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

[BobRyan]

Speaking of fakes -

Paul indicated in 2Thess 2 that among the errors springing up in the first century was a culture of deception and lying - producing documents that were fakes. (The Epistle of Barnabas being a later example of a fake).

In 2Thess 2 Paul points to his fear that the church would be getting letters "AS IF from us" that were promoting false doctrine and were not in fact from Paul at all. Paul is providing warning against deliberate efforts among even contemporaries to deceive various congregations.

2Thess 2
2 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,

2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Paul warns about the real problem of "fake apostles" in his day.

2Cor 11
12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast.

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.

14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.

15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

Paul says they preach a false Gospel in the first century
2Cor 11
3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!

Paul says that regardless of the first-century church authority claimed by the ones teaching a false gospel - they should be accursed if their teaching does not line up with scripture.

And he claims it is already turning the first century saints away from the Gospel

Gal 1
6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,

7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Paul is clearly identifying a first-century culture of deception, false gospel, false teaching, fake letters, fake documents springing up within the first century church.

No wonder so many Baptists want to stick with the Bible to determine the actual authentic teaching of the first century saints.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.




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.



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

You obviously didn't read all my post. Because I gave the Source Document Justin Martyrs first Apology. If you want to read it yourself look at chapter 65. And to follow my process you should read the earlier post I made. Justin Martyrs first apology is dated to 155-157 AD. The book I used was Ancient Christian Writers Justin first and second Apologies By Leslie William Barnard. However you can find it on line as well and it says the same thing. You really should read my entire post (especially # 27) before you make an assumption.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Speaking of fakes -

Paul indicated in 2Thess 2 that among the errors springing up in the first century was a culture of deception and lying - producing documents that were fakes. (The Epistle of Barnabas being a later example of a fake).

In 2Thess 2 Paul points to his fear that the church would be getting letters "AS IF from us" that were promoting false doctrine and were not in fact from Paul at all. Paul is providing warning against deliberate efforts among even contemporaries to deceive various congregations.
No wonder so many Baptists want to stick with the Bible to determine the actual authentic teaching of the first century saints.

in Christ,

Bob

The problem with all of those verses is not one of them condemn the belief about the Eucharist or even condemn Ignatius whom he may have known at some point. It is clear when Paul teaches about communion he makes two obviously clear points. To take the communion unworthily is cause for condemnation and is against the actual body and blood of Christ which would make on guilty of both. and two you must discern the body of Christ when you take it. So, one can equally point to the Baptist Position as one which Paul is referring to as being deceptive and lying. And as for scripture as I've said before. I think it pretty clearly supports the Eucharist perspective.

 

[saturneptune]

The problem with all of those verses is not one of them condemn the belief about the Eucharist or even condemn Ignatius whom he may have known at some point. It is clear when Paul teaches about communion he makes two obviously clear points. To take the communion unworthily is cause for condemnation and is against the actual body and blood of Christ which would make on guilty of both. and two you must discern the body of Christ when you take it. So, one can equally point to the Baptist Position as one which Paul is referring to as being deceptive and lying. And as for scripture as I've said before. I think it pretty clearly supports the Eucharist perspective.

This is not sarcastic, but I would be interested in knowing the Scripture that is the basis of transsubstitution, or changing the bread and wine into the body of Christ, and what purpose it serves?

 

[BobRyan]

Paul indicated in 2Thess 2 that among the errors springing up in the first century was a culture of deception and lying - producing documents that were fakes. (The Epistle of Barnabas being a later example of a fake).

In 2Thess 2 Paul points to his fear that the church would be getting letters "AS IF from us" that were promoting false doctrine and were not in fact from Paul at all. Paul is providing warning against deliberate efforts among even contemporaries to deceive various congregations.
No wonder so many Baptists want to stick with the Bible to determine the actual authentic teaching of the first century saints.

The problem with all of those verses is not one of them condemn the belief about the Eucharist or even condemn Ignatius whom he may have known at some point.

I agree that the texts I have provided do not prove that the Catholic Eucharist idea is false.

My purpose in posting the texts was to show that the "assumption" that they were living in an error-free first century so therefore the 2nd and 3rd centuries must also be "error free" is not supported by the Bible.

