Catholic Inventions?

[BobRyan]

Finally - the RCC itself ADMITS that its practice regarding the bread as God is in fact idolatry -- if its traditions and doctrines ABOUT that bread are not true.

The seriousness of the problem is not lost on the Catholic leadership!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:

And DHK didnt say that ALL the early christians denied the real presence, only that many did.

Still waiting for examples.

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic apologists typically respond to the devastating 'details of John 6' exploding the myth of the Eucharist teaching -- with an appeal to the errors of the church FOLLOWING the first century teaching of the Apostles -- EVEN THERE they are not safe from "inconvenient facts"!

Though Catholics claim to follow the scripture interpretations of the church fathers, early church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian viewed John 6 as figurative in harmony with the faithful disciples of John 6.

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;" describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the
Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6)

He says, it is true, that "the flesh profiteth nothing;" but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, "It is the spirit that quickeneth;" and then
added, "The flesh profiteth nothing,"--meaning, of course, to the giving of life.

He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." In a like sense He had previously said: "He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life."

Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.

Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be "the bread
which cometh down from heaven," impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: "The flesh profiteth nothing." Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh?

(Tertullian, On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

As if there might not reasonably enough be something which, although it" profiteth nothing" itself, might yet be capable of being profited by something else. The spirit "profiteth," for it imparts life. The flesh profiteth nothing, for it is subject to death. Therefore He has rather put the two propositions in a way which favours our belief: for by showing what "profits," and what "does not profit," He has likewise thrown light on the object which receives as well as
the subject which gives the "profit." Thus, in the present instance, we have the Spirit giving life to the flesh which has been subdued by death; for "the hour," says He, "is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." Now, what is "the dead" but the flesh? and what is "the voice of God" but the Word? and what is the Word but the Spirit, who shall justly raise the flesh which He had once Himself
become, and that too from death, which He Himself suffered, and from the grave, which He Himself once entered?

(Tertullian, On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

Enjoy!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Bob,
The disciples did indeed say that Christ had the words of Life, including these words: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me". That's why they stuck around though not yet knowing what He meant by those words while the others abandoned Him. They would learn later that the bread and wine was the actual communion (participation in) of the Body and Blood of Christ, since Christ in all three synoptic Gospels says about the bread "This is my Body" and about the wine "This is my Blood".

(And it seems that the rest of my post was lost on you as well.)

 

[BobRyan]

only the faithLESS disciples focused on the "bite Christ" message. The faithFUL disciples heard Christ say that literal "FLESH IS WORTHLESS".

Christ ESTABLISHED the link in John 6 between BREAD and HIS statements about FLESH as he claims to BE the bread that CAME down out of heaven.

ONCE that is "noticed" we see the REAL lesson ALREADY predates Psalms and all other texts - it is in Deut 8:3 where we find that the spiritual LESSON for bread coming down out of heaven is "MAN does NOT LIVE by bread alone but by every WORD that comes from the mouth of God".

God HIMSELF gave them the CONTEXT of "teaching WORD" in this case - LONG BEFORE the book of Psalms.

Your attempt to restrict this to anything OTHER than what God said as CONTEXT in Deut 8 -- fails.

Further Christ shows that the focus is the SAME as in Deut 8 which is LIFE and that which is needed for LIFE.

The point remains.

You have ignored the fact that Christ in John 6 does NOT point FORWARD to any point in time and say "some day my body WILL be food". (In fact you ignore ALL the facts I enumerated in my post where I claimed you must be ignoring those facts!!)

Finally - John 6 is then the "context" for the Lord's Supper. Where AGAIN we see SYMBOLS of Christ's body in the form of the bread. Christ's body is "obviously" RIGHT THERE in front of them and His PRESENCE is RIGHT there at the table. They are not imagining that they have suddenly been given access to Christ's REAL body in undetectible form hidden in the bread or REAL presence hidden in the bread! He is REALLY seated at the table and His body is REALLY seen - not yet crucified - not yet sacrificed - not yet broken!

The SYMBOLISM there could not BE more obvious!

In Christ,

Bob

[ June 28, 2005, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Actually, Bob if you look at all that Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian said on the subject you will know that they did not deny the real presence (see Living4Him's quotes above).

 

[BobRyan]

John brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;" describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise,

If you have a way to twist that out of saying what it says - feel free to make the attempt

In any case - you asked for "examples".

