Posted on 01/05/2014 1:56:06 PM PST by Steelfish
The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thes. 2:15)
"And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2)
INTRODUCTION
Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike think that the Roman Catholic Church invented the doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine presented on the altar at the Mass become the the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit at the consecration.
The consecration is the time when the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood. However, the Body and Blood retain the appearance of bread and wine. The Roman Catholic Church, that is, the Latin Rite Catholic Church, and other Catholic Churches in communion with Rome believe that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. The Orthodox Churches and most other Churches of the East do so as well.
Anglican [Episcopalian] and other Protestant denominations have interpreted Christ's presence at the celebration of the Lord's Supper or Eucharist to be either only spiritual, or symbolic, or non-existent.
The Early Christians actually took the Real Presence for granted. It doesn't even seem as if there was much debate. I could not find anyone who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament before the year 500 A.D. Following are the results of my search.
(Excerpt) Read more at therealpresence.org ...
bingo!
Look, it was left to Peter and His disciples to write down and TEACH the words of God. Thus an authoritative structure was established. It had to be ONE truth, and Christ as far as we can tell established ONE Church to deliver his Great Commission until the end of times. He instituted the Eucharist for this purpose as confirmed by Scripture, and early and unbroken Church tradition and revelation. Saints, scholars, theologians from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman to Benedict confirm all of this.
From the very inception, this was all about authority and how it was handed down, by interpretation and tradition. This was not left to Luther, to you, me, or to the David Koresh’s and Billy Graham’s or Jim Jones’s of this world. When Christ says one must forgive 70 x7, that’s an expression and it doesn’t mean one forgives upto 490 times. Words require interpretation by not only text but by context, design, purpose, and traditions. For example, Christ used a number of parables relate to farming because this is how his audience could relate to.
Thus it is the ridiculous nature of you Scripturalists that have brought about a scandalous a flurry of heresies leading to several thousands of Protestants sects including a Church of God where serpent worship rituals are found in Kentucky. This sheer and manifest folly doesn’t seem to open up your mind when scores if not hundreds of theologians form a variety of denominations have seen the light and converted to the Catholic Faith.
But then again, low-information Christians think they can crack open the pages of Scripture, select some quotes from here and there, and give it any interpretation they believe comports with “their” idea of what is in Scripture. Hence the prosperity Gospel of the Joel Osteen and the revolutionary Gospel of Jeremiah Wrights.
The Catholic Church is the mustard tree, it is the Rock of Peter, its Catechism is the infallible teaching of the Christ founded on the four pillars of scripture, tradition, revelation and faith.
The fact remains that the church did not begin under you model, but began upon the basis of Scriptural substantiation in dissent from those who were the stewards of Scripture, and the inheritors of promises of God's presence and preservation, and had historical descent, and sat in the seat of Moses with a structure and authority.
And thus under the Roman model, in which those whom she rejects are invalid (based upon the premise that she is the stewards of Scripture, and the inheritor of promises of God's presence and preservation, and has historical descent), then the church itself began on an invalid basis.
And while you can rant about Al Sharptons, ignoring the unity that has made evangelicals overall more unified in conservative views than even weekly Catholics, your model has the problem is competing sola ecclesia churches each claiming to be the OTC based upon their interpretation of evidence.
You can argue for Rome being the OTC based on evidence, yet that is not your basis for assurance, as it is for evangelical types regarding Scripture, but your assurance is based upon the premise that Rome's interpretation of Scripture, Tradition and history is correct. But which is not the basis under which the church began.
But which is why you never actually deal with the fundamental problems with your polemic, and what refutes the false premises, logical fallacies and broken record irrelevant rants about men that you invoke. Thus you have marginalized yourself as just another ranter.
Making a judgment on who is saved or lost based upon what they believe and do is most certainly not what the Lord disallowed...
___________________________________________________________
I do not set myself up as arbiter towards who is saved or not and wouldn’t recommend that for anyone. I am being consistent as was Jesus when he used the Greek word “Trogo”, which means to eat or chew 12 times in describing the Eucharist. As far as the Apostles go, the real presence was not even an issue (not even for Luther)for several hundred years of Christian history (those closest to the Apostles). To judge who is saved or not seems to me to go completely against the spirit and letter of the Beatitudes, for I doubt one can be “blessed in poor and spirit” while sitting in judgement of others.