I also wanted to prove from the Bible-alone that the problem of fake documents, fake letters, and fake-apostles was an established first century problem. No need to wait until the 2nd century to see it spring up.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The problem with all of those verses is not one of them condemn the belief about the Eucharist or even condemn Ignatius whom he may have known at some point. It is clear when Paul teaches about communion he makes two obviously clear points. To take the communion unworthily is cause for condemnation and is against the actual body and blood of Christ which would make on guilty of both. and two you must discern the body of Christ when you take it. So, one can equally point to the Baptist Position as one which Paul is referring to as being deceptive and lying. And as for scripture as I've said before. I think it pretty clearly supports the Eucharist perspective.

It would be well to quote the actual text - if your intent is to provide evidence either for the idea of confecting the body and soul of Christ, or the priest having such "powers" or that a change takes place in the bread at a certain point, or that at the point of saying "This is my body" Christ was either dead or sacrificed on the cross, or that Christ really said "someday in the future when you do this - this bread will become my actual body - but not now since I have not died yet".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You obviously didn't read all my post. Because I gave the Source Document Justin Martyrs first Apology.

I also gave the source document from Justin Martyr showing that his account of the actual liturgy used - does not mention anything about bread turning into something else at some point in the Lord's Communion.

If you want to read it yourself look at chapter 65. And to follow my process you should read the earlier post I made. Justin Martyrs first apology is dated to 155-157 AD. The book I used was Ancient Christian Writers Justin first and second Apologies By Leslie William Barnard.

So then we have a document from the middle of the 2nd century which may or may not contain error.

Since the Bible itself says they were already dealing with error in the first century - we have no basis for insisting that no error can appear in the 2nd century.

Better to simply stick with the text of scripture unless you have some way of proving that they solved the problem of error in the first century and came up with an error-free second century - plus no forged material in the 2nd century.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So, one can equally point to the Baptist Position as one which Paul is referring to as being deceptive and lying. And as for scripture as I've said before. I think it pretty clearly supports the Eucharist perspective.

If the baptist position is that nothing can be found in scripture to support the idea of the Lord's table and symbols rather than confecting the body and soul of Christ - and that they need documents from the 2nd century to make their case - then you could just as easily argue that the bible warnings about fake letter, false doctrine, fake apostles - is applicable to such Baptist beliefs.

But if they are arguing the case from the scriptures itself - then we have to look at the texts to see what the case really is.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I agree that the texts I have provided do not prove that the Catholic Eucharist idea is false.

Ok.

My purpose in posting the texts was to show that the "assumption" that they were living in an error-free first century so therefore the 2nd and 3rd centuries must also be "error free" is not supported by the Bible.

I never made that assumption as we can see also in Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans that he condemns those in error who reject the Eucharist.

Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured - Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans Chapter 5
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour 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 - Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans Chapter 7

I also wanted to prove from the Bible-alone that the problem of fake documents, fake letters, and fake-apostles was an established first century problem. No need to wait until the 2nd century to see it spring up.

in Christ,

Bob

Yes, there were these problems and they continued as all the documentation attests the Gnostics being the primary culprits of that age. I haven't ignored that either and I think its odd that you are trying to point it out. As it something well known. But in any case we agree there were some deceptions going on from the beginning but that still doesn't negate the belief in the Eucharist as an opposed belief to it could just as well be the deception. Still those passages don't condemn the belief of the Eucharist. However, Ignatius letter goes a long way to providing evidence to what the young Church believed. Also note he is the Bishop of Antioch. Who was discipled by the Apostle John. The likelihood of him being in error over everyone else is slim. Where are the documents that condemn him from that age from the Christian community? And certainly the New Testament doesn't call him a heretic though he lived during the time of the Apostles. I think that's a big indicator.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It would be well to quote the actual text - if your intent is to provide evidence either for the idea of confecting the body and soul of Christ

How many times do I have to quote the text? As a matter of fact I did quote the text in Post 17. Please review the post for referrence.

, or the priest having such "powers" or that a change takes place in the bread at a certain point

This is a fallacious statement. Catholics do not believe that the priest has a power to do anything. The way it is believed is

You ask how the bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine . . . the Blood of Christ I shall tell you: the Holy Spirit comes upon them and accomplishes what surpasses every word and thought -St. John Damascene, De fide orth. 4,13G 94,1145

or that at the point of saying "This is my body" Christ was either dead or sacrificed on the cross, or that Christ really said "someday in the future when you do this - this bread will become my actual body - but not now since I have not died yet".