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] only the faithLESS disciples focused on the "bite Christ" message. The faithFUL disciples heard Christ say that literal "FLESH IS WORTHLESS".

And yet you can't get past the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.

ONCE that is "noticed" we see the REAL lesson ALREADY predates Psalms and all other texts - it is in Deut 8:3 where we find that the spiritual LESSON for bread coming down out of heaven is "MAN does NOT LIVE by bread alone but by every WORD that comes from the mouth of God".

And Christ is the Word of God Incarnate.

You have ignored the fact that Christ in John 6 does NOT point FORWARD to any point in time and say "some day my body WILL be food". (In fact you ignore ALL the facts I enumerated in my post where I claimed you must be ignoring those facts!!)

That makes no difference. Christ says my flesh is food indeed (regardless of when we partake of it) and my blood is drink indeed (again regardless of when He establishes the Eucharist.) You're merely splitting hairs.

Finally - John 6 is then the "context" for the Lord's Supper. Where AGAIN we see SYMBOLS of Christ's body in the form of the bread. Christ's body is "obviously" RIGHT THERE in front of them and His PRESENCE is RIGHT there at the table.

So? He's also literally right there in heaven at the right hand of the throne of God whenever the Eucharist is celebrated and He gives us His body and blood in the bread and the wine. That doesn't change the truth that the bread and wine is the communion of (and not an empty symbol for) His body and blood.

They are not imagining that they have suddenly been given access to Christ's REAL body in undetectible form hidden in the bread or REAL presence hidden in the bread!

Wow...you're a mind reader now?

He is REALLY seated at the table and His body is REALLY seen - not yet crucified - not yet sacrificed - not yet broken!

And yet the early Christians were unanimous in affirming that Christ is also present in the Body and Blood. With Paul they affirmed that the wine and the bread was the communion of (participation in) the blood and body of Christ. With Ignatius they affirmed that the Eucharist was thus the "medicine of immortality".

Christ as God-Man transcends time and space. He who changed the water into wine and who multiplied the loaves and the fishes has no problem communicating Himself--humanity and divinity--to us in the bread and the wine while still being incarnate at the right hand of the Father. This was the common faith of the Church until the 1500s when certain Reformers (but not all) following Zwingli began to deny the real presence.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
In any case - you asked for "examples".

But these are "non-examples" since looking at their writings as a whole, neither Tertullian nor Clement denied the real presence.
Besides, "symbol" in that day meant a real connection between the sign and reality signified. That's why in several of the church Fathers you can read of the bread and wine being "symbols", yet considering writings as a whole this does not negate belief in the real presence because the same fathers affirmed their belief in the real presence belief elsewhere.

 

[Living4Him]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I tend to "buy" into what a religious Jew who converted to Christianity states about the Real Presence.

As an educated Jew, he would better understand the Jewish Law and he would realize what Jesus was indeed stating.

(Read article in a previous post)

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:

Many of the early church fathers denied transubstantiation,

Unlikely
[qb]

Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood.

Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity.

You will have to be more convincing than that. Ireneus makes a quote from Scripture without any commentary on it whatsoever. That is not a case for transubstantiation, only your wishful thinking. Then, as you say, he makes a case against gnosticism and doceticsm. So what. That again has nothing to do with transubstantiation. The quotation of a Scripture does not prove your case.

Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Remmeber that all of these quotes are translated. Meaning is always lost in translation. Secondly, Ignatius again gives a rough translation or paraphrase of Scripture, which is no argument for transubstantiation, only wishful thinking. The argument could go either way. What does he say: "I desire the the Bread of God." Don' we all? Then remains a partial quote from Jesus: ..."which is the flesh of Jesus Christ." You take that literally somehow proving transubstantiation. I believe he is speaking metaphorically just as Christ was in the Scripture that he was quoting. Thus transubstantiation here is not proved at all, only your preconceived ideas. You read into these quotes what you want to believe, and nothing else.

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

What could Ignatius mean by this quote? That those who were unwilling to partake of the elements of the Lord's table were unwilling to confess that it was "the flesh of our Saviuor Jesus Christ, which suffered for sins, and which that Father, in his goodness raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes."
Again, does Ignatius speak in metaphors, as the Bible does? Is not the real import of this part of this quote a rebuke to those who consider themselves unworthy to partake of the Lord's Supper because of sin? You cannot prove transubstantiation from this quote either.

