Catholics, and the Eucharist.

[Grace&Truth]

I think Matt is referring to all the baggage you bring with you to study of the Bible. Some of this baggage is significant, some is of little consequence. Here are some examples:

• If you picture yourself sitting in church, your mind’s eye will see an auditorium with a platform in the front. Front and center of the platform will be a pulpit. In the back center there will probably be a baptistery. There will be a choir visible either behind the pulpit or over to one side of it. However, someone of the catholic tradition (Catholic, Episcopal, Orthodox) would visualize an altar front and center, an ambo off to the side, and no baptistery visible. The choir would probably be somewhere behind the congregation.

• Picture a baptism. Your mind’s eye will see the pastor and the candidate wade into the baptistery, the pastor saying some words and then immersing the candidate. Someone of the catholic tradition would visualize a baby having water poured over its head.

• Picture in your mind’s eye the household of the boy Jesus. You will probably see Jesus with several younger brothers and sisters and parents who sleep together. Someone of the catholic tradition will visualize Jesus as an only child with parents who occupy separate sleeping quarters.

Images such as this are burned into your psyche before you ever learn to read. When you start to read the Bible you take those images with you and you will understand things differently from those of the catholic tradition who are reading the exact same thing. These early impressions can be overcome but doing so takes a lot of discipline and a willingness to study with objectivity. So leaving out the use of commentaries, footnotes, sermons, etc., we are going to go at study of the scripture from very different frames of reference.

As for the leadership of the Holy Spirit in understanding scripture, I really have my doubts. First, I cannot find any scripture that says He will lead us to an understanding, and second it seems doubtful that the Holy Spirit would teach you one thing and teach me something else. The Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion.

Well I cannot answer for what you believe or what baggage you bring when you read the Bible, but I do know what God says in His Word so I will continue to pray and ask the The Spirit of Truth to teach me.

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So are we not to Sudy our Bibles and rely on what God says therein? Does not God mean what God says in His Word? Are we to rely on what other men say about what was originally meant? How do we know they are not relying on their own interpretation instead of what God's Truth is? So in your opinion just where do we find Truth if not from the Word of God taught to us by the Holy Spirit? Oh yes I know we are not to read the Bible because we cannot understand what God says, instead we have to rely on other men's writings because they can better tell us what God originally meant because we cannot rely on what God originally meant.

I am sorry but this is all just very silly reasoning. I will just keep studing my Bible relying on God to teach me.

No. That's not what I'm saying but I am being honest. We study the scripture with our understanding and ultimately, we,and our understanding, not the text, are "God's final words". Now we can get to the original languages as possible but still find difficulty and when this occures we view it from. If for instance we have two differing views on a text which can equally be regarded in two ways. Which way will we take it? We will take it based on our percieved conseption and idea's. So logically we are our final authority. Thats just being honest. We can lessen the occurance of that by the study of scripture and getting to the original intent but some things don't translate well over 2,000 years and new insight must be developed. And see by your statement you've inadverdently done something very drastic you've said

Oh yes I know we are not to read the Bible because we cannot understand what God says, instead we have to rely on other men's writings because they can better tell us what God originally meant because we cannot rely on what God originally meant.

What is opposit here is that you determine what God originally meant. In otherwords you are the final authority. However, I've never said not to study scripture. We must. But we must understand it in context not just internally to itself (which is very important) but to the time and context of the original documents. Therefore we can hardly put modern connotations on words understood differently 2,000 years ago. Thus what people had to say about scripture a long time ago gives insight to how it was understood. I understand Homer better the better I understand Virgil. The same goes with Scripture what did people at the time of their writings say about them? It gives significant insight. It certainly doesn't put those writings on par with inspired scripture but it does work as a tool for better understanding.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Well I cannot answer for what you believe or what baggage you bring when you read the Bible, but I do know what God says in His Word so I will continue to pray and ask the The Spirit of Truth to teach me.

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

and just who was Christ speaking too G&T? You or His Apostles?

Christ said He would lead His Church, protect His Church from the gates of Hell and remind His Church of all things until the end of the world...

for quite some time there was no bible as we know it today, really not until the printing press and even then literacy was a problem...so how did these Christians learn of God and Salvation through Christ's death and His resurrection? The Church...