Looks to me like you are limiting God trying to bind him rather than allowing him to be God over time and space.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I also gave the source document from Justin Martyr showing that his account of the actual liturgy used - does not mention anything about bread turning into something else at some point in the Lord's Communion.

Actually it does and I quoted and cited it for you. Do you want me to do it again?

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 - Justin Martyrs 1st Apology chapter 66

Ie just as we have been substantively change so is the bread and wine into Jesus' flesh. BTW I'm glad to note that early Christians used liturgical worship. That is also a sore spot for Baptist. They generally don't want to believe that despite historical documentation and the scriptures themselves.

So then we have a document from the middle of the 2nd century which may or may not contain error

I don't believe it does and is a good indicator of what early Christians believed regarding the Eucharist which according to Justin's witness they hold the same belief in the substantive change of the bread and wine into the body of Christ.

Since the Bible itself says they were already dealing with error in the first century - we have no basis for insisting that no error can appear in the 2nd century.

Since the bible doesn't mention the Eucharist as an error and we have documentation early enough that the Apostles should have been familiar with the idea that I find it odd if they would have thought it a heresy that they would remain silent about it. So ultimately you are arguing from silence. Which isn't a good position to take.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If the baptist position is that nothing can be found in scripture to support the idea of the Lord's table and symbols rather than confecting the body and soul of Christ - and that they need documents from the 2nd century to make their case - then you could just as easily argue that the bible warnings about fake letter, false doctrine, fake apostles - is applicable to such Baptist beliefs.

But if they are arguing the case from the scriptures itself - then we have to look at the texts to see what the case really is.

in Christ,

Bob

Did you not note that I argued the case for the Eucharist from Scripture in Post 17? As you know Baptist aren't the only ones who make use of scripture.

 

[Walter]

This is not sarcastic, but I would be interested in knowing the Scripture that is the basis of transsubstitution, or changing the bread and wine into the body of Christ, and what purpose it serves?

TS made shows the scriptural basis for Catholic teaching in #17

However, I became aware that the one only place where Jesus used the word 'covenant' was when He instituted 'The Lord's Supper'. Yet, when I was a Baptist we only observed communion four times a year.
I began to study the Gospel of John and became aware that the Gospel was chock full of sacramental imagery. I was raised to believe that liturgy and sacraments were to be rejected and certainly not to be studied. These things I was programed not to be open to. But going through Hebrews I noticed the writer made me see that liturgy and sacraments were an essential part of God's family life. Then in John six, I came to realize that Jesus could not have been talking metaphorically when He taught us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Jews in His audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if the Jews had merely misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally and He meant His words to be taken figuratively, why would he not simply clarify them? But He never did! Nor did any other Christian for over a thousand years!

 

[saturneptune]

TS made shows the scriptural basis for Catholic teaching in #17

However, I became aware that the one only place where Jesus used the word 'covenant' was when He instituted 'The Lord's Supper'. Yet, when I was a Baptist we only observed communion four times a year.
I began to study the Gospel of John and became aware that the Gospel was chock full of sacramental imagery. I was raised to believe that liturgy and sacraments were to be rejected and certainly not to be studied. These things I was programed not to be open to. But going through Hebrews I noticed the writer made me see that liturgy and sacraments were an essential part of God's family life. Then in John six, I came to realize that Jesus could not have been talking metaphorically when He taught us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Jews in His audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if the Jews had merely misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally and He meant His words to be taken figuratively, why would he not simply clarify them? But He never did! Nor did any other Christian for over a thousand years!

Thanks for the references. I will read them. What do you think the Lord's purpose was in, for lack of a better term, transsubstitution?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan 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 remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19) 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.

I am simply observing the point that both cannot be correct. Only one.

AS for "no sacrifice" in the memorial service - even you admit that " It is a simple ceremony which recalls to mind Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. That's pretty much it" - which means that they (and also Adventists) do reference the "once for all" completed sacrifice of Hebrews 10.

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.

That is true. And as 1Cor 5 points out "Christ our passover has BEEN sacrificed" - the once for all sacrifice is mentioned in Hebrews 10 as being "ONE sacrifice" completed at the cross - rather than an ongoing sacrifice.

