Question about history of Eucharist views

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "I believe the ROCK upon which Jesus Built his church is the Solid Rock Truth of WHO and WHAT Jesus is."

Just for your info, David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield wrote:

"It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. . . . Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely" (The Gospel of Matthew {Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972}, 261).

I suppose David Hill is entitled to his wrong opinion in the same manner that you are entitled to yours.

The fact of the matter is this: Jesus did not build his church upon human flesh, or human confession, but rather, upon spiritual truth that was revealed to humanity by the Father in Heaven. Human confession of, and belief in, the truth are the building materials of the Church that Jesus Built!

Other than your opinion that the Church is built upon one man, can you name for us any other organization that is built upon one man that has lasted more that 100 years? Let me remind you the longest continuous dictatorship does not outlast its dictator. A follow-on dictatorship may happen, but then the follow-on dictatorship is a new dictatorship. Neither does a Kingdom outlive its king. When David Died and Solomon took over, the Davidic Kingdom ended, and the Solomonic Kingdom commenced. Yes the subjects were the same, but the King was different.

Let's make this just a bit more interesting, is there another organization in existance that was built by deity? If yes, was it built upon humanity?

I believe you will find there is no such organization preceding nor following Jesus' anouncement.

Other than faulty logic there is no reason to think that Jesus would build his church upon a man. Man consistantly fails God. Even Peter denied Jesus three times after Jesus made his "Upon this Rock" statement. Why then would God rely on man who has consistantly, from the creation, failed to meet God's standard. For many of you, man is totally depraved, completely unable to obey God. So, how is it that the Church of Jesus the Christ can be built upon a man.

Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ! What a wonderful foundation for a church!

 

[Kamoroso]

There is an organization mentioned in the scriptures that is built upon a man, one that puts himself in the place of God. As any man does that puts themselves between humanity and Christ.


II Th 2:3-4 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


The church of Rome is this organization. It claims that the church is built upon a man, and the men that suppossedly follow him. Antichrist, being in the place of Christ.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

[BobRyan]

The assumption that Christ and the Apostles did not "know what the OT scriptures were until the CC told them" is not based in history but in "hope".

The assumption that the Catholics of the 15th and 16th centuries did not know what the OT and NT were so they "took a Protestant Bible" and started the "Protestant church" is also an assertion based in "hope" rather than fact.

Attacks against scripture come in many forms.

a. Some want freedom for reader-editing of God's Word (for example Gen 1 and 2) as it pleases them and label various
sections as "semi-fiction".

Problem - 2Tim 3:15-16 and 2Pet 1:21 grind that effort to a halt - by protecting scripture as being of God and not a
subject for one's own interpretation or edits or a product of any one organization that evolves over time.

b. Conjecture: Maybe there is a way to use the mere existence of apochryphal books to obfuscate/cloud and confuse
the term scripture as used by NT authors and open a door for reader-edits and labeling of semifiction.

Problem: Beyond the proofs given below in scripture and from history that no such "confusion" existed in the NT regarding
the 39 books of the Hebrew OT - a larger problem is that once you open the door to cut-and-paste Christianity
pick-and-choose Bible chapters, there is no stopping it, the text loses all integrity. NO TEXT could ever survive
such a free-for-all hatchet job

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

Although the RCC did do considerable work in obfuscating and clouding the term "scripture" in later centuries (and some join with them in that effort even today) - we found the following.

#1 Although apocryphal writings were "known" - The Hebrew OT text of 39 did NOT contain the apocrypha -


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"NONE of these {apochryphal) books is included in the Hebrew canon of holy Scripture. ALL of them however, with the exception of 2 Esdras, are present in copies of the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint...

Oxford Annotated Apochrypha pg xii

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

#2. That list of 39 sacred books was known centuries before the time of CHrist -


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

The Oldest known reference to all 39 books of the OT came from a letter that was written around 200 BC. It is known as the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus.