Christ was speaking to His Apostles and it's His Apostles that were told to build the Church and make disciples, not go forth and write a book so that each can find there on way to God through the help of the Holy Spirit...and since I believe in Apostolic Succession and the Apostles are now passed on, Christ's words continue to remain true, as He continues to protect and remind His Church of all things through her bishops and priests, until Christ physically returns.

In XC
-

 

[Grace&Truth]

No. That's not what I'm saying but I am being honest. We study the scripture with our understanding and ultimately, we,and our understanding, not the text, are "God's final words". Now we can get to the original languages as possible but still find difficulty and when this occures we view it from. If for instance we have two differing views on a text which can equally be regarded in two ways. Which way will we take it? We will take it based on our percieved conseption and idea's. So logically we are our final authority. Thats just being honest. We can lessen the occurance of that by the study of scripture and getting to the original intent but some things don't translate well over 2,000 years and new insight must be developed. And see by your statement you've inadverdently done something very drastic you've said What is opposit here is that you determine what God originally meant. In otherwords you are the final authority. However, I've never said not to study scripture. We must. But we must understand it in context not just internally to itself (which is very important) but to the time and context of the original documents. Therefore we can hardly put modern connotations on words understood differently 2,000 years ago. Thus what people had to say about scripture a long time ago gives insight to how it was understood. I understand Homer better the better I understand Virgil. The same goes with Scripture what did people at the time of their writings say about them? It gives significant insight. It certainly doesn't put those writings on par with inspired scripture but it does work as a tool for better understanding.

Yes we study Scripture with our understanding that has been enlightened and taught by the Holy Spirit (He does not bypass our mind), and I can agree that the original language is good, therefore helps that help us understand a Greek Word (or Hebrew) are very good tools. Also, books on Manners and Customs are good helps and yes we need to understan words and terminology from that time period. But to take the doctrinal writings of men during that time and claim their interpretation is correct (we have been discussing the Eucharist) when it is not found or does not agree with every aspect of the Doctrine of Salvation or The Lord's Supper is wrong plain and simple. Scriptures do not contradict itself. I do not need to study anyone else's writing for God to teach me this. I gave an example of verses that show from Hebrews that the Eurcharist cannot be backed up by Scripture. Christ is not continually being offered. He is not being called down by Priest (which are also unbiblical) and we are to do this in remembrance of Christ one sacrifice not continually sacrifice Him. The ECF writings may be good to evaluate what direction the early churches(believers) were going, they are also useful for history, dates etc. But just because they teach something does not mean it is true. Every teaching must be brought back to what the Word of God says. They were not inspired by God to write. Paul warned many times in scripture that there were already false teachers. Again What you, myself or anyone else writes on here should always be brought back to "What does the Bible Say," "It is the Authority." Just read the Scrpture verses, they say what they say.

 

[Matt Black]

TheWords in the Bible are God's Word to man, are they not? The words of the ECF, Councils, Commentaries etc. are man's words about what God's Word says, are they not?

And your words - to yourself as you read Scripture and to us - are man's words about God's words, are they not?

 

[Matt Black]

So are we not to Sudy our Bibles and rely on what God says therein?

Yes of course we are to study the Bible, both alone and with others.

Does not God mean what God says in His Word? Are we to rely on what other men say about what was originally meant? How do we know they are not relying on their own interpretation instead of what God's Truth is?

And how do you know that you're not relying on your own interpretation instead of what God's Truth is? We need to approach the whole issue of Bible study with humility, recognising that we are fallible and our individual interpretations may not be accurate. To state otherwise smacks of arrogance and/or intellectual dishonesty. That's why it's right and proper that, in addition to personal devotional study, we also study Scripture with 'others'. Those 'others' we call the Church. Now, depending on your ecclesiology, that term will mean Bible study group, congregation, Church Universal and/ or the Church down the ages. For me, it's all of these. But the point is that if sola Scriptura is reduced to 'me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit', it becomes very subjective and ultimately it is sine ecclesia: what's the point of fellowshipping with other Christians and what happens to "when two or three are gathered together in My Name"?