We see John the Baptist referencing Jesus Christ connecting Jesus to the Passover Lamb Language which brings to Jewish mind of the day Passover and sacrifice. Specifically bringing these verse straight from Torah.

I think a lot of people would agree that Christ was the Passover Lamb and was slain ON the very day of Passover at the very time when the Passover lamb was to be slain - and was raised on the very day of first fruits.

In the memorial "do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19) Christ is not still on the cross - not still being sacrificed - but now an empty cross no longer to be sacrificed - as Hebrews 9 points out "otherwise would he have needed to suffer often".

This is a once for all sacrifice - completed at the cross according to the Bible. "This do in rememberance of Me" is in fact the words of Christ Himself.

and Then we have Jesus own Language in the New Testament where he says specifically Which is pretty straight forward clear. Note Jesus uses the Greek word Trogo (gnaw or chew) for emphasis.

I think most people who observe this as a memorial will agree that the bread is eaten in the Passover and in the communion service.

And we see Paul connecting Jesus to the Passover lamb which was eaten on Passover in 1 Cor 5:7 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"!

I think all are agreed that Christ is the once for all sacrifice pointed to by the Passover.

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.

Here is where you evidence falls apart.

The statement you are quoting above is not said at Passover nor at the Lord's Supper.

it is said apart from any participation in Passover - and before all of it -- in John 6.

In John 6 Christ said "I AM the bread that came down out of heaven" -- he does not say "some day in the future" you must eat that bread - but He said it was true right then and there - in John 6.

A day when no one bites Christ, not even Peter bites Christ when Christ asks him about his decision.

Because in John 6 Christ clearly points out "The flesh is worthless - it is my Word that has LIFE" John 6:63

A lot of Baptists may well notice this detail, this problem for the Eucharist- as they consider the option of the Eucharist in the Catholic context.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Further we have Paul instructing the Church at Corinth about the communion meal with these words. 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.

How so? How do you suppose that even though Christ died for our sins - the only way we can become guilty of his body and blood - in an ungrateful manner - is to have the body and soul of Christ confected by a priest? It is not apparent that this is how a Bapist would view it.

Notice what Paul says in Hebrews 10 (totally apart from the communion service)

Heb 10
26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.”

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


the ONLY repeat or revisit of that sacrifice mentioned in the NT has nothing to do with obedience and the Communion service - rather it is in regard to open rebellion.

Heb 6
4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

But apart from that symbol of crucifying Christ afresh to themselves in disobedience and sin - we have the "offering" of the sacrifice of Christ "offered ONCE".

For in Heb 10 the "offering" of the body of Christ in sacrifice can only be done "once" - in fact "once for all"..

Heb 10

10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

12But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,



It is a completed done finished offering according to Heb 10



13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.

14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”

17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.


A lot of Baptists are going to notice this finished offering language , which would mean rejecting the continued offering idea in the Eucharist.

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

But since you mention 1Cor 11 - and being guilty when taking part in the communion service - notice the language there is 'memorial" it is not "participation in a continued offering - or even sacrifice".

1Cor 11
“This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
in Christ,

It is not Christ on the cross at the communion service in Luke - it is Christ before the cross - not yet even sacrificed at all. And in that service he asks to be "remembered" - He uses memorial language. And so we are participating in a memorial service of a once-for-all offering of Christ - sacrificed "once for all" at the cross.


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Actually it does and I quoted and cited it for you. Do you want me to do it again?

I am just pointing out that a lot of Baptists are going to 'notice' that this historic report by Justin Martyr of the an early Communion service does not use the language of bread-changing or the language of confecting the body and soul of Christ or the language of a continued sacrifice.

The language Justin Martyr quotes is -

[FONT=&quot]"As often as you do this [/FONT][FONT=&quot]you do make my commemoration[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”[/FONT]

Rather than "make my sacrifice" or "participate in a sacrifice".

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

[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]

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

It is bound to be noticed that the language Martyr said was actually used IN the liturgy does not include Martyr's own language on what that sacrifice is.

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 - Justin Martyrs 1st Apology chapter 66

In the first century we have a number of players - the Judaizers of Acts 15:1, Peter before he met Cornelius still unaware that the Gospel was supposed to go to Gentiles in Acts 10, the Apostles of Gal 1:6-11, the deceivers of 3John and 1John 4:2-6, the antichrist teachers in 1John 2... any of them could "write".