First it was only those who believed in the Trinity. You are avoiding your inconsistency by confusing being an individual judge of someone, whose heart you may not know, with making a judgment based upon the premise that what they profess it accurate of their belief.
And thus, if you believe the Bible and its gospel, you can say that if one believes they will be saved because they are good enough, or trust in a false god, then they cannot be saved.
I am being consistent as was Jesus when he used the Greek word “Trogo”, which means to eat or chew 12 times in describing the Eucharist.
Likewise, if your really do believe Jn. 6:53,54 is referring to the literally the actual consuming the real flesh and blood of Christ, then you MUST concludes that those who do not have no life in them, and cannot have eternal life.
You are not being consistent with the ramifications of your literalistic position, nor did the Lord use “Trogo” 12 times in describing the Eucharist. The word is used only 6 times, that being for "eats" or "eating" as in "in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking," (Mat 24:38) while esthiō, or more precisely its aorist stem phag-, is used for "eat" in Jn. 6, and no distinction is made btwn the two here except as "eats" versus "eat."
The fact is that consuming human flesh, even in part, to gain their qualities is pagan, and foreign to Scripture. Likewise the idea of physically consuming food to gain spiritual life and eternal life is flatly contrary to Scripture and the gospel of John.
And which clearly uses figurative language for Christ many times leading up to Jn. 6, while such language is often used for eating, as already briefly shown in a previous post
I have already examined and dealt with arguments for the literal position much more here and here , could go into this further here by God's grace, but since Scripture is not the supreme authority for truth, but Rome is, and thus objective examination of it to determine the veracity of Rome's doctrine is discouraged, then any discussion should begin with you convincing me that the magisterium of Rome is necessary for assuredly knowing Truth on faith and morals.
To judge who is saved or not seems to me to go completely against the spirit and letter of the Beatitudes, for I doubt one can be “blessed in poor and spirit” while sitting in judgement of others.
It seems so many RCs as well as many nominal Prots take the Beatitudes as the supreme definition for what a Christian is, like as atheists invoke "do unto others...", however both require a foundational theological basis which defines such things as in what being meek means, so that it is not opposed to Christ using a whip, and when being a peacemaker is right, versus creating division which Christ also came to do.
And thus, contrary to the idea that judging who is saved or not based upon what they believe is completely against the spirit and letter of the Beatitudes, we see the Lord condemning souls for making souls "twofold more the child of hell than yourselves," (Mt. 23:15) and Paul likewise calling a man a "child of the devil," based upon him being a false prophet, and another a whitewashed wall. (Acts 13:10; 23:3) And warning that those who preach a false gospel are accursed. (Gal. 1:6-9)
Which you are if you take Jn. 6 literally, as that must require you (as well as all who do so) to consider those who do not take it literally as being spiritually dead, and headed for Hell. Which lost condition i believe most RCs and many Prots are in, due to never having a real day of salvation of personal repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save them as damned + destitute sinners, which day of salvation i myself as an RC did not have until in my 20s. But which i pray all have and then keep the faith.
“polemic,” “false premises,” “logical fallacies” and “broken record.”
Wow! that I guess describes all the writings of the early Church Fathers; the works and treatises of scores of historical and theological scholars spanning over 2000 years, the writings from Augustine to Aquinas- Newman- Benedict, and all the saints and martyrs were misled on the teaching of the Christ. Voila!
So says the “The Church of Daniel1212)
That is precisely your problem, the church over Scripture, thus consuming human flesh to gain life giving properties like pagans. And as even necessary for salvation, thus condemning all who do not assent to this unScriptural error. Even if they refuse to admit they must believe all such are lost.
Pure foolishness. Back to question #1. Christ used the word “Church” and question #2 who gets to authoritatively interpret Scripture?
Billy Graham? Al Sharpton? Jim Jones? Rev. Schuller, Martin Luther? Calvin? Wesley? AnaBaptists? Mormons? …ok I get the point anyone can find, choose, and pick their flavor and no wonder we have the mega churches of the prosperity gospel. This is the lunacy the one true Catholic Church has to contend with heretical faiths.
