Titus 1


5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God,...
10 For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,

11 whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain


John tells us that whole Churches were taken over by the heretics boldly teaching against the Apostles.

3John 1
9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.

10 Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.
11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.


John states that these heretics start their own factions/splits etc.
And that even antichrists have arisen.



1John 2

4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.
...


18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.


=======================


By contrast your assumption is that no problems were found in the first century to speak of - so certainly none would be there in the 2nd century and it is not until a few centuries more pass that we might expect to see some heresy - some false doctrine.


But as we see from the few examples above - such is not the case at all.

======================================
So I took a look at the earliest writings just after the apostles to see what was believed. However even at this point I wasn't really looking for the teachings of the Eucharist but what was generally believed. Like many Baptist My assumption was I would see clear indications of Baptist teachings especially the fundamentals. But what I found was quite different. Ignatius letter to the Smynaeans says this "... They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,

1. Even in Baptist and Adventist communion when celebrating the emblems of bread and wine we still say "this is my body" and "This is my blood" for the symbols that are used. Because we believe that Jesus came bodily - in the flesh and died for our sins.

John informs us that some people were denying that Christ came in the flesh in the first century.

1 John 4
4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,

3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.


instead of allowing Ignatius to have a Bible context for his topic of division - you make it a Catholic vs Protestant issue. That is a leap to start with.


The other leap is to assume that Ignatius himself could not have held to any doctrinal error even though Paul, John and Jude claim that doctrinal error was all about them in the first century Christian church.

looking at the book I see my surprise indicated in a margin note I made. "Did the early church really believe in the real presence?" I became further perplexed as I read his letter to the Philadelphians "Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is one body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his blood, and one single altar of sacrifice - even as there is but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the Word of God."

That question is key - you have yet to find an unambiguous answer in the quotes you are giving.

It would be nice to have one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It was this that began my study on the Early Church's view of the Eucharist. But several things of note Identifying it with the actual flesh of Christ. He uses sacrificial language like altar. He indicates a hierarchy showing only one Episcopate for each church and larger group of Clergy. This isn't Baptist language.

I don't doubt that hierarchy existed in the NT church -- notice how you see it in 1Cor 12 and in Acts 15 where all the churches submit to a council in Jerusalem rendering decision for all.

That is a far cry from the idea of "confecting the body and soul of Christ" in the mass.

The fact that the Baptist tradition is wrong on some points does not mean it is wrong on every point. I believe you will agree with me on that.

And traditionally in the past Baptists, Methodists and Adventists talk about the "Family altar" when speaking of prayer in the home.

You need an unambigous reference to see just when this idea of transubstantiation came in and specifically that the priest has "powers" to "confect the body and soul of Christ" comes in.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

May I be permitted to use a Catholic Source to prove my discussion with regard to how substance is defined in Transubstantiation? Since we are trying to define what it is Catholic believe in regard to the topic?

Most certainly adding more sources for the purpose of "defining" what is being claimed about it - is welcomed. The more the better.

But not one of them can be accepted as proof for it being legit - since no Baptist or Adventist would accept that as "proof" even when considering the change to become Catholic.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Historic fact - early form of the communion outside of the Bible - the Lord's Supper follows a format that does not mention transubstantiation. It takes form that would be accepted in any Baptist or Adventist church today.

============================

[FONT=&quot]Bokenkotter – A Concise History of the Catholic Church p 40-41[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Mass, originally called the Lord’s Supper[/FONT][FONT=&quot], the breaking of bread, the Eucharist, was celebrated by the first Christians in the late afternoon and was joined with a regular meal of ritual character. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Toward the middle of the second century, however, the sacramental meal had become an independent rite[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and was now celebrated on Sunday morning and combined with a service of reading and preaching.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Our [/FONT][FONT=&quot]earliest description of the Mass is from the pen of Justin Martyr[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (d. 165) and reflects this development. It is a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]simple service consisting of prayers[/FONT][FONT=&quot] by the whole assembly followed by a kiss of peace. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Bread and wine were then brought to the president of the assembly, who recited a long prayer of thanksgiving[/FONT][FONT=&quot], all present finally consumed the bread and consecrated wine. On some occasions, the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Eucharist was preceded by a reading of the prophets[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and memoirs of the apostles, as well as a homily by the president.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The [FONT=&quot]oldest liturgical form of the Mass[/FONT] (except the Didache[/FONT][FONT=&quot], a different type) is found in the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Church Order of Hippolytus[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (d. 236). It is evidently the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]basis of all Eucharistic prayers[/FONT][FONT=&quot] that have since been composed. The bishop lays his hands upon the bread and wine and water offered upon the altar table and begins the following dialogue: (Bokenkotter p 41)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bishop: The Lord be with you[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Congregation: And with thy spirit[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bishop: Hearts up[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Congregation: We have them to the Lord[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bishop: We thank Thee, God, through Thy beloved Servant Jesus… [/FONT][FONT=&quot]he took the loaf, gave thanks[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and spake “Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you” Likewise also the cup and said, “This is my blood which is poured out for you. As often as you do this [/FONT][FONT=&quot]you do make my commemoration[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Remembering therefore His death and resurrection[/FONT][FONT=&quot], we [/FONT][FONT=&quot]offer to Thee the loaf and the cup[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and give thanks to Thee that Thou hast counted us worthy to stand before Thee and to do Thee priestly service.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And we beseech Thee, that Thou send down Thy holy Spirit upon this offering of the church. Unite it and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]grant to all the saints who partake of it to their fulfilling with holy Spirit[/FONT][FONT=&quot], to their strengthening of faith in truth, that we may praise and glorify Thee through Thy Servant Jesus Christ, through whom to Thee be glory and honor in Thy holy church now and ever. Amen.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Bokenkotter p42) [/FONT]

