The Eucharist (as practiced by the Roman Church)

[Dr. Walter]

I guess Ignatius who was instructed by the Apostles themselves has NO CREDIBILITY either. However, we are to believe the Baptist doctrine invented (man-made) by people far removed from the company of Apostles. Incredible!

Apparently, you have not been reading the posts! I Corinthians 5:6-8 has been given as absolute evidence of Apostolic doctrine in regard to the Lord's Supper. If you didn't read it, then go back and read it. The apostle directly addresses "the feast" Christians observe as "Christ OUR passover" and commands them what they are to use and why they are to use in the Lord's supper.

1. They are not to use "leavened" bread
2. They are to use "unleavened bread"
3. They are to use "unleavened bread" because it symbolizes what characterized Christ - sincerity and truth.

 

[Grace&Truth]

I have to say as a Baptist that I believe in "The Real Presense." Every Saved person lives with "The Real Presense" of Jesus within them. We do not have to take Communion to experience "The Real Presense," "The Real Presense" of Jesus is individully as well as corporately in our Communion Service in each and every Believer. Jesus already indwells me.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

at this point then several questions need to be asked, since many protestants like to uses John 6:63 to mean that all teachings prior to this verse were symbolic terms:

1) where else in Holy Scripture is "spirit" ever interpreted as "symbolic"?
2) since there's no other instance of "spirit" meaning "symbolic", by what criteria do those who reject this teaching insist on applying the "symbolic" meaning to John 6:63?
3) since God, human souls, angles, and Satan are "spirits", does that mean they too are merely "symbolic"...if not, why interpret "spirit" in John 6:63 as meaning "symbolic"?

In addition, it's worthy to repeat the words of written by St. Ignatius...St. Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostles John and Peter...this was written in 107AD:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.​

Now, we accept that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John, who had a disciple for himself, St. Ignatius...We can conclude also that St. Ignatius was familiar with Johns Gospel and probably had every opportunity to ask the Apostle many, many questions concerning John 6...after all the Apostle John knew Jesus Christ personally and could answer his questions...

We also know that Christ promised His Apostles that He (Christ) would be with them always...we'll the Apostles are dead, yet they (the Apostles) made disciples for themselves and St. Ignatius later became bishop of the Church...the same Church of which they (the Apostles) established by the Great Commission of our Lord...Christ also promised His Holy Spirit would remind His Church of ALL things...So to me, I find it difficult to believe that St. Ignatius would write something contrary to what the Apostle John would approve and taught him.

in XC
-

1. John 6: Read it..read it again...there is nothing in that chapter concerning the Lord's Table. Why do papists, kinda-papists, and some protestants keep insisting it does?

2. "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." which was preceded by "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" because "Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"

And v63 is followed by "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."

A child can understand this, that is, even one new in the faith. I'll put it simply:

1. Jesus said eat me.
2. Everyone got grossed out.
3. Even the diciples were a little freaked out.
4. Jesus said flesh doesn't do any good.
5. Jesus said the Spirit gives life.
6. Jesus said HIs words are Spirit and they are life.
7. Jesus said believe in Him, and come to Him.
8. Jesus said no can come to Him and believe in Him except God the Father give that person to Jesus.

The Apostles are only dead to those who are themselves dead. Those who are alive in Christ Jesus hear the Apostles in Holy Scripture, which is really not the words of men, but the words of God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The bible doesn't support the bread literally transforming into the physical body of Christ.

Do Catholics or Orthodox believe it turns into the physical body of Christ? Or the Substance (oiusia) of Christ? Substance is consider to the reality behind the observation. Or the truth beyond matter. Is it a flesh truth or a spritual truth in their minds. If the later why the accusation?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

RAdam, although i may not know every minute detail of Church History, I do know enough to get by and in that regard, i'm defiantly not ignorant of Church history...

The Patriarchate of Rome as of 1054 (and possibly earlier) was its own body, separate from the remaining four (4) Patriarchates in the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria).

Long before Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the door and officially ushered in the "Reformation", there were already little uprisings of fringe offshoots from the RCC and yes, the Roman Church were persecuting them.

Meanwhile, the remaining four (4) Patriarchates in the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria) had their own hands full with Islam, that had taken over their lands and were being persecuted themselves...mainly by unfair taxes and laws set upon them.

