Catholicity key to Church Unity

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Say what?? The Bible teaches otherwise. God became Incarnate as a physical man, received physical stripes by material whips, was crowned with material thorns and shed physical blood on a physical cross when his physical wrists and feet were nailed by material nails to material wood. He did this so He could save us from our sins and reconcile us to Himself. If this is not spiritual grace conveyed by physical means, I don't know what is!

You completely misunderstand the issue. A sacrament conveys what it signifies. So if it signifies salvation, then it conveys salvation. That is a sacrament and that is unbiblical. The things you reference above are apples compared to these oranges.

Nowhere does it state in Scripture that they are only symbols. Interpreted in their plain sense, and by everybody for the first 1500 years of Christianity, these Scriptures attest to the reality that we do experience God's grace by embracing Him in these God ordained mysteries.

Scripture does not teach this. Scripture plainly calls communion a remembrance, a memorial. Those are the words of the text. Everybody for the first 1500 years of Christianity did not disagree with that. They in fact agreed with it, by definition. One who adds to the biblical teaching about salvation is not a Christian. It does not matter what they believe about communion or baptism.

Suffice it to say many others here have listed many Scriptures that teach that Baptism and the Lord's Supper convey spiritual grace, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Where was this? I haven't seen any such verses.

That's because you have to explain away many passages which suggest otherwise to fit your symbolic-only doctrine. However, your view, with it's radical distinction between spirit and matter, is more akin to gnosticism than historic Biblical Christianity. For instance, the Docetists refrained from the Lord Supper, not believing in the Real Presence, because they also did not believe that Christ came as an actual physical man. (At least they were consistent.)

Docetists are completely irrelevant here. The bottom line is that I haven't explained away any passage. I have, in fact, tried to get people to explain why no one in John 6 took Christ literallly; they all, to a man, took him figuratively, just like the Baptists do. The disciples, as confused as they were, showed no confusion at the idea of "eating flesh" in Matt 26. Why? Becuase they clearly saw there was a distinction and Christ was being symbolic. After Christ blessed the cup, he said it was still the fruit of the vine. That is a direct contradiction to those who say that it was the blood. Christ said differently. In 1 Cor 11, Paul calls it "bread" (as does Acts), not "body." He says the body and blood are for a remembrance and a proclamation. He does not say one word about actually receiving grace through the elements.

These Scriptures are plain, if you do not have the superimposed authority of the RCC affecting your thinking.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We desparately need a return to the authority of Jesus Christ in his word rather than this continual pursuit of the doctrines of men.

I agree 100%. </font>[/QUOTE]Then I have just showed you a reason to abandon your view on communion and submit to the authority of Scripture. Do you stilla gree that we should have the word of God as the authority? Or will you reject that to hang on to the authority of man?

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

...Scripture plainly calls communion a remembrance, a memorial. Those are the words of the text. Everybody for the first 1500 years of Christianity did not disagree with that. They in fact agreed with it, by definition. One who adds to the biblical teaching about salvation is not a Christian. It does not matter what they believe about communion or baptism.

[

Pastor Larry, cite your early church sources. In fact, there are none. Your 'memorialism' was a late invention.

 

[Jude]

I'll quote some early church sources here...

What did the early Christians believe?
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (A.D. 110)
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. (Epistle to the Romans 7:3)

Take note of those who hold heretodox 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. (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6:2; 7:1)


JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D. 148)
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. (First Apology 66:1-20)


IRENAEUS (A.D. 180)
If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood? (Against Heresies 4:33:2)

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life--flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2)


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 202)
"Eat my flesh," [Jesus] says, "and drink my blood." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children. (Paidagogos 1:6; 43:3)


CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (A.D. 350)
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ. (Catechetical Discourses, Mystagogic I, 19:7)

Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm.

Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ....[Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so,...partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul. (Catechetical Discourses; Mystagogic 4, 22:9)


THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (A.D. 428)
When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, "This is the _symbol_ of my body," but, "This _is_ my body." In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, "This is the _symbol_ of my blood," but, "This _is_ my blood"; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought...not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit. (Catechetical Homilies 5:1)

 

[Kathryn]

Bob:

My previous post on 1Cor 10 shows conclusively that the there is exact equivalence between the act in the Lord's Table and "sacrificing to demons" when eating food offerred to idols.

If we "allowed" the revisionism you propose above for 1Cor 10 -- it would mean that eating food sacrificed to idols is in fact "eating demons as they are offerrred in a continual sacrifice".

Bob: You showed no such thing. There is one sacrifice we share in. I made no revisionism for 1 Cor 10. It is just as St. Paul says:

1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

This is how we share in the blood of Christ, this is how we share in the body of Christ.

Do you share in the blood of Christ, Bob?

 

[Kathryn]

A little prayer and hymn for the unity Jesus Christ prayed for:


One bread, one body, one Lord of all,
One cup of blessing which we bless.
And we, though many, throughout the earth,
We are one body in this one Lord.

Gentile or Jew, servant or free,
Woman or man, no more.

One bread, one body, one Lord of all,
One cup of blessing which we bless.
And we, though many, throughout the earth,
We are one body in this one Lord.