in Christ,

Bob

 

[saturneptune]

There are sharp differences between Catholic and Baptist sacraments. The Catholics had nine at last count, and Baptists/Protestants two. Scripture supports only two, Baptism and the Lords Supper. The proper term is ordinances, not sacraments.

We can save Baptism for later, as this thread focuses on the Lord's Supper. What was the purpose of the Lord's Supper. It is stated for one place in Luke 22:

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

The purpose of the Lord's Supper is to remember what His body and blood did for us. It is symbolic, wine for the blood that was poured out for our sins, and the bread which was broken for us. It does not say to perform a magic act during the Lord's Supper. What purpose does changing the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. How does that remember what He did for us? Anyone with any common sense knows this is impossible, and if it was possible, would serve no purpose. Again, like so much in the RCC, things are added to Scripture.

Another error of the RCC is closed communion. No where in the Bible is closed communion supported. Closed communion is communion served to members on a church roll. Most people on a church roll do not show up, and this is the standard a church uses? The Bible tells us to "examine ourselves" to make sure we are worthy to partake. Anyone who partakes in a frivilous manner is subject to judgement.

It is the Lord's Supper, not the Catholic Supper, open to true believers in Jesus Christ. So, with closed communion, the Catholic Church is including people who are not worthy, and excluding people who are worthy.

IMO, if the Catholic Church, with closed communion, only served to saved members, the attendence would be sparse.

The Lord's Supper is a sacred time to ponder what the Lord has done for us. It is not a ceremony invented by "church fathers" of the Catholic Church ending in a magic act.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think we both agree that Baptist communion is the same subject as Catholic Eucharist. It is the two options - either one is correct or the other.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Baptist communion is viewed very differently from Catholic. Even the language is different. For instance the word Eucharist isn't even used in Baptist circles as they don't make the connection of Communion to Thanksgiving offerings depicted in Leviticus as do Catholics. They don't believe in the real presence apart from some general "where three or more are gathered there I am." Baptist certainly don't use sacrificial language when it comes to communion. The Baptist view of communion is altogether different. It is a simple ceremony which recalls to mind Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. That's pretty much it. Which is why every communion table at every Baptist church I've been to has "Do this in memory of me" emphasizing the actual belief of it being no more that recalling an event. If you are trying to say communion is the same subject as Eucharist that is true but they are not the same in understanding.

As a Baptist (and Baptists on this board would have to qualify) the idea that something would be condemned by the Bible would settle "its hash" then and there.

Yes, if the bible condemned the Eucharist, the discussion would be settled. The problem is the bible doesn't. In fact. The Bible can be seen as to support the very idea of Eucharist. Considering that the OT is a foreshadowing and preparation for the New Testament and it uses a sacrificial system to correct the disparity of man's sin to reconcile man to God. We see that the Passover meal where the unblemished lamb which is to spend some time with Jewish Families is representative of Christ in which the lamb is killed its blood is put over the house hold (doors) and is eaten. Also the Levitical thanksgiving offering is also a sacrifice which is eaten. We see John the Baptist referencing Jesus Christ connecting Jesus to the Passover Lamb

29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 3John 1:29-30

Language which brings to Jewish mind of the day Passover and sacrifice. Specifically bringing these verse straight from Torah.