The Reformation of the western Church had nothing to do with the Churches in the East...Rome wasn't even persecuting the Orthodox Churches in the East, BUT that doesn't mean Rome didn't have their way with the Churches during the Crusades...oh, the Roman army sent out by the Roman Church sacked Constantinople numerous times, mind you.

Now my question to you is why do we see these fringe Baptist Churches ONLY in the Western Europe, near where the Patriarchate of Rome was?

Why don't or didn't we hear of any near or around, let say Antioch, where the Bible records those there were first called Christians?

In XC
-

To be fair Constantinanople was sacked by crusaders who didn't always hold the the desires of the Roman Church. In fact the very horrible of that city was conducted by Venicians who wanted payment for their efforts. They were all excommunicated from the Roman church. So not every thing was the Roman Churches fault but naughty crusaders

 

[RAdam]

Do Catholics or Orthodox believe it turns into the physical body of Christ? Or the Substance (oiusia) of Christ? Substance is consider to the reality behind the observation. Or the truth beyond matter. Is it a flesh truth or a spritual truth in their minds. If the later why the accusation?

They believe it really is the body of Christ.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

They believe it really is the body of Christ.

In what sense? Ousia or substance rather than physicality. Physically its still bread and wine.

 

[RAdam]

In what sense? Ousia or substance rather than physicality. Physically its still bread and wine.

They believe it really is the body of Christ. I understand it is still bread and wine, but that's not what they believe.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

To be fair Constantinanople was sacked by crusaders who didn't always hold the the desires of the Roman Church. In fact the very horrible of that city was conducted by Venicians who wanted payment for their efforts. They were all excommunicated from the Roman church. So not every thing was the Roman Churches fault but naughty crusaders

I always in some way kinda felt Rome got a bad rap out of the Crusades anyway...I mean all the other Patriarchates were then and still are today under Islamic rule and at that time Islam was knocking on Western Europe's backdoor...So Rome really had no choice but to recruit "thugs" if you will, to try and win back Jerusalem from Islamic control.

Then again, these thugs weren't totally on their own either...there were RC clergy with these Crusaders and many had a very bad taste in their mouths in regard to the Eastern Churches and many of them turned a blind eye towards the pillaging that was going on as they made their way to Jerusalem.

BUT, we should ALL be thankful for the true RC warriors...like the Knights Malta who fought against the Turks and kept Islam from sweeping through Western Europe.

In XC
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

They believe it really is the body of Christ. I understand it is still bread and wine, but that's not what they believe.

I posted this earlier but is worth repeating and elaborated on...

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him "in their hearts." In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord's last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term "symbols" for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a "mystery" and the sacrifice of the liturgy a "spiritual and bloodless sacrifice." These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.

The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself "the bread of life" (Jn 6:34, 41).

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).​

Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ's flesh, and Christ's flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word "symbolical" in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: "to bring together into one."

Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26).​

The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist -- and Christ himself -- is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The eucharist -- because it belongs to God's Kingdom -- is truly free from the earth-born "logic" of fallen humanity.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

They believe it really is the body of Christ. I understand it is still bread and wine, but that's not what they believe.

They believe it to be the body of christ in the Ousia sense or substance. The truth behind the observation. Let me put it this way. In CS Lewis' the Great Divorse we notice that the main character is a physical being who ends up in heaven but as a physical man he's like a whisp of smoke in the spiritual reality of heaven where trees are greener or more real. Once he puts on the spiritual he's more substantive. In this way the Catholic Church looks at the Eucharist. Its a spiritual truth which is more real than the physical existance we live in. We notices the whisp of physicalness of the Eucharist remains the same ie bread and wine. The truth behind it all so to speak is the reality or substantive change.

 

[Dr. Walter]

They believe it to be the body of christ in the Ousia sense or substance. The truth behind the observation. Let me put it this way. In CS Lewis' the Great Divorse we notice that the main character is a physical being who ends up in heaven but as a physical man he's like a whisp of smoke in the spiritual reality of heaven where trees are greener or more real. Once he puts on the spiritual he's more substantive. In this way the Catholic Church looks at the Eucharist. Its a spiritual truth which is more real than the physical existance we live in. We notices the whisp of physicalness of the Eucharist remains the same ie bread and wine. The truth behind it all so to speak is the reality or substantive change.