Many the gifts, many the works,
One in the Lord of all.

One bread, one body, one Lord of all,
One cup of blessing which we bless.
And we, though many, throughout the earth,
We are one body in this one Lord.

Grain for the fields, scattered and grown,
Gathered to one, for all.

One bread, one body, one Lord of all,
One cup of blessing which we bless.
And we, though many, throughout the earth,
We are one body in this one Lord.


© 1978 John B. Foley

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You completely misunderstand the issue.

No, you misunderstand the issue. I demonstrated how God made use of physical means to effect our salvation--physical nails, physical blood, physical wood, and physical death. It is certainly not then inconsistent of God to use physical means of joining ourselves to Christ. God really does normatively regenerate us in the waters of baptism (John 3:5, Titus 3:5) and in these same waters He washes away our sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16) We really do die, are buried, and are raised with Christ in the baptismal font (Romans 6:4) and in that water we have put on Christ (Gal 3:27). The Body and Blood of Christ are true food and true drink (John 6:55) and we abide in Him (John 6:56) and have eternal life as we partake of his body and blood (John 6:54). We are able to eat His flesh and drink His blood when we partake of the bread and the wine since these truly are the communion of His body and blood. (1 Cor 10:16)

These Scriptures are plain, if you do not have the superimposed authority of the RCC affecting your thinking.

I don't have the "superimposed authority of the RCC affecting" my thinking, and I do agree the Scriptures are plain. I'm not a Roman Catholic nor do I plan on becoming one. I think you and others have the superimposed authority of Calvin and Zwingli affecting your thinking. It was Zwingli and his followers who put assunder what God had joined together.

Then I have just showed you a reason to abandon your view on communion and submit to the authority of Scripture. Do you stilla gree that we should have the word of God as the authority? Or will you reject that to hang on to the authority of man?

After three decades of having to explain away the plain meaning of Scriptures to conform with the novel teachings of men, I'll take the authority of Scripture anyday.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Kathryn,

I did look up your three verses. Thanks. I will try to be brief and yet get my point across to you.

In Matthew 26:17- speaks of Jesus eating at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the eating at the Passover. This seems to be a Jewish feast that is not quite the same as our Eucharist that the Apostle Paul speaks about in I Corinthians 11:20-34. We do not call the celebration of the Holy Communion the Feast of Unleavened Bread. I have a book in storage that explains all the details of this Feast. This Feast evolved and Paul, to my thinking, made this a memorial of His death for our salvation. God speaking through Paul says, ' . . . this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me . . . . eat this bread, and drink this cup, showing the Lord's death till He comes.' [I Cor. 11:25-26]
This, of course, was ordained by the Triune Godhead and Paul wrote this down for us.

I have always preached during a service of Holy Communion that His life is equally important-meaning His resurrection and glorification, because without His Presence in Heaven we would have no future life with Him.

Your verses about 'breaking bread' is not even near the gravity and consequence of the Service of Holy Communion where no believer is overlooked in the receiving of the wine, signifying the saving efficacy of His atoning blood.

We Protestants and other non-Catholics would feel really disappointed if we were not given the elements of both His body and blood. I know you usually do not receive the wine except on special occasions and that by intinction. This is not the Christian administration or ministering of this sacred service of our Lord. Please, reread I Corinthians 11:24-26. Here again, is where Roman Catholic tradition, is the overriding factor rather than what the Lord desires for His people.

Best regards . . .

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I know you usually do not receive the wine except on special occasions and that by intinction.

Ray, you have that completely wrong.

I receive the consecrated bread and wine at every Communion as may all Catholics.

Intinction is a forbidden practice. We drink directly from the cup.

 

[Kathryn]

Ray:
Jesus made the feast new for Christians. He makes all things new. This is the New Covenant he instituted. You should understand this. You claim there was no wine only bread when the apostles speak of the breaking of the bread. How do you know this? Jesus taught them in this way to proclaim His death until He comes. St. Paul tells us just how we share in His body and how we share in His blood.

Acts 2:42
They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

The Apostles were not just having dinner rolls or crackers together. In fact they were told if they were hungry to eat first at home so as not to come together for judgment. They were celebrating the New Covenant, each time proclaiming His death until He comes .

Catholics always consecrate the bread and wine just as Jesus taught, and I share in both. TryingToUnderstand is correct.

I guess it is hard for you to imagine that the Church Jesus Christ established was celebrating the New Covenant daily as it still does. You are going to great lengths to believe they were not doing this in Holy Scripture.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Tryingtounderstand & Kathryn,

I almost doubt your statements about receiving Communion of both elements. I guess I will receive your statements as the truth, because I do not think you would wilfully try to deceive us.

I have gone to Roman Catholic churches at different times in both Hellertown and in Bethlehem, and was never given the blessed cup. St. Teresa's Church in Hellertown & Holy Rosary Church on fourth street in Bethlehem. The priest gave me the wafer in my hands in both churches; one additional sheep slipped under his fence. (meaning me)

I also received Communion at the beautiful stone Episcopal Church in Bethlehem. My wife and I were there one Saturday night and the priest ministered the bread and the chalice of wine. We did not receive of the blessed cup because of the possibility of Aids.