5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats, 6 and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight.[a]

7 “Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. 8 They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Exodus 12:7-8

and

46 It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. Exodus 12:46

Then we have Jesus own Language in the New Testament where he says specifically

50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me
- John 6:50-57

Which is pretty straight forward clear. Note Jesus uses the Greek word Trogo (gnaw or chew) for emphasis. And we see Paul connecting Jesus to the Passover lamb which was eaten on Passover in 1 Cor 5:7

Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed

Which we have a clear connection of Jesus to the Passover lamb so its clear this is also what John the Baptist was referring to when he said "behold the lamb of God"! Jews sacrificed and ate that lamb. Jesus asks us to eat him "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood" which completes the entire imagery which the OT prefigures of Jesus Christ in the Passover meal. Further we have Paul instructing the Church at Corinth about the communion meal with these words.

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for[e] you. Do this in remembrance of me.”[f] 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Which several things are interesting in this passage. 1) if You eat in an "unworthy" manner you are guilty of the actual body and blood of Christ? Certainly, mere symbols cannot hold one guilty. I mean we don't throw a man into prison for burning someone in effigy. And 2) If the body isn't discerned you eat and drink to your own condemnation clearly indicating that if the body of Christ isn't perceived in the activity condemnation is applied. Pretty strong language for just an ordinance. Also note there is no where in the NT which condemns anyone for believing the communion was the actual body and blood of Christ. If Antioch's Bishop Ignatius who knew the Apostles held to a contrary belief as your post indicates. Surely, Paul would have mentioned the heretical nature of Bishop Ignatius belief. Or if not Paul certainly John who disciple Ignatius. Being as close in time to the NT as Ignatius letters are certainly murmurs of this being a wrong belief would have been mentioned in the NT. But we don't find it. What we find is Paul claiming that as you state wolves will enter the Church to deceive people in Acts. And in Corinthians he says regarding the communion meal and people participating in it.

I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,[

That there is divisions among the people partaking of the meal indicating differing beliefs which he later says

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself

or it can be seen as confronting people who disparage communion as being the Body of Christ. So the NT rather than condemning a belief of Eating the flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ rather we see a condemnation of not believing of it.

So though you show that yes in the NT there were heretics the question is which way? For or against the Eucharist. Well, it seems clear if you go against the belief in the communion being the body and blood of Christ Paul considered that to be heretical rather than the other way round. Therefore when you ask "as early as what?" as early as the NT. After all Gnosticism was an early heresy which was mentioned in the NT as being heretical also in later Christian writings and you can see the development from the NT into later Christian condemnation of that particular heresy. But if the Eucharist were a modern development as some maintained dating back to the 12th century we should see a gradual development and subsequent condemnation of it. We don't see that ever. In fact as early as we can get we see an already well developed belief in the Eucharist as early as the NT. Concluding that this teaching came from Jesus to his Apostles to us.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Most certainly adding more sources for the purpose of "defining" what is being claimed about it - is welcomed. The more the better.

But not one of them can be accepted as proof for it being legit - since no Baptist or Adventist would accept that as "proof" even when considering the change to become Catholic.

in Christ,

Bob

I do not intend it to legitimize the claim. I do intend to use it to contradict any claim that is said to be Catholic when in fact it is not. In short I intend to use it to prove what it is Catholics actually believe rather than someone's supposition of what they believe.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Historic fact - early form of the communion outside of the Bible - the Lord's Supper follows a format that does not mention transubstantiation. It takes form that would be accepted in any Baptist or Adventist church today.

in Christ,

Bob

Historic Fact. Transubstantiation as a term was invented later in the 12 Century. Like Trinity was a term developed and used by Tertullian to summarize in one term the Belief regarding the Nature of God. The actual belief in a substantive change which the Term implies is actually reflected before Hippolytus in the works of Justin Martyrs first apology.

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Ie the Changing in substance. So your "historical fact" turns out not to be correct. Which is why I suggest using reliable Catholic sources. To try to point out what Catholics believe.

 

[BobRyan]

Historic Fact. Transubstantiation as a term was invented later in the 12 Century.

A point that is not helping the effort to prove that this distinctive was being taught in the first century by the Apostles.

I think we can both agree there.

The actual belief in a substantive change which the Term implies is actually reflected before Hippolytus in the works of Justin Martyrs first apology. Ie the Changing in substance.

So then - date, and quote - source document would be helpful.

And also remember that the list of apostasy texts given already are showing that error was not absent in the first century. That is going to be hard for a Baptist considering the choice for Catholicism - to ignore.

So your "historical fact" turns out not to be correct.

Not at all correct. The fact remains for that eucharist service and prayer provided by that historian -- if you have another even earlier account as historic record - please provide it.

Pointing to an event in actual history does not erase other historic events that take place. I think we should both be clear on that rather than claiming event-A causes some other event to cease to exist.

I think your Baptist Sunday School class would have insisted on this rule as well - possibly also your Catholic friends who were once Baptist.

in Christ,

Bob