There's also the issue of proximity of interpretation, to answer your middle question: the idea that, all other things being equal, a person living close in time to the Scriptures being written (an ECF) is better-placed to comment on them we are, some 2000+/- years later. For instance (since his comments are germane to this thread) , take our old friend Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch: not only did he write the epistles from which his comments on the Eucharist have been quoted on this thread, but he was also discipled by the Apostle John and appointed Bishop by him and it is therefore more than reasonable to conclude that he is better-placed to interpret John 6 than we are today.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes we study Scripture with our understanding that has been enlightened and taught by the Holy Spirit (He does not bypass our mind),

I'm not sure what you mean "he does not bypass our mind". However, certainly our faith measures how we understand scripture.

and I can agree that the original language is good, therefore helps that help us understand a Greek Word (or Hebrew) are very good tools.

we are in agreement here.

Also, books on Manners and Customs are good helps and yes we need to understan words and terminology from that time period.

Also agreed.

But to take the doctrinal writings of men during that time and claim their interpretation is correct (we have been discussing the Eucharist) when it is not found or does not agree with every aspect of the Doctrine of Salvation or The Lord's Supper is wrong plain and simple.

A couple of problems here. First No one said the doctrinal writings of men were always correct. It has been said their writings give us insite to how things were understood at that time. The second issue (I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I am being honest on how these things work) that you've already made the assumption that the Eucharist "does not agree with every aspect of the Doctrine of salvation". I would be curious which book of Hebrew verses you quote. I can show you scriptures suggesting that the Eucharist is in line with scripture. First the word Eucharist means thanksgiving freely offered. Notting that Judaism is the forerunner of Christianity we can make these connections: Exodus 18:12

Then Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and other sacrifices to God, and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law in the presence of God.

Exodus 25:30

Put the bread of the Presence on this table to be before me at all times.

In establishing the first covenant it says in Exodus 24

Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear as the sky itself. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Also note Leviticus 7:11-12

11 " 'These are the regulations for the fellowship offering [a] a person may present to the LORD :
12 " 'If he offers it as an expression of thankfulness, then along with this thank offering he is to offer cakes of bread made without yeast and mixed with oil, wafers made without yeast and spread with oil, and cakes of fine flour well-kneaded and mixed with oil

Note the comparison between this regulation Lev 7:15

15 The meat of his fellowship offering of thanksgiving must be eaten on the day it is offered; he must leave none of it till morning.

and manna Exodus 16:15;19

Moses said to them, "It is the bread the LORD has given you to eat...19 Then Moses said to them, "No one is to keep any of it until morning."

John 6: 53-58

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

In comparing the jewish customs just described and applied to Christianity Paul says to the Colossians in Col 2:16-17

16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

And the manner which Paul treats the communion in 1 Cor 11:27

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

So certainly these verse seem to support the idea of Eucharist. Thus your contention that "is not found" depends on how you view scripture. Thus the argument remains that our percieved ideas are actually the finally authority and not God's word alone.

 

[Max Kennedy]

Christ was speaking to His Apostles and it's His Apostles that were told to build the Church and make disciples, not go forth and write a book so that each can find there on way to God through the help of the Holy Spirit...and since I believe in Apostolic Succession and the Apostles are now passed on, Christ's words continue to remain true, as He continues to protect and remind His Church of all things through her bishops and priests, until Christ physically returns.

In XC
-

So you don't believe the NT was written by the apostolic church? Heresy.

 

[Grace&Truth]

And your words - to yourself as you read Scripture and to us - are man's words about God's words, are they not?

If you cannot understand what I have already said I don't think anything else is going to help....it seems you just don't get.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

So you don't believe the NT was written by the apostolic church? Heresy.

LOL...is THAT what I said MK? Seriously, I said that Christ didn't instruct His Apostles to go forth and pen Holy Scripture...Did He?

Of course the Apostles pen the Letters, Books and Epistles that make up our NT...THAT wasn't the point I was trying to make...

Keep up with the class...

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If you cannot understand what I have already said I don't think anything else is going to help....it seems you just don't get.

You should check out my post # 187 and see the issue as it is.

 

[Matt Black]

If you cannot understand what I have already said I don't think anything else is going to help....it seems you just don't get.

