• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What contributions have Catholics made...

lori4dogs

New Member
Show me in the Bible where transubstantiation is taught.
The miracles of Jesus were performed to demonstrate that He was deity. Even then they rejected Him. No one could perform the miracles that He did, and no one spoke with the authority that He commanded. This was the testimony of both Jews and Romans alike of the time.

Show me where Jesus said 'this only a symbol of my body and blood'?

There were good reasons the disciples believed Jesus meant exactly what He said.

Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, hou have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.

Old Testament: They HAD to consume the Lamb.

I believe that the Eucharist was the New Bread of the Presence:
I believe Jesus has laid claim for himself and his followers, Just as David did, to the priesthood. (2 Samuel 6)
I believe Jesus is the New Temple his disciples will off the New Bread of the Presence.
I believe the New Temple: the temple is His body' (John 2:19-22)

Much I have listed is paraphrased front Brant Pitri research papter and can be found at:
www.BrantPitre.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lori4dogs

New Member
Brant Pitre is currently close yo publishing a book entitled 'Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist' which gives the reasons why the Jewish Christians recognized the Holy Eucharist was firmly grounded in the OT and why so many were willing to suffer martydom instead of re-canting their belief in Jesus True Body and Blood being present at all Eucharist celebrated at all times and all places.

DHK, I expect you will come back with your usual 'there is no such thing as the eucharist. I challenge you to read this book (to be published quite soon) and give your critique.
 

Alive in Christ

New Member
Lori...

"Your absolutely right. They have no grounds for asserting that Jesus or Paul or any of the ECF' were speaking metaphorically. Just the opposite. I was at a Baptist Lords Supper observance recently when the pastor actually said, Jesus took bread, broke it gave thanks and REALLY meant that this was a symbol of his body. He did the same thing when he re-wrote the Jesus' words of institution for the cup of wine. He said Jesus REALLY meant it was just a symbol. WOW! Now that is quite a stretch from what Jesus actually said.

Its not a streach at all, Lori. Its THE TRUTH.

When Jesus said "I am the door", do you believe that as He stood there he briefly turned into a physical DOOR...with hinges and a door knob?

And when Christ said we were to "eat" His body, people misunderstood and He corrected them by saying..."It is the Spirit who gives life. the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you are spirit, and they are life"

Jesus never ever said it was a symbol! (John 6: 63)

Yes, He did. John 6:63

Never mind the ECF's confirming that we partake in the actual body and blood in the Eucharist.

We do not EAT Jesus Christ, Lori. Jesus is not a cracker, cookie or bowl of soup. We "partake" of Him through the ministry of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

I'm going to put this as gently as I can, but If you believe that you literally EAT Jesus, than later on in the day do you believe that you *eliminate* Him?

C'mon Lori. Dont let them lie to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Marcia

Active Member
No, but it seems sensible and much more likely that the Lord would leave it to the faithful in Christ to do this extremely important work.

Not necessarily. God used a pagan ruler Cyrus to bring the Jews back to their land and he used pagan "wise men" to be the first worshipers of Jesus. He used the false prophet Baalam to bless the Jews.

I am not equating the monks to the pagans, just making a point that your assumption/view has no solid ground biblically.

Since the Lord superintended it, don't you think He could have found a way to clarify what he must have REALLY meant and caused it to be translated 'this is only a symbol of my body and the cup is only a symbol of my blood?
*I think the passage is quite clear; it represents belief in Christ. I have analyzed and posted on that passage on these threads at least 3 times.

From the NET Bible
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood. These words are at the heart of the discourse on the Bread of Life, and have created great misunderstanding among interpreters. Anyone who is inclined toward a sacramental viewpoint will almost certainly want to take these words as a reference to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or the Eucharist, because of the reference to eating and drinking. But this does not automatically follow: By anyone’s definition there must be a symbolic element to the eating which Jesus speaks of in the discourse, and once this is admitted, it is better to understand it here, as in the previous references in the passage, to a personal receiving of (or appropriation of) Christ and his work.