 

[Kathryn]

Ray:

You should not recieve Communion in a church you are not in Communion with. To you it is not sharing in the body of Christ or sharing in the blood of Christ. To you the Bread of Life is not a Sacrament. You don't believe in the real presence. By your own words you do not believe what Catholics believe. Non-Catholics are not invited to share in our Sacraments because of this difference in beliefs. You need to examine yourself before entering into Communion with others. Ask yourself if you really are in Communion with them.

 

[Jude]

Pastor Larry still hasn't responded...

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
[QB] Ray:

You should not recieve Communion in a church you are not in Communion with. To you it is not sharing in the body of Christ or sharing in the blood of Christ. To you the Bread of Life is not a Sacrament. You don't believe in the real presence. By your own words you do not believe what Catholics believe.

Do Catholics believe all the same things believed by Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterian...etc ?

If not - then should they unit in communion according to you?

If not - how are you proposing that Christianity "unit in the communion service"?

In Christ,

Bob

Kathryn
Non-Catholics are not invited to share in our Sacraments because of this difference in beliefs.

So "division vis the communion service of Christ"?

Is that the "key to Church unity"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ray Berrian]

Kathryn,

You said, 'To you the Bread of Life is not a Sacrament.'

I am sure that you do not know about my denomination. But, we do believe in two sacraments and call them such. Baptism and Holy Communion. Had to correct your error at this point.

And as far as receiving the Eucharist in your denomination, if believe that it was what was going on in my heart/life that matters to the Lord God, and not some man made rule by your Magisterium.

Maybe you should take a poll and see how many Roman Catholics receive the elements in both kinds. Not many at all . . .

 

[Ray Berrian]

The topic is Catholicity the Key to Church Unity.

You, Kathryn and 'tryingtounderstand' must see the hypocrisy of speaking of church unity as brethren, and then chiding me for taking Holy Communion in your church. If we are 'separated brethren, as the pope claims, then he should open his altars to all Christians. It's time to move out of the Dark Ages into the world of the 21st. century.

It was the Lord who was offering the bread and wine to the congregation through an agent of His. I often had Roman Catholics in my cathedral church and welcomed them to receive at the table of the Lord. If people really love Jesus, then no one should be rejected from this solemn service of intimate Communion with our Lord Jesus

 

[Jude]

I, for one, cannot/will not receive Holy Communion except in Churches that have valid orders, therefore valid sacraments, and, valid doctrine.

How could I receive Communion from a minister/church that holds to 'memorialism'?

How could I receive Communion in a Church that strays from what is the 'Catholic' faith?

People gather around the Altar to, among other things, express their UNITY in Christ. How could Prebyterians do this with Methodists? How could an 'Assembly of God' member do this with a Baptist? How could an Anglican do this with a member of the Lutheran tradition?

The 'Church' is broken and divided. We are NOT one...at least, in my view, the Protestant world IS divided from the 'Catholic' (Anglican, Roman, Orthodox). And the latter are divided amongst themselves.

Again, I believe that the key to the unity Jesus prayed for is St Vincent's notion of CATHOLICITY.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor Larry still hasn't responded...

To what??

 

[Kathryn]

Ray:

You said, 'To you the Bread of Life is not a Sacrament.'

I am sure that you do not know about my denomination. But, we do believe in two sacraments and call them such. Baptism and Holy Communion. Had to correct your error at this point.

The Bread of Life is Jesus Christ Himself, not a symbol of Jesus Christ, or a "wafer" as you called it. The Unity is in the church Jesus Christ established. If you take Communion in a Catholic Church you are professing communion with what Catholics believe.

You are more than welcome to come to Catholic services, but you are not in communion with what we believe. We have closed communion for this reason. I understand many Protestant denominations have closed communion. Would you disregard their wishes and take communion anyway?

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Ray, you have that completely wrong.

I receive the consecrated bread and wine at every Communion as may all Catholics.

Intinction is a forbidden practice. We drink directly from the cup.

I have to chime in here.

I grew up in a catholic family (most are still catholic) and I was a catholic for about 18 years. Never once did I get the wine, nor was I offered the wine. As a matter of fact, in my CCD classes we were told that the priest takes the wine in our place. We, as parisioners, get the bread.

I'll ask my family when I go back east this spring if any have ever been given the wine.

jason

 

[John Gilmore]

CATHOLICITY is standing up for the truth and not tolerating error. This how the church defeated Arianism and the other heresies.

It is ironic that Jude, a member of the most splintered church in history, is calling for unity on the basis of catholicity! Was it catholicity for the Anglican Church to adopt the 1552 Calvinist Book of Common Prayer? Was it catholicity for the Anglican Church to counterbalance its Calvinist errors with Papist errors in response to political pressure?

The Anglican Church is a breeding ground for error. How? By stating its doctrines so they can be accepted in many different ways. Numerous heretical factions have formed within and eventually left the Anglican Church. Most of the thousands of Christian and non-Christian denominations in English speaking countries can be traced directly or indirectly to the Anglican Church.