I will stop here, although virtually every quote that you have posted can be gone through in the same way.
Another note: The word "eucharist" is never found in the Bible, which makes the quotes somewhat suspicious in the first place. The early believers did not have a "eucharist" They celebrated the Lord's Table with bread and "wine." The "eucharist" was an invention of the Catholic Church, which didn't exist until the fourth century. Like I mentioned before meaning is lost in translation. Who translated these docurments??
DHK

 

[Living4Him]

The word "eucharist" is never found in the Bible, which makes the quotes somewhat suspicious in the first place. The early believers did not have a "eucharist" They celebrated the Lord's Table with bread and "wine." The "eucharist" was an invention of the Catholic Church, which didn't exist until the fourth century.

DHK, do you think the "Eucharist" is the little round wafers?

Eucharist - (taken from the Modern Catholic Dictionary) The true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who is really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, in order to offer himself in the sacrifice of the Mass and to be received as spiritual food in Holy Communion. It is called Eucharist, or "thanksgiving" because at its institutiion at the Last Supper Christ "gave thanks" and by this fact it is the supreme object and act of Christian gratitude to God.

Although the same name is used, the Eucharist is any one or all three aspects of one mystery, namely the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, and Communion.

As Real Presence, the Eucharist is Christ in His abiding existance on earth today; as Sacrifice, it is Christ in His abiding action of High Priest, continuing now to communicate the graces He merited on Calvary; and as Communion, it is Christ coming to enlighten and strengthen the believer by nourishing his soul for eternal life.

(ETYM. Latin eucharistia, the virtue of thanksgiving or thankfulness; from the Greek eucharistia, gratitude; from eu-, good + charizesthai, to show favor)

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The word "eucharist" is never found in the Bible, which makes the quotes somewhat suspicious in the first place. The early believers did not have a "eucharist" They celebrated the Lord's Table with bread and "wine." The "eucharist" was an invention of the Catholic Church, which didn't exist until the fourth century.

DHK, do you think the "Eucharist" is the little round wafers?

Eucharist - (taken from the Modern Catholic Dictionary) The true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who is really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, in order to offer himself in the sacrifice of the Mass and to be received as spiritual food in Holy Communion. It is called Eucharist, or "thanksgiving" because at its institutiion at the Last Supper Christ "gave thanks" and by this fact it is the supreme object and act of Christian gratitude to God.

Although the same name is used, the Eucharist is any one or all three aspects of one mystery, namely the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, and Communion.

As Real Presence, the Eucharist is Christ in His abiding existance on earth today; as Sacrifice, it is Christ in His abiding action of High Priest, continuing now to communicate the graces He merited on Calvary; and as Communion, it is Christ coming to enlighten and strengthen the believer by nourishing his soul for eternal life.

(ETYM. Latin eucharistia, the virtue of thanksgiving or thankfulness; from the Greek eucharistia, gratitude; from eu-, good + charizesthai, to show favor) </font>[/QUOTE]As I said--a good reason to be suspicious.
A Catholic word, taken from a Catholic dictionary, to describe a Catholic doctrine, none of which has to do with the Bible.
DHK

 

[Living4Him]

Let's use your logic for a while,
1. The word Trinity is not in the Bible, so I guess we can't use any quotes with Holy Trinity in it.
2. The word Rapture isn't in the Bible, so I hope you don't subscribe to that theory.
3. Original sin isn't in the Bible either.
4. The term Hypostatic Union (Jesus Christ has two natures, one human and one divine)isn't in the Bible
5. How do you know the Bible should be called the Bible because that word isn't in the Scriptures either.
6. Incarnation is a doctrine that your believe in, but that word isn't in the Bible.
7. How about Ascension?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living4Him:
Let's use your logic for a while,
1. The word Trinity is not in the Bible, so I guess we can't use any quotes with Holy Trinity in it.
2. The word Rapture isn't in the Bible, so I hope you don't subscribe to that theory.
3. Original sin isn't in the Bible either.
4. The term Hypostatic Union (Jesus Christ has two natures, one human and one divine)isn't in the Bible
5. How do you know the Bible should be called the Bible because that word isn't in the Scriptures either.
6. Incarnation is a doctrine that your believe in, but that word isn't in the Bible.
7. How about Ascension?