Back to question #1. Christ used the word “Church” and question #2 who gets to authoritatively interpret Scripture?
"Back?" The issue is not that "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same" (Westminster), but whether the church is the supreme and (conditionally) infallible authority, and thus able to teach as doctrines such tradition of men as the Immaculate conception, Purgatory and Indulgences, papal infallibility (all of the EOs reject because they are untraditional) and Assumption.
Thus question #1 was upon what basis is your assurance that Rome is the one true infallible church, and conditionally infallible.
You seemed to affirm your basis for assurance rested upon evidence, even though objectively examining evidence, with Scripture being supreme, to determine the veracity of RC doctrine would render you reasoning as an evangelical.
You ignored your problem here and proceeded to go wityh more irrelevance and another rant, thus the basis for your assurance remains to be the issue.
If the answer as to your basis for assurance rests upon the premise of Rome being assuredly correct, for which is invoked historical descent and the "we gave you the Bible" argument, then the questions 2 and 3 are,
2. where can you show in Scripture (in condescension to me) that being the instrument and steward of Scripture and having historical descent means such steward is infallible, and,
3. that an infallible magisterium is necessary in order to recognize and establish writings as Scripture, and determine and preserve Truth, and as critical for you to have assurance.
Billy Graham? Al Sharpton? Jim Jones? Rev. Schuller, Martin Luther? Calvin? Wesley? AnaBaptists? Mormons?
This rant avoids the unity that historically made the fundamental evangelical movement the chief threat to cults, liberals and Rome, while that RCs also interpret their interpreter ending up with factions and sects, while the RC model ends up with competing claims btwn elitist sola ecclesia churches as being the OTC, and that this was not the basis upon which the church began, in the face of competing claims.
Any more rants and refusing to deal with the fundamental questions i presented will not simply marginalize you more but render further diversionary rants to be ignored
The cluster of Protestant heresies a “chief threat” to Catholicism! This is the unreal world of Protestants like you inhabit when in truth these 35,000 sects are more like varieties of wild mushrooms that grow, fade, and wither, around the great mustard tree of the Catholic Church founded by the Christ with authoritative power that was given (not to the Billy Grahams, not to the Rick Warrens; not to the Rev. Schullers; not to the Al Sharptons, not to the Jeremiah Wrights; not to the Jim Jones; not to the David Koreshs, not to the Joel Osteens, not to the Tammy Faye Bakers, and not to every corner street Pastor of your local corner street Foursquare Churches of this world to crack open the pages of Scripture and toss around their own low IQ interpretations on the “teachings” of Christ) ONLY to Peter, his disciples, and the earthly “Church” founded on the Rock of Peter with the Divine guarantee that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it.
Meanwhile the prosperity gospels are a “chief threat” to the pocket books of well-heeled low IQ congregants who flock to see these charlatans build their “Protestant” empires enrich themselves and their families. Each generation produces these scoundrels purporting to “authoritatively” interpret the teachings of Christ. This is the continuing lunacy of the remnants of Protestants now reduced by Lutherans, Anglicans, Black Churches, and very assortment of nonsense to accept gay bishops and homosexuality as part and parcel of Scriptural teaching.
As all you do is irrationally resort to rants in avoiding fundamental questions and what refutes you, then you are being IGNORED. You are a testimony to what cultic devotion to Rome can do to one’s mind.
“Fundamental questions”!!!!
That’s what we have been been relentlessly providing you by exposing the sheer absurdity of the heresies of Protestantism. We have provided the early tradition, of the Church, how the Bible was assembled together based on this unerring authority, how this authority was administered from Peter down to Francis and how scripture and tradition, revelation, and theological scholarship support the reality of the transubstantiation as confirmed by the learned doctors, scholars, and leading theologians of their time and how they have come to accept the Catholic Church as the ONE, TRUE, APOSTOLIC CHURCH right down to major Lutheran and Anglican converts, and it is we who avoid “fundamental questions”? Nice try!