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

#3. NT authors felt PERFECTLY comfortable refering their readers to the term "scripture" and giving quotes of OT texts fully assured that the reader accepted the OT quote as "authorotative" and as required "proof" for the NT statement (Acts 17:1-3

#4 The term "Scripture" is so well accepted in the NT as a defined term that IT can be used alone to identify the document known by BOTH believers and NON-BELIEVERS that is the inspired, objective, approved, accepted, known, standard by which the NT teachings were judged Acts 17:11


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"examining the SCRIPTURES to SEE whether these things were so" Acts 17:11

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

#5 Paul HIMSELF asserts that the text was KNOWN and accepted -


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Tim 3:15
"From Childhood you have KNOWN the sacred writings which are able to give you wisdom that leads to salvation"

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

#6 No statement can be found in either NT or OT that there was "confusion" over what was to be considered "scripture". Rather the text shows that the authors were CONFIDENT that the reader fully comprehended the term and the term needed no clarification.

NEITHER is there any hint that they debated "semi-fiction" with each other.

Their term "scripture" and the appeal to it's being "inspired by God" rather than a product of compiled semi-fiction - stands without impeachment.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"ALL scripture is given by inspiration from GOD" 2Tim 3:16
"men moved by THE HOLY SPIRIT spoke FROM GOD"
2Pet 1:21



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


#7 The fact that the Apocryphal works were known - did not get them into the OT Hebrew set (as already noted) NOR did it get them inserted into the Greek text as part of the OT UNTIL AFTER the council of Trent in the 16th century. PRior to that they were included ONLY as a separate grouping from EITHER the OT OR the NT.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1546 the Council of Trent DECREED that the canon of the Old Testament INCLUDES them (except for the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1,2 Esdras).
SUBSEQUENT editions of the Latin Vulgate text, OFFICIALLY APPROVED by the Roman Catholic Church, contain these books incorporated WITHIN THE SEQUENCE of the Old Testament books.

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

A more complete quote is

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"NONE of these books is included in the Hebrew canon of holy Scripture. ALL of them however, with the exception of 2 Esdras, are present in copies of the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint...
In the Old Testament Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means of PREFACES called the readers attention to the SEPARATE CATEGORY of the apocryphal books. Subsequent copyists of the LATIN Bible, however, were not always careful to transmit Jerome's PREFACES, and during the MEDIEVAL PERIOD the WESTERN Church generally regarded these books as part of the Holy Scriptures. In 1546 the Council of Trent DECREED that the canon of the Old Testament INCLUDES them (except for the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1,2 Esdras).

SUBSEQUENT editions of the Latin Vulgate text, OFFICIALLY APPROVED by the Roman Catholic Church, contain these books incorported WITHIN THE SEQUENCE of the Old Testament books. Thus Tobit and Judith stand after NEHEMIAH; the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus stand AFTER the Song of Solomon.... and 1,2 Maccabees concludes the Old Testament.

Editions of the Bible prepared by PROTESTANTs have followed the HEBREW Canon. The disputed books have generally been placed in a separate section, usually bound between Old and New Testaments, but occassionally placed after the close of the New Testament...."

"The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha p xii"

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


Although it is known that some individuals after the first century may have been confused about their status - NONE of that debate/confusion shows up in the NT text.

#8 No appeal to obfuscation regarding the apocrypha - adds any weight to attacks against the works of Moses in Genesis 1 and 2. The NT itself shows that Moses is the author of the book of Gensis (Acts 15:1 ref to Gen 17).

And thus the restrictions set by 2Pet 1:21 and 2Tim 3:15-16 unquestionably apply to the book of Genesis.

#9 This entire question of the OT 39 books was started as a defense against the clear statements in the NT that ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God - rather than being subject to reader editing and charges of "semi-fiction".

Attempts to obfuscate and cloud the meaning of the NT author's term "scripture" are shown to be baseless since the authors themselves show NO sign that they thought the subject was "up for debate" or was "unclear to their readers"

History also SHOWS that the OT 39 books - the Hebrew OT was known and ACCEPTED as a group of 39 CENTURIES before Christ.

It is unclear that moving on to the NT text sources (which are even CLOSER to the original manuscripts than the old) will improve the case for those who wish to sidestep God's Word - that "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God" that "NONE of it is a matter of one's OWN interpretation" and that "men moved by THE HOLY SPIRIT spoke FROM GOD" 2Pet 2:21

--- ie NO reader editing or stamping "semi-fiction" on "accounts given".