You are quite arrogant to assume that the Catholic Church developed all this theology. You give no credit to the Bible at all. Why not just write your own Bible. Oh, I forgot, It is called a Catechism.
DHK

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by DHK:
Remmeber that all of these quotes are translated. Meaning is always lost in translation.

"Always"?? Does that apply to the Scriptures as well? Afterall, those too were translated.

You take that literally somehow proving transubstantiation. I believe he is speaking metaphorically just as Christ was in the Scripture that he was quoting. Thus transubstantiation here is not proved at all, only your preconceived ideas. You read into these quotes what you want to believe, and nothing else.

Pot...kettle...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

What could Ignatius mean by this quote? </font>[/QUOTE]Umm..he could mean that that the Docetists abstain from the Eucharist (ie from partaking of the bread and wine) because they deny that the Eucharist (bread and wine) is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, (the same) flesh which suffered for our sins and was raised by the Father.

Again, does Ignatius speak in metaphors, as the Bible does?

Not at all, and if you didn't beg the question by assuming that Bible was speaking metaphorically regarding the Eucharist, you wouldn't even have to ask.

Is not the real import of this part of this quote a rebuke to those who consider themselves unworthy to partake of the Lord's Supper because of sin?

Nope, the fact you'd pull that idea out of thin air shows the lengths you'll go to deny the obvious.

I will stop here, although virtually every quote that you have posted can be gone through in the same way.

Please do, before you embarrass yourself any further. It's apparent that you are really straining to avoid the obvious.

Another note: The word "eucharist" is never found in the Bible, which makes the quotes somewhat suspicious in the first place.

Neither is the word "Trinity". I guess you should look at any quotes about the Trinity with suspicion as well.

The early believers did not have a "eucharist" They celebrated the Lord's Table with bread and "wine."

And yet this is what those early believers called the celebration at the Lord's table. You're making a distinction where there isn't any.

The "eucharist" was an invention of the Catholic Church, which didn't exist until the fourth century.

And the idea that the eucharist was an "invention" of the Catholic Church is itself an invention of conspiracy-minded Protestant historical revisionists.

Like I mentioned before meaning is lost in translation. Who translated these docurments??

Stop it, DHK! You're killing me!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:

Originally posted by DHK:
Remmeber that all of these quotes are translated. Meaning is always lost in translation.

[qb]

"Always"?? Does that apply to the Scriptures as well? Afterall, those too were translated.

Yes it does. That is why it is important to have some understanding of the origninal languages. Meaninng is lost in translation.

Again, does Ignatius speak in metaphors, as the Bible does?

Not at all, and if you didn't beg the question by assuming that Bible was speaking metaphorically regarding the Eucharist, you wouldn't even have to ask.

With all the assumptions that you already have made about transubstantiation being a Biblical doctrine you have to read into these quotes a more or less literal interpretation, when the entire chapter of John 6 was bathed in metaphors and symbolic language. You so contradict yourself. When it is a metaphor you want to call it literal. When it is literal you want to call it a metaphor or symbolic (ex. (Rev.20:1-4; "1,000 years"). You are so confused you don't know what to think about the Bible.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
John brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;" describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise,

If you have a way to twist that out of saying what it says - feel free to make the attempt

In any case - you asked for "examples". </font>[/QUOTE]So far this quote is getting no response - dead silence on "the details" ...

Hmmm I wonder why!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Umm...Bob...I responded to that particular post yesterday at 5:10 PM. As far as the particular quote goes, the "detail" is that Clement of Alexandria (along with Origen) was an allegorist who was fond of ascribing multiple meanings to multiple passages (not just this one). I figured since you like to quote him you'd already know that about him. As I said (twice already now) when you look at all of what he ever wrote on that passage, you'll know that he did not deny the real presence (and I believe I've already directed you to Living4Him's quotes).

So basically you just cited an example of one of his "meanings" of a particular passage--the allegorical one. Now you can stop "wondering why" all you were getting was "dead silence".

 

[Living4Him]

You are quite arrogant to assume that the Catholic Church developed all this theology. You give no credit to the Bible at all.

I never stated that the Catholic Church developed all these theologies.

However, what I was implying is that if you reject the word "Eucharist" which is used for the Real Presence as Jesus stated in John Chapter 6, then you should reject all those other terms.

While the word(s) is/are not in the Bible (as you pointed out)then one should be suspicious of these terms, using your own reasoning with regard to the word Eucharist.