Notice that here the result (has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day) is produced by eating (Jesus’) flesh and drinking his blood. Compare John 6:40 where the same result is produced by “looking on the Son and believing in him.” This suggests that the phrase here (eats my flesh and drinks my blood) is to be understood by the phrase in 6:40 (looks on the Son and believes in him).
If you read the passage, it is Jesus saying that one must believe in Him. Eating his body and drinking his blood is not literal - at that time, he was alive so clearly no one could do this. He equates this eating and drinking to belief in Him as the bread of life - which is the theme in John over and over. One must interpret in the context of the passage and the context of the book, and then the context of the NT and the context of the whole bible. God does not endorse cannibalism, which is what this is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lori4dogs

New Member
Lori...



Its not a streach at all, Lori. Its THE TRUTH.

When Jesus said "I am the door", do you believe that as He stood there he briefly turned into a physical DOOR...with hinges and a door knob?

And when Christ said we were to "eat" His body, people misunderstood and He corrected them by saying..."It is the Spirit who gives life. the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you are spirit, and they are life"

Jesus never ever said it was a symbol! (John 6: 63)

Yes, He did. John 6:63



We do not EAT Jesus Christ, Lori. Jesus is not a cracker, cookie or bowl of soup. We "partake" of Him through the ministry of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

I'm going to put this as gently as I can, but If you believe that you literally EAT Jesus, than later on in the day do you believe that you *eliminate* Him?

C'mon Lori. Dont let them lie to you.

"I am the door and you are the branches are both written in metaphorical language. This IS my body, this IS my blood is not!

How big is your God? He manifest Himself in a tiny infant in Bethlehem born to a poor peasant girl. Can He not manifest Himself in bread and wine. BTW, I hope you will read the book by Brent Pitre that is being published. It may give you understanding on where Catholics are coming from. Isn't that what you want? What we REALLY believe and not just what you have been taught through lies like Jack Chick Publications, etc.

If you all have the goods on the Catholic Church, why is it necessary for so many contrived and made up lies (like Jack Chick) etc. to be published. Just stick to the truth.
 

Marcia

Active Member
"I am the door and you are the branches are both written in metaphorical language. This IS my body, this IS my blood is not!

How big is your God? He manifest Himself in a tiny infant in Bethlehem born to a poor peasant girl. Can He not manifest Himself in bread and wine.

There is no reason for Jesus to become bread and wine, especially since this is essentially a pantheistic idea, totally incompatible with the Bible.

The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was sufficient to pay for sins; there is no need for him to become wine and bread in order to be eaten/drunk. For what purpose? To believe in Him is life. There are so many statements of this in the NT that it would be impossible to copy them all here. This is the message of the passage in John 6 as well; Jesus is the bread of life, believing on Him is life.

Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood. These words are at the heart of the discourse on the Bread of Life, and have created great misunderstanding among interpreters. Anyone who is inclined toward a sacramental viewpoint will almost certainly want to take these words as a reference to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or the Eucharist, because of the reference to eating and drinking. But this does not automatically follow: By anyone’s definition there must be a symbolic element to the eating which Jesus speaks of in the discourse, and once this is admitted, it is better to understand it here, as in the previous references in the passage, to a personal receiving of (or appropriation of) Christ and his work.

Notice that here the result (has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day) is produced by eating (Jesus’) flesh and drinking his blood. Compare John 6:40 where the same result is produced by “looking on the Son and believing in him.” This suggests that the phrase here (eats my flesh and drinks my blood) is to be understood by the phrase in 6:40 (looks on the Son and believes in him).
 

lori4dogs

New Member
'but If you believe that you literally EAT Jesus, than later on in the day do you believe that you *eliminate* Him?'

I'll put this a gently as I can. God can take care of Himself and when I humbly receive this prescious Treasure in the Eucharist I don't worry about how the Lord handles the ingested elements. I just know that I feed on Him in my heart by Faith and Thanksgiving.
 

lori4dogs

New Member
There is no reason for Jesus to become bread and wine, especially since this is essentially a pantheistic idea, totally incompatible with the Bible.