It is in fact impossible to appeal to RCC wrangling over when to include the Apocrypha into the ordering of the OT books (a 16th century decision) as a means for opening the door to reader-edit and charges of semi-fiction against God's Word in Genesis.

Neither is it possible to argue that if the aprocryphal documents existed - the NT authors/readers must have been confused about the term "scripture" or the Heb OT 39 (known AS A GROUP centuries before Christ as we SEE in the "Prologue to Ecclesiasticus".)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi John,

You asked, "Is it because he confessed the Catholic faith of Athanasian Creed that so many of your Roman Cardinals now deny?"

Would you mind naming these "Roman Cardinals"?

I will answer on the "Sincere Question for Catholics" thread.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "I suppose David Hill is entitled to his wrong opinion in the same manner that you are entitled to yours."

Wrong according to who's standards? Yelsew's? *Grin* I smell a hint of blind triumphalism.

I really don't think that you're interested in learning the Biblical foundations of the Catholic position because you aren't interested in a dialogue, which involves listening.

But, if by some chance that I'm wrong (God forbid), here's an article, written by a former Baptist on the issue (it's well written):

http://www.catholicoutlook.com/rock.html

God bless you!

 

[Yelsew]

When I was in college I wrote a paper for grade. The topic was one in which I refuted a standing belief regarding Supply Chain Management. The professer returned my paper with the comment, "this is well written" but he gave me a grade point of only 1.2, 5 being the best. So, being well written does not make it right, or acceptable to the reader. The reader has a perspective and that which he reads is evaluated on that perspective.

The writer's religious persuasion makes no difference to the reader.

I have stated my persuasion on the foundation of the Church and on what "the Rock" truly means. You have not! You are merely parroting what someone else has said. In order to continue a viable discussion, it is time for you to state your own innermost personal beliefs, the beliefs that you rely upon that are those that support your religious persuasion, and not those of someone else.

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic church "admits" that IF the non-Catholic view of the Lord's Table is correct - then Catholicism is practicing idolatry for they are truly worshipping what is nothing more than a piece of bread - if the non-Catholic view is correct.

I find that confession - to be telling.

Did I already mention that?

It seems like it "might" relate to the thread's subject title.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "So, being well written does not make it right, or acceptable to the reader. The reader has a perspective and that which he reads is evaluated on that perspective."

That's all wonderful, really.. but it is pretty meaningless unless you read and evaluate the actual article.

Did you?

You are merely parroting what someone else has said. In order to continue a viable discussion, it is time for you to state your own innermost personal beliefs

And if what this someone else says is, in essence, exactly what you would say.. how is this a bad thing? You see, Gary Hoge and I share the same faith and our answer to the Matthew 16:16-19 controversy is essentially the same because the truth of the matter hasn't changed in 2,000 years. Our "innermost personal beliefs" with regard to this dogma are identical. We're not Protestants, remember.

Yelsew, you're not interested in what I or anyone else has to say. That's quite obvious.

To you, I'm simply "wrong" and that's that. There's no analyzing the issue; there's no considering the Catholic position; there's no rational, distanced analysis of the position I hold. There's simply anathema sit from the chair of Yelsew. God bless you.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "So, being well written does not make it right, or acceptable to the reader. The reader has a perspective and that which he reads is evaluated on that perspective."

That's all wonderful, really.. but it is pretty meaningless unless you read and evaluate the actual article.

Did you?

You are merely parroting what someone else has said. In order to continue a viable discussion, it is time for you to state your own innermost personal beliefs

And if what this someone else says is, in essence, exactly what you would say.. how is this a bad thing? You see, Gary Hoge and I share the same faith and our answer to the Matthew 16:16-19 controversy is essentially the same because the truth of the matter hasn't changed in 2,000 years. Our "innermost personal beliefs" with regard to this dogma are identical. We're not Protestants, remember.

Yelsew, you're not interested in what I or anyone else has to say. That's quite obvious.