Oh, I guess in retrospect this is what David Koresh, Billy Graham, Joel Osteen would be saying too, that the Church avoids “fundamental questions” and it is “their” view of Scripture or that the “views” of daniel1212 that is authentic and authoritatively derived. Such is the ludicrous nature of of your position and why form Jeremiah Wright to the low-information scripturalists like Billy Graham attract their fans.
Rather, you simply provide more evidence that you cannot answer those fundamental questions. Pointing out the negative examples of one model (SS) of determining Truth (even though many did not operate out of that means) ignores the problem that Rome's model has the same. Moreover, the things you invoke cannot even be the basis for your assurance, and which you require us to submit to. Which assurance is based upon the premise that Rome is all she claims to be.
And as our assurance is based on Scripture, you must establish on the basis that an infallible magisterium is necessary to recognize writings as Scripture, and define and establish Truth, and that being the instrument and steward of Scripture, etc., means such body is that infallible magisterium, and thus all it rejects are to be rejected. Which you cannot and must not do.
I have been exceedingly patient with you, thus do not even bother to reply until you answer the questions i asked you many times, and you avoided answering.
Well we are all waiting the whole world, actually with bated breath to your answers to these “fundamental questions” that the Catholic Church has answered from Peter to Francis. So please tell us your answers. Wow! We can’t wait to hear the great answers revealed to us by daniel1212 that would contradict Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, Benedict and hundreds of leading theologians who converted to the Catholic faith, to say nothing of the saints and martyrs.
Oh my, you may have some colleges and universities named after you! So what version of Christ’s teachings are “you” going to give us? a version of Al Sharptom, Jim Jones, Billy Graham, Osteen, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jimmy Swaggart, Tammy Faye Baker, Schuller, or their family successors!!!
The “cluster of heresies” spawned by the evils of Protestantism are now in the final stages of rot and decay with Lutherans now accepting gay and lesbian Bishops as being scripturally sound as do the Anglicans.
No answers are enough for you. Not the work and traditions of the early Fathers, not the Church that authoritatively established the books you call the Bible, not the Church that gave us the Gregorian calendar by which you and your Protestants celebrate the feast days of Christmas, Good Friday and Easter. Not the Church of sacred tradition that have given us martyrs and saints.
No, your authenticity in the end comes down to what “you” think is the teaching of Christ based on “your” understanding of the fragments of Scripture “you” choose to select and “you” choose to interpret. Wonderful, Isn’t it?
This is the line of thinking that has produced our David Koresh’s and Jimmy Swaggarts, and TD Jakes, Billy Grahams, and Joel Osteens, and the rest of the circus clowns of Christianity who have provided a nice nest egg for themselves, their wives, and families.
Come Christmas go to some vapid entertainment using early Catholic hymns, that passes off for Christmas “services,” and come Easter go gather at the beach with your neighbor Four Square Church pastor for “sunrise” services and belt out “Alleluias” composed by the great Catholic classical composers.
I warned you that if you continued to refuse to answer the fundamental questions i asked you from the beginning then you (and your replacement rants) would be ignored, thus they will be. And least stop using “we,” as its been you alone, and no wonder.
It’s not that we Catholics don’t answer these “fundamental questions,” they have been answered for 2000 years. You just don’t like the answer that establishes the Catholic Church as the one single sole authority provided by Christ to “teach.” So why don’t you tell us and the whole wide world what are “your” answers and tell us why David Koresh is wrong, why Billy Graham is wrong, why the Lutherans, are wrong, why Sharpton is wrong, why David Koresh is wrong, and why Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict are all wrong, and why all the leading theologians of the early Church that accepted the Catholic Church as the ONE true holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church are all wrong.
Maybe you should write a book telling us “your” answers to your “own” “fundamental questions.” After all this a serious subject about eternal truth and everlasting salvation, so please set forth your answers for the whole world to review and why Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict and leading Catholic theologians are all so wrong and how the saints and martyrs of the Church were all so hopelessly mislead as “followers of a cult” because there this fellow called daniel1212 and he alone has “his” right answers to what “he” calls fundamental questions as “he” derives fro “his” reading of Scripture. Brilliant!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.