Oh, I understand perfectly; I just don't see how what you say about the ECFs can't equally be applied to you - or me for that matter.

 

[Grace&Truth]

Yes of course we are to study the Bible, both alone and with others. And how do you know that you're not relying on your own interpretation instead of what God's Truth is? We need to approach the whole issue of Bible study with humility, recognising that we are fallible and our individual interpretations may not be accurate. To state otherwise smacks of arrogance and/or intellectual dishonesty. That's why it's right and proper that, in addition to personal devotional study, we also study Scripture with 'others'. Those 'others' we call the Church. Now, depending on your ecclesiology, that term will mean Bible study group, congregation, Church Universal and/ or the Church down the ages. For me, it's all of these. But the point is that if sola Scriptura is reduced to 'me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit', it becomes very subjective and ultimately it is sine ecclesia: what's the point of fellowshipping with other Christians and what happens to "when two or three are gathered together in My Name"?

I am not denying that Iron Sharpeneth Iron. However, the Bible is the final authority.

There's also the issue of proximity of interpretation, to answer your middle question: the idea that, all other things being equal, a person living close in time to the Scriptures being written (an ECF) is better-placed to comment on them we are, some 2000+/- years later. For instance (since his comments are germane to this thread) , take our old friend Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch: not only did he write the epistles from which his comments on the Eucharist have been quoted on this thread, but he was also discipled by the Apostle John and appointed Bishop by him and it is therefore more than reasonable to conclude that he is better-placed to interpret John 6 than we are today.

The Bible was written before the ECF wrote. Paul wrote many of his books to refute false teaching as well as to warn against false teachers so the caution is that every thing written even during that time period and after should not be taken as True, we must bring it back to The Inspired Word of God to see if these writers were in fact writing the Truth. The Bible says it is Inspired and I do not see any claim for any other Inspired writings, Tradition or Apostolic secession that continues Inspiration by God. I will be judged by God's Word not by what anyone else taught, so at this point I will stand upon what I know is True "The Inspired Word of God."

It is obvious we will not agree, I will not convince you and you will most definitely not convince me on this matter.

 

[targus]

It is obvious we will not agree, I will not convince you and you will most definitely not convince me on this matter.

To boil it down to it's simplist terms: How do you know that what you think Scripture says is correct?

 

[Matt Black]

Exactly. None of what you've written solves the interpretative epistemological problem created by your version of sola Scriptura.

 

[Max Kennedy]

Exactly. None of what you've written solves the interpretative epistemological problem created by your version of sola Scriptura.

Which only someone who doesn't believe in God, and that you are born again would say.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 

[targus]

Which only someone who doesn't believe in God, and that you are born again would say.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

So then why don't all born again Christians who read the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit all interpret it the same way?

Does the Holy Spirit lead one Christian to believe one thing and another something else?

Would contradictory interpretations of Scripture both be correct - or would at least one be wrong?

How do you know which is which?

 

[Grace&Truth]

I'm not sure what you mean "he does not bypass our mind". However, certainly our faith measures how we understand scripture.

He enlightens us through our mind. It is true that many do understand Scripture by their Faith (meaning RC, Presb. Charsmatic, Luthern, Calvinistic, etc.) But actually it is the Holy Spirit that convinces us of what the Bible teaches and it is The Bible doctrines that should develope our Faith (Body of Truth) or (Our Doctrines). If my belief or Religion or Denomination teaches contrary to any given doctrine within the Word of God then I must by faith (convincement of the Spirit) believe the Word of God. Not My Faith (Body of doctrine prescribed by my Church or Denomination) Did not this happen to you when you left the RCC?


Also agreed. A couple of problems here. First No one said the doctrinal writings of men were always correct. It has been said their writings give us insite to how things were understood at that time. The second issue (I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I am being honest on how these things work) that you've already made the assumption that the Eucharist "does not agree with every aspect of the Doctrine of salvation". I would be curious which book of Hebrew verses you quote. I can show you scriptures suggesting that the Eucharist is in line with scripture. First the word Eucharist means thanksgiving freely offered. Notting that Judaism is the forerunner of Christianity we can make these connections: Exodus 18:12 Exodus 25:30 In establishing the first covenant it says in Exodus 24 Also note Leviticus 7:11-12
Note the comparison between this regulation Lev 7:15 and manna Exodus 16:15;19 John 6: 53-58 In comparing the jewish customs just described and applied to Christianity Paul says to the Colossians in Col 2:16-17 And the manner which Paul treats the communion in 1 Cor 11:27 So certainly these verse seem to support the idea of Eucharist. Thus your contention that "is not found" depends on how you view scripture. Thus the argument remains that our percieved ideas are actually the finally authority and not God's word alone.