So in the broad spectrum of the 2nd century that would have existed 100 years AFTER Paul - unchecked by any existing Apostles of Christ from the first century - what part of the spectrum might Martyr be in? Who knows?

Fortunately we don't need to worry about that since we have the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But going through Hebrews I noticed the writer made me see that liturgy and sacraments were an essential part of God's family life.

Hebrews does not attribute "powers" to the sacraments to "mark the soul" etc.

A key element missing for the Catholic view.

Then in John six, I came to realize that Jesus could not have been talking metaphorically when He taught us to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Since no one bites Christ in John 6 - not even the faithful disciples a lot of people observe that this was a symbol.

Since Christ said in John 6:63 "the flesh is worthless - my WORD is life" many conclude that eating his flesh meant accepting his WORD in John 6 - since John introduced this to us as "THE WORD became FLESH" John 1.

And since the reference in John 6 to "bread coming down out of heaven" goes back to Deu 8 the "lesson" of Manna "Man shall not live by BREAD alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God".

Thus in the same way Jesus said John 6:63 "My WORD is spirit and life".

And since in Matt 16:11-12 Christ reprimands the disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally and not accepting it as a symbol for teaching.

But the faithLESS followers of John 6 DO take him too literally and complain as you noticed

The Jews in His audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if the Jews had merely misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally and He meant His words to be taken figuratively, why would he not simply clarify them?

They accused him falsely of a number of things - include the charge that he would destroy the temple and then rebuild it in 3 days.

He did not correct them.

Correcting those who were determined to be in rebellion was not his work as He states in Matt 13 -- but He did have the work of instructing faithFUL disciples and so in John 6 He does that - and not one of them bites him.

Had the remaining faithFUL disciples all chosen to bite Jesus in John 6 - there could have been no cross, no trial, no Passover meal, no last supper. I think people may notice that detail.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am simply observing the point that both cannot be correct. Only one.

Agreed.

AS for "no sacrifice" in the memorial service - even you admit that " It is a simple ceremony which recalls to mind Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. That's pretty much it" - which means that they (and also Adventists) do reference the "once for all" completed sacrifice of Hebrews 10

I've never suggested Baptist held another view. However, your paradigm here is flawed. You make an incorrect assumption when you say " which means that they (and also Adventists) do reference the "once for all" completed sacrifice of Hebrews 10." As if Catholics don't believe Calvary is a once for all sacrifice. This is often misunderstood by non-Catholics because of the sacrificial language associated with the Eucharist in Catholic discussions. To prove that Catholics believe in a once for all Sacrifice and to prove that Catholics don't believe we are "re-sacrificing" Jesus again in the Eucharist let me quote from this valid Catholic Source.

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.184 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them...1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit

So a better understanding would be a re-presentation of that one sacrifice. To explain it so it is easier to understand. Its like a time machine (this is an example) that takes us right to Calvary and we offer that to God. Not make a new Sacrifice as is often misunderstood.

That is true. And as 1Cor 5 points out "Christ our passover has BEEN sacrificed" - the once for all sacrifice is mentioned in Hebrews 10 as being "ONE sacrifice" completed at the cross - rather than an ongoing sacrifice.

And we see again your misinformed paradigm about what Catholics actually believe about the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. I'm not being insulting I'm pointing out a common mistake (and one I had as well) made by non Catholics not familiar with Catholic language.

I think a lot of people would agree that Christ was the Passover Lamb and was slain ON the very day of Passover at the very time when the Passover lamb was to be slain - and was raised on the very day of first fruits.

Ok.

In the memorial "do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19) Christ is not still on the cross - not still being sacrificed - but now an empty cross no longer to be sacrificed - as Hebrews 9 points out "otherwise would he have needed to suffer often".

Two points. 1) Your paradigm is evident in the use of Hebrews 9 as you are attempt to relate

Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world.

suggesting wrongly that Catholics sacrifice him again. This is just an incorrect understanding of the Catholic Position.

This is a once for all sacrifice - completed at the cross according to the Bible. "This do in rememberance of Me" is in fact the words of Christ Himself

As we can see from the Catechism we agree with this statement. But its more than recalling to mind but a re-experiencing it as if we are there currently. The better translation is "commemoration". Especially since that is how the Jews view Passover.