To you, I'm simply "wrong" and that's that. There's no analyzing the issue; there's no considering the Catholic position; there's no rational, distanced analysis of the position I hold. There's simply anathema sit from the chair of Yelsew. God bless you.

I have asked questions such as:</font>

• "For what possible reason would Jesus build his church upon one human being?"</font>
• "How is it possible to build that which is spiritual and eternal upon that which is material and temporal?"</font>
• "Did not Abraham demonstrate more powerful even more dramatic faith than Peter?"</font>

No responses were forthcoming.

I have not seen anything in scripture or on the earth that would support building a church on one sinner. Unlike Nicodemus, I know the difference between the natural and the spiritual, and I have no difficulty recognizing a Spiritual truth like who and what Jesus is, and that truth is what the church is built upon. If you can't see that then I must ask you how you will understand anything spiritual when You do not understand the natural?

 

[BobRyan]

"No OTHER foundation can anyone lay other than Christ"

1 Cor 3
9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

That truth is harder on some denominations than others.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Carson Weber]

For what possible reason would Jesus build his church upon one human being?

With the pope as the vicarious head of the Church, the Church has a visible head and thus is able to retain unity in faith. Christ shepherds his Church through his bishops, and it is the job of the pope to support and uphold the faith of the other bishops, thus giving unity to the Church.

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep." (Jn 21:15-17)

"How is it possible to build that which is spiritual and eternal upon that which is material and temporal?"

Isn't that what happened in the Incarnation?

"Did not Abraham demonstrate more powerful even more dramatic faith than Peter?"

I would agree that Abraham did have greater faith. So what? There are individuals who have suffered greater pains than Jesus did. Does that make them our Saviour? Does Abraham's great faith make him the first pope?

The papacy is God's gift to the Church, founded upon the words and promise of Jesus Christ.

By the way, this may be of interest to you.. today's solemn blessing for the Sunday liturgy of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church:

The Lord has set you firm within his Church which he built upon the rock of Peter's faith. may he bless you with a faith that never falters. Amen.

 

[BobRyan]

The church has "one Foundation" 1Cor 3:11 above - shows that conclusively.

And 1 Cor 10 states conclusively that the "PETRA of the Church - is Christ" by saying "That PETRA is Christ" - that Spiritual Rock of the Church - is Christ 1Cor 10:4.

One Church, One Rock, One Foundation.

Hard to miss.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Yelsew]

The church is called "the bride of Christ". If it is of such importance as to be the Bride of 'God the Son', how could God leave it up to sinful man? He did not, He established His Bride based on Her FAITH in Him. ALL parts of "her" must have such FAITH in order to be part of the Bride.

Carson, You have shown that you do not take every word of scripture literally as in the case of Peter. Why is that? Why is this one scripture so important to you that you take it so literally?

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "Carson, You have shown that you do not take every word of scripture literally as in the case of Peter. Why is that? Why is this one scripture so important to you that you take it so literally?

I take every part of Scripture literarily; this entails deriving and understanding the intention of the human author of Sacred Scripture.

Jesus is the foundation of the Church. He is the "chief cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20). However, at the moment, He is also seated at the right hand of the Father. (Heb. 1:3). Therefore, in His absence, He designated his disciple Simon to be the visible, subordinate rock upon which the Church would be built. (Matt. 16:18). This is typical of the generous way God allows us to participate in His kingdom. For example, Jesus is the ultimate foundation of the Church, yet the Bible says that the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20); Jesus is the ultimate shepherd of the Church, yet the Ephesian elders were also called shepherds (Acts 20:28); Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man, yet we are commanded to intercede for each other in prayer.

Peter is only the foundation of the Church in a secondary, derivative, subordinate sense. He is like the Old Testament "chief steward" (compare Matt. 16:18-19 with Isaiah 22:22). This in no way detracts from Christ's kingship, rather, it shows it's glory.

click here for Peter in Patristic Thought

 

[Yelsew]

Well, we may be drawing closer to agreement on this one thing, however, If your declarations concerning the church insist on ignoring that the "who and what of Jesus Christ" is the foundation of the church and that belief in Jesus Christ is the morter that provides the church it's strength, and that Peter is but a participant in the churches building as all "who make disciples, baptising them..." are participants in the building. Then we may never arrive at full agreement!