I am not quite sure what you are asking. All I can say is that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Law with all its ceremony which was a shadow but not the very thing. He was The Sacrifice. He made one sacrifice and offered Himself once (was He literally eaten then?) So why now when Hebrews 5-10 makes it clear that Jesus is in heaven advocating for us, not continually being sacrificed or offed for us. What would be the purpose of eating Jesus? When I believed I was given His Spirit (the Holy Spirit) who lives within me. I do not need to receive Jesus (Bodily) over and over and again. If you are asking me to comment on these verses I will leave that to you to explain. If you are claiming that the Eucharist is only used as a term for "Thanksgiving" and not a cont. sacrifice or offering of Jesus literal body and blood then I will let you explain and make that argument? You are the one that wanted to debate Joseph, so please do, I would like to know what you believe about the Eucharist, please tell us.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

and keep in mind too that Arius in 325 AD used Holy Scripture to support his heretical teachings about the nature of the Godhead...but in the end Arius' teachings were defeated due to the fact that his teachings contradicted what the Church had always taught and believed concerning the Godhead from the beginning.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am not quite sure what you are asking. All I can say is that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Law with all its ceremony which was a shadow but not the very thing. He was The Sacrifice. He made one sacrifice and offered Himself once (was He literally eaten then?) So why now when Hebrews 5-10 makes it clear that Jesus is in heaven advocating for us, not continually being sacrificed or offed for us. What would be the purpose of eating Jesus? When I believed I was given His Spirit (the Holy Spirit) who lives within me. I do not need to receive Jesus (Bodily) over and over and again. If you are asking me to comment on these verses I will leave that to you to explain. If you are claiming that the Eucharist is only used as a term for "Thanksgiving" and not a cont. sacrifice or offering of Jesus literal body and blood then I will let you explain and make that argument? You are the one that wanted to debate Joseph, so please do, I would like to know what you believe about the Eucharist, please tell us.

I'm not asking anything. I am however showing you how scripture supports the idea of Eucharist. Which is why I showed the verses I did. Note by quoting Hebrews 5-10 You've shown you don't understand the operation of Eucharist how the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox understand it. The function of the Eucharist is not to again sacrifice Jesus but for the congregants to participate in that one sacrifice 2,000 years ago. The fact that they eat it shows not only their understand of what Jesus is saying at the Last supper but its connection to the OT Thanks offering as I showed in Leviticus. I think with many protestant theologians is that we are linear in our thinking God is outside time and space and thus our theology should show it. But the operation is not to sacrifice Jesus again but to up hold that original sacrifice and make present that one sacrifice outside of time and space.
As far as Eucharist my church does not have Eucharist. We have communion in which we remember Christ sacrifice. And that only once a quarter. However, I can see the argument for the Orthodox and Catholic. Especially, since the scriptures use the term commemoration rather than In rememberance. The idea of making present.

He enlightens us through our mind. It is true that many do understand Scripture by their Faith (meaning RC, Presb. Charsmatic, Luthern, Calvinistic, etc.) But actually it is the Holy Spirit that convinces us of what the Bible teaches and it is The Bible doctrines that should develope our Faith (Body of Truth) or (Our Doctrines). If my belief or Religion or Denomination teaches contrary to any given doctrine within the Word of God then I must by faith (convincement of the Spirit) believe the Word of God. Not My Faith (Body of doctrine prescribed by my Church or Denomination) Did not this happen to you when you left the RCC?

You are actually supporting my view that ultimately the final authority on how scripture is understood is the individual reading it. You may call it the Holy Spirit. But honestly how do you distinguish the leading of the Holy Spirit and the rational of your mind? Or the hormones by which cause an effect of our emotional state?