I think most people who observe this as a memorial will agree that the bread is eaten in the Passover and in the communion service

Jesus didn't say just bread in John 6. He said

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.

And at the institution of the meal he says

19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” - Luke 22:19

Note he doesn't say like. And further he states which has been given for you. He hadn't died yet. However, it was already given as a sacrifice for them. I mention that because of the whole time continuum you seem to be having a problem with. He also doesn't say "as good as given".

I think all are agreed that Christ is the once for all sacrifice pointed to by the Passover

Yes we agree.

Here is where you evidence falls apart.

The statement you are quoting above is not said at Passover nor at the Lord's Supper.

No its not. However, the evidence doesn't fall apart because of this and let me explain why. Jesus tells them they must eat his flesh and drink his blood and doesn't identify an immediate means to do so. Yet when he celebrates the Last supper he takes bread and identifies it as his body and takes wine and Identifies it as his blood thus providing the means to do so. He also speaks to his disciples about his death and resurrection before it happens and they are still surprised when it does happen. The Motif is similar.

A day when no one bites Christ, not even Peter bites Christ when Christ asks him about his decision.

Which supports my point.

Because in John 6 Christ clearly points out "The flesh is worthless - it is my Word that has LIFE" John 6:63

Ah but you leave out

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. - John 6:63

Which all laws and matter are based on the spirit. Note that God made the body of man but it didn't have life until he breathed into it the spirit which is life. In such a manner is the Spirit "makes" it so and makes it what Jesus called it. Often in our western culture we think of "Spirit as in substantial" when the truth is the Spirit is more substantial than matter because it gives life and continues on into eternity. C.S. Lewis in his book the Great Divorce really makes this clear.

[QUOTE It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. ]A lot of Baptists may well notice this detail, this problem for the Eucharist- as they consider the option of the Eucharist in the Catholic context.[/QUOTE]The problem is taken objectively you will find that it really isn't a problem for the Eucharist as much as a problem for the Baptist position.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How so? How do you suppose that even though Christ died for our sins - the only way we can become guilty of his body and blood - in an ungrateful manner - is to have the body and soul of Christ confected by a priest? It is not apparent that this is how a Bapist would view it.

It certainly isn't how a Baptist would view it. However, the Baptist paradigm is that it is just a symbol not the actual thing. Therefore just like a doll which is burned in effigy of someone else a symbol not taken with the right intention doesn't carry the same sentence as if you burned the actual person. How then could Paul say "your are guilty of his blood" if in fact they didn't offend the actual body? This then becomes problematic for the Baptist position. Even more so when you see Baptist practice of communion. When I was younger Baptist generally had communion once a month. As I got older it became once a quarter. Evidence of how the relevance of communion is diminishing in Baptist circles. Certainly we don't see this in the early Church and thus we have another departure from the early church. Think about it. Lets say John Smyth started the Baptist Church 401 years ago. And the importance of communion diminished from monthly observance to quarterly observance it would seem that in two thousand years communion observance would have dropped by 8 observations every 400 years that at this point it would be a surprise if it was observed at all! But to give a benefit of a doubt since it is a Baptist ordinance I would say they might have kept to once a year.

[QUOTE[/QUOTE]]Notice what Paul says in Hebrews 10 (totally apart from the communion service)

26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins[/QUOTE]Yes this is true if you remain in your sins which is one of the verse that is problematic for reformed thinking Baptist. But as you said this is mentioned apart from communion.

27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries

Careful now you will get the OSAS people upset with you.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God

Yes it is and I thank Jonathan Edwards for making that apparent to Americans so long ago. However, as you say that isn't in conjunction with the Eucharist. Paul did say this in conjunction with the Eucharist

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

the ONLY repeat or revisit of that sacrifice mentioned in the NT has nothing to do with obedience and the Communion service - rather it is in regard to open rebellion.

Context. Hebrews was speaking to the covenant. Specifically the New Covenant in Christ. The author wasn't speaking about the practice of the Eucharist. But once again we see you misguided paradigm which I explained in my previous post. Jesus is the superior sacrifice as the Author tries to convince Jews with a greater covenant. Paul on the other hand is speaking specifically to the practice of communion. You can't apply a context which was never meant for something else to that something else.