The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was sufficient to pay for sins; there is no need for him to become wine and bread in order to be eaten/drunk. For what purpose? To believe in Him is life. There are so many statements of this in the NT that it would be impossible to copy them all here. This is the message of the passage in John 6 as well; Jesus is the bread of life, believing on Him is life.

John 6: For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Couldn't have made it clearer than that. Many of His disciples said: this is impossible to hear and LEFT Him. He didn't say 'oh, no, you misunderstood me, come back. I just meant you feed on me by faith.
 

Alive in Christ

New Member
Lori...

How big is your God?

He is so big I dare not think of him being a cracker.

"He manifest Himself in a tiny infant in Bethlehem born to a poor peasant girl. Can He not manifest Himself in bread and wine.

He is capable of anything, as He is God.

Its not a question of what Christ CAN do, but rather what IS true concerning Himself.

And it is NOT true that we literally, physically, EAT the Lord Jesus Christ. The scriptures, as I, Marcia, DHK and others are showing you, make clear that we do not partake of Christ in that way.

"BTW, I hope you will read the book by Brent Pitre that is being published. It may give you understanding on where Catholics are coming from. Isn't that what you want? What we REALLY believe and not just what you have been taught through lies like Jack Chick Publications, etc.

1st of all, I KNOW where Catholics are coming from, as I was a Catholic for the 1st 24 years of my life. And secondly, I have seen precious few Jack Chick tracts in my life. I've have seen them, but I dont get my convictions from Chick tracts, but rather from comparing what the Catholic Church actually teaches..(from the Catholics own writings, the Catholic Catechism, the Counsels, and the highly respected (by Catholics) Catholic Encyclopedia, etc etc) and comparing that information up against the truth found in the scriptures.
 

Amy.G

New Member
John 6: For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Couldn't have made it clearer than that. Many of His disciples said: this is impossible to hear and LEFT Him. He didn't say 'oh, no, you misunderstood me, come back. I just meant you feed on me by faith.

Eating blood was forbidden by God.

De*12:23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.


Jesus would have never commanded something that was against the Law.


He was not speaking of eating literal blood as that would be sin. He was speaking spiritually.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
'but If you believe that you literally EAT Jesus, than later on in the day do you believe that you *eliminate* Him?'

I'll put this a gently as I can. God can take care of Himself and when I humbly receive this prescious Treasure in the Eucharist I don't worry about how the Lord handles the ingested elements. I just know that I feed on Him in my heart by Faith and Thanksgiving.
God can, and God does take care of Himself.
And when you take the "Eucharist" you don't need to worry about how the Lord handles the ingested elements, because HE doesn't!

This age old belief of the RCC is very much like cannibalism if taken literally. But since the one taking it really believes it is flesh and blood when it isn't, the common person in today's society would label you a sociopath. Truly believing bread is flesh and ought to taste that way, when indeed it is only bread--someone needs a break! Describe it to a doctor, he will say you need help. Yet this is what the RCC believes. It is not what the Apostles believed, nor what Christ taught. He was not a lunatic.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
oh well -- ok... as told by RC Historians and commentors themselves...

1. the Christian Church was massively changed at the time of Constantine

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic book "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

How much influence did Emperor Constantine have on the RCC “really”. How much of a role in moving it past the point of merely “Not persecuted” ?