 

[GraceSaves]

Bob,

In the Eucharist, I worship Jesus Christ, the very and only Son of the Living God, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. I may see bread. I may taste bread. I may smell bread. But I worship the living Jesus Christ.

Thus, even if Christ was not present in the Eucharist (although He IS), I would not be committing idolotry, because I am never once worshipping bread, which would be silly, but worshipping Jesus Christ. When you close your eyes and pray in worship to God, are you worshipping your eyelids? Or how about the sky when you look up to Heaven? Yes, it is different in the Eucharist where Christ is PHYSICALLY present, and yet we do not worship the accidents (bread and wine), but the substance, which is Christ Himself.

And when "the Catholic Church" (which is most likely one or two individuals whom you are "quoting," which likely is not from the Magesterium), their argument is poorly worded. I have never worshipped bread; I only worship the Living God.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Bob,

In the Eucharist, I worship Jesus Christ, the very and only Son of the Living God, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. I may see bread. I may taste bread. I may smell bread. But I worship the living Jesus Christ.

Thus, even if Christ was not present in the Eucharist (although He IS), I would not be committing idolotry, because I am never once worshipping bread, which would be silly, but worshipping Jesus Christ. When you close your eyes and pray in worship to God, are you worshipping your eyelids? Or how about the sky when you look up to Heaven? Yes, it is different in the Eucharist where Christ is PHYSICALLY present, and yet we do not worship the accidents (bread and wine), but the substance, which is Christ Himself.

And when "the Catholic Church" (which is most likely one or two individuals whom you are "quoting," which likely is not from the Magesterium), their argument is poorly worded. I have never worshipped bread; I only worship the Living God.

God bless,

Grant

So, GraceSaves, you are telling everyone that you BELIEVE that Jesus is in the Eucharist, But that the Elements themselves are not the real Christ. Welcome to the CHRISTIAN community, for that is what the SCRIPTURES tell us. It is a matter of Belief and not physical reality.

By believing that you are partaking of the Real Christ, you are truly partaking of the Real Christ. But that is not traditionally what the RCC teaches.
How did you arrive at your belief?

 

[GraceSaves]

Yelsew,

That is not what I said. I said the "accidents," not the "elements." My belief did not conflict with the Catholic belief; it IS the Catholic belief. We pay no homage to bread, but to the living Christ.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Yelsew,

That is not what I said. I said the "accidents," not the "elements." My belief did not conflict with the Catholic belief; it IS the Catholic belief. We pay no homage to bread, but to the living Christ.

God bless,

Grant

Then by all means define "accidents" for me. I've always understood Accident to mean, "that which was not planned to happen", or unavoidable mishap, etc.

 

[BobRyan]

Grant said -
In the Eucharist, I worship Jesus Christ, the very and only Son of the Living God, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. I may see bread. I may taste bread. I may smell bread. But I worship the living Jesus Christ.

Thus, even if Christ was not present in the Eucharist (although He IS), I would not be committing idolotry, because I am never once worshipping bread, which would be silly, but worshipping Jesus Christ.

Sounds "good".

Here is what the CC has published..

Eucharist is “idolatry” according to the RCC.

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

Page 350

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

Page 351
A last will is no place for figurative speech (in the RC opinion); under the best of circumstances (human) courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words thig night, untold millions of people would be worshipping Him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. IF He would not really be present UNDER those appearances, the worshippers WOULD be ADORING a MERE PIECE OF BREAD, and WOULD be GUILTY of IDOLATRY,. Certainly that is something that God Himself would set the stage for, by talking in obscure figurative speech.
…
IF Jesus was using a metaphor; if what He really meant was, “This bread is a sort of SYMBOL of My Body, and this win a SYMBOL of My Blood (not yet spilled); hereafter, any time that My followers get together and partake of the bread and wine like this, they will be honoring Me and representing My death”; if that IS what Jesus meant (as many protestants claim), then the apostles got Him all wrong (in the RC option here). And through their misunderstanding (can the RCC blame them instead of the RCC?), mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”

In Christ,

Bob