Thinkingstuff, DO YOU BELIEVE that too??? Tell us what YOU believe about the bread and wine. I want to know what the position of Thinkingstuff is on the supper?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff, DO YOU BELIEVE that too??? Tell us what YOU believe about the bread and wine. I want to know what the position of Thinkingstuff is on the supper?

How many times must I explain what I believe. I've said it again and again and again. Just because I'm explaining what is actually being discussed and clarifying what has been said so that people can respond with out saying some nonsenseical thing like "it doesn't taste like blood or flesh". I was just making a point of clarification. I've already in other post have made my stand on this issue.

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about here

 

[Dr. Walter]

How many times must I explain what I believe. I've said it again and again and again. Just because I'm explaining what is actually being discussed and clarifying what has been said so that people can respond with out saying some nonsenseical thing like "it doesn't taste like blood or flesh". I was just making a point of clarification. I've already in other post have made my stand on this issue.

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about here

Oh, that is right! You believe the historic Baptist position that is spelled out in every Baptist confession of faith. You believe they are merely gospel symbols that do not impart grace or saving value but merely put us in remembrance of Calvary and that is why you have joined a Baptist Church because you believe in this historic Baptist teaching on the ordinances that deny they convey any saving value at all, other than, declaring that salvation is in the gospel of Christ - His death, burial and resurrection! RIGHT???????? Or do you reject the historic Baptist position?????

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Oh, that is right! You believe the historic Baptist position that is spelled out in every Baptist confession of faith. You believe they are merely gospel symbols that do not impart grace or saving value but merely put us in remembrance of Calvary and that is why you have joined a Baptist Church because you believe in this historic Baptist teaching on the ordinances that deny they convey any saving value at all, other than, declaring that salvation is in the gospel of Christ - His death, burial and resurrection! RIGHT???????? Or do you reject the historic Baptist position?????

I believe that as believers; independently and by community, are the temple of Christ and are the Holy of Holies. We can go directly to God. And that all we do is in the presence of the living God.

 

[DHK]

The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. ...

Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated...

Islam has their mystics too. Any resemblance?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I believe that as believers; independently and by community, are the temple of Christ and are the Holy of Holies. We can go directly to God. And that all we do is in the presence of the living God.

God is omnipresent and there is no escape from doing all that you do in His presence regardless of what you believe or do not beleive. Since your view of the church is salvation - to be saved is to be in your kind of church and to be lost is to be outside your kind of church (presumably you don't believe the lost are the temple of Christ and holy of holies), then the ordinances bring you no more into the presence of Christ than prayer does or helping a little old man cross the street in the name of Christ.

Now do you believe that final and utlimate salvation includes helping the little old man across the street as much as observing the ordinances? In other words, is your continuing consistently and characteristically in "good works" inseparable from securing ultimate justification for entrance into heaven? Would you say that Romans 2:7 describes your view of salvation????

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Islam has their mystics too. Any resemblance?

Not that i really care, but if so, they probably stole it from Judaism...

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

God is omnipresent and there is no escape from doing all that you do in His presence regardless of what you believe or do not beleive. Since your view of the church is salvation - to be saved is to be in your kind of church and to be lost is to be outside your kind of church (presumably you don't believe the lost are the temple of Christ and holy of holies), then the ordinances bring you no more into the presence of Christ than prayer does or helping a little old man cross the street in the name of Christ.

Yes this is correct.

Now do you believe that final and utlimate salvation includes helping the little old man across the street as much as observing the ordinances? In other words, is your continuing consistently and characteristically in "good works" inseparable from securing ultimate justification for entrance into heaven? Would you say that Romans 2:7 describes your view of salvation????

You mean this verse?

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

Well if its in conjunction with or with this understanding.

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code

and

22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

amd

No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law

and

24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

because faith and what you do in faith is inseperable.

 

[DHK]

Not that i really care, but if so, they probably stole it from Judaism...

In XC
-

The gnostics were mystics. John (in his First Epistle) declared them as heretics. Biblical Christianity is not mysticism. By this alone your teaching is heretical. We do not have a mystical religion or better put a mystical faith. Everything we believe is based on fact. Hindus and the Islam mystics go by blind faith; faith that has no real object. The object of my faith is Christ. What about you? You put your faith in something that doesn't exist or you cannot demonstrate that exists? That is not for me. That is for Hindus, and related religions. Neither did the practicing Jews believe in mysticism. In that you are wrong. Your practice is a heathen one.