At first Constantine observed an attitude of formal correctness toward paganism. He remained its Supreme Pontiff, paid homage to the sun god on the official coinage, and in general was careful not to alienate the pagan masses…But he gradually revealed his true feelings. He imposed restrictions on pagan practice and publicly displayed the Christian symbols[/b] He attached the standards of the army to a cross emblazoned with the monograme of Christ and issued coins picturing himself wearing a helmet stamped with the same monogram…he increasingly identified the interests of the state with those of Christianity.
(Bokenkotter "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" page 38) *

“The emperor showed great generosity to the Church in lavishing donations on it and erecting numerous sumptuous basilicas, including the magnificent one over the supposed site of the tomb of Peter at Rome and another over the tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. [b]He surrendered HIS Lateran palace in Rome to the bishop of Rome for a residence and it remained the Papal residence until 1308
. When in 324 he moved the capital of the Empire to Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople after him, he erected numerous churches there…**

"[b]This alliiance with the state profoundly influenced every aspect of the church's thought and life.[/b] It carried many advantages, but it also entailed some serious drawbacks; ... Mass conversions where social conformity was the chief motivating factor; the widening gap between clergy and laity thanks to the official status conferred on them; persecution of dissenters as a menace to the unity of the state. The church would never be the same again - for better and for worse - and so Constantine's conversion is certainly one of the greatest turning points in the history of the Catholic church and of the world." Ibid - Pg 39 ***




Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century



Quote:
"the clergy at first were not sharply differentiated from the laity..the clergy married, raised families, and earned their livelihood at some trade or profession. But as the practice grewof paying them..they withdrew more and more from secular pursuits, until by the fourth century such withdrawal was deemed obligatory"

"
at first the Christian presbyter or elder (as they were really known)
avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and, in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest[/b]. He (the real Christian leader) saw his primary function as the ministry of the word. ..but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character."****

"[b]the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister[/b] as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception,
for infants could not be preached to. "

"before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred (priesthood of all) as opposed to the profane world.
After Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between the church and the world, the polarity between the sacred and profane was transformed into one between the sacred clergy and the profane laity"****

"legislation to this effect was first passed at the local synod of Elvira, Spain and taken up by the popes beginning with Siricius (d. 399), who enforced clerical celebacy (which was adopted mainly on the grounds that sex was incompatible with the sacred character of the clergy
)" *****







Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century





So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today. And the author is clearly pointing to the aspect of paganism introduced into the church at that time.

But that RC author does not stop there - he continues...

in Christ,

Bob


My comments referencing my asterisking above:

*So?

**Ditto

***Agreed to an extent re the Church becoming more 'worldly'. But that doesn't make it apostate, anymore than the rather wordly character of many western denominations today makes them apostate. And persecution of heretics didn't really get going until after the end of the 4th century; up until then Christians were still being persecuted, albeit by Arian rather than pagan Emperors.

****Incorrect: the differentiation between clergy and laity happened much earlier - certainly by the time of Cyprian of Carthage (fl. 250s), as his writings demonstrate, and arguably it can be traced in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (fl. 107).


*****Also incorrect: clerical celibacy in the western Church was only mandated from the 11th century, much later than the period we're talking about, and of course it has never been mandated in the east (bear in mind we're talking about just one Church in the 4th century). You - or rather, the chap you quote - may be getting this confused with the rise of episcopal celibacy but, again, this has far more to do with the rise of monasticism, which again predates Constantine (although, ironically perhaps, was fuelled by the perception of the growing worldliness of the post-Constantinian Church referred to above).
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Catholics of the 20th century publish the connection to paganism for the world to see and understand. (Catholic Digest is the 2nd largest Catholic publication on the planet – though it is not written by the Vatican itself)

Pagan prayer methods.




..


Paganism missing a commandment
What has any of the above got to do with Constantine?
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
God can, and God does take care of Himself.
And when you take the "Eucharist" you don't need to worry about how the Lord handles the ingested elements, because HE doesn't!

This age old belief of the RCC is very much like cannibalism if taken literally. But since the one taking it really believes it is flesh and blood when it isn't, the common person in today's society would label you a sociopath. Truly believing bread is flesh and ought to taste that way, when indeed it is only bread--someone needs a break! Describe it to a doctor, he will say you need help. Yet this is what the RCC believes. It is not what the Apostles believed, nor what Christ taught. He was not a lunatic.
Read any Aquinas?
 

lori4dogs

New Member
God can, and God does take care of Himself.
And when you take the "Eucharist" you don't need to worry about how the Lord handles the ingested elements, because HE doesn't!

This age old belief of the RCC is very much like cannibalism if taken literally. But since the one taking it really believes it is flesh and blood when it isn't, the common person in today's society would label you a sociopath. Truly believing bread is flesh and ought to taste that way, when indeed it is only bread--someone needs a break! Describe it to a doctor, he will say you need help. Yet this is what the RCC believes. It is not what the Apostles believed, nor what Christ taught. He was not a lunatic.

I'm sure you are aware that one of the most common accusations against the early Christian Church was that it was engaging in cannibalism. Apparently their liturgies were not emphasizing (as so many Baptist Churches do) that people are not consuming anything but a symbol of the Lords body. Yet many were persecuted and even but to death for the crime of cannibalism.

I bet they were reading the words Jesus used at the institution of the Lords's supper and not adding the words (its only a symbol) to the original text. Yet, with all this persecution and accusations that even led to death you never read of any of the saying 'you don't understand, we only mean it as a symbol of the Lords body and blood. Imagine that! Even to imprisonment and death.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
I'm sure you are aware that one of the most common accusations against the early Christian Church was that it was engaging in cannibalism. Apparently their liturgies were not emphasizing (as so many Baptist Churches do) that people are not consuming anything but a symbol of the Lords body. Yet many were persecuted and even but to death for the crime of cannibalism.

I bet they were reading the words Jesus used at the institution of the Lords's supper and not adding the words (its only a symbol) to the original text. Yet, with all this persecution and accusations that even led to death you never read of any of the saying 'you don't understand, we only mean it as a symbol of the Lords body and blood. Imagine that! Even to imprisonment and death.

Do Catholics put babies in a loaf of bread and pass it around and eat it? Also I'm wondering if Catholics engage in incest?
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Earlier - Matt asked for some specifics on what the RCC had incorporated from paganism --

Among the RC quotes given was this one

"[b]the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister[/b] as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception, for infants could not be preached to. "

To which we get this non-impressive less-than-compelling response from Matt.

My comments referencing my asterisking above:

*So?

**Ditto

***Agreed to an extent re the Church becoming more 'worldly'. But that doesn't make it apostate

The RC historian I quote - is a little better known as both a Catholic historian and an author than Matt - so for now I will continue quoting Bokenkotter instead of Black. No disrespect intended.

in Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Show me where Jesus said 'this only a symbol of my body and blood'?

There were good reasons the disciples believed Jesus meant exactly what He said.

John 10 - Jesus said "I am the door" not "A door symbolizes me" - but he expected the listener to "figure that out anyway".

John 6 Jesus said
51 "" I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.''
He did not say "Some day in the future AFTER the cross My FLESH WILL be bread".

STILL nobody "took a bite out of Christ" - not even Pope Peter.

It was then that Christ EXPLAINED the illustration saying that it is His WORD that has eternal life - it is His WORD that is to be eaten.

Notice that in John 6 the faithFUL disciples get the point of illustration with bread saying back to Christ "YOU have the WORDS of life".

The faithLESS disciples of John 6 are stuck on the much-too-literal idea " regarding flesh and bread --
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, ""How can this man give us His flesh to eat?''


In Matt 16 Christ chastises the disciples for taking the symbol of bread TOO literally.

Matt 16
9 ""Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand[/b], and how many baskets full you picked up?
10 ""Or the seven loaves of the four thousand,[/b] and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11 ""How is it that you do not understand that
I did not speak to you concerning bread?[/b] But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
12 Then they understood that
He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching[/b] of the Pharisees and Sadducees

It is facinating to me that the Matt 16 problem still persists today.

The WORD is symbolized by BREAD - starting all the way back in Deut 8:3.

Jesus appeals to that same illustration in John 6 - showing that HE is the living bread that came down out of heaven.

John starts his entire gospel off on that subject of the WORD become flesh and coming down - and living among us.

It is a consistent theme of the Bible - and yet it keeps getting missed!!

What a shocker.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Top