Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/16/2025 7:47:53 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
“I didn’t know that for the first 1,500 years of church history, everyone saw it as the literal body and blood of Christ and it wasn’t until 500 years ago that someone popularised the thought that it’s just a symbol and nothing more. I didn’t know that. I thought, ‘Wow, that’s something to consider.’”
“For 1500 years it was never one guy and his pulpit being the centre of the church, it was the body and blood of Christ…”
Despite what some bloggers and YouTubers are claiming, I don’t think we can say from this video and short clip alone that Francis Chan is “swimming the Tiber” and becoming a Catholic. His statements are too broad and vague to say he is specifically talking about transubstantiation…
But overall, I think he’s just experienced that first time realisation that the early church wasn’t what he thought/was taught and it’s blown his mind…
…Another area he touches on is the centrality of the Eucharist to the ancient church compared to many modern, Evangelical church services today, where it’s the speaker or sermon which is the focus and communion sometimes gets sidelined.
The effect of the Reformation in the 16th century on theology as a whole was when the position of the pulpit really started to shift its focus from off-center to the central positioning common today.
I agree with him here, and that point is definitely part of my own journey in why I’ve recently joined the Anglican church, as I enjoy the fact that the whole of the liturgy leads up to the celebration of Christ’s presence with us as the high point of the service. This isn’t to say or diminish the importance of preaching, but that it too should be a stepping stone into the presence of God…
(Excerpt) Read more at medium.com ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Oh! Brother.
Why does this go on and on?
The Lord’s Supper, communion is SYMBOLIC of the sacrifice and is done in REMEMBRANCE of that.
There is no point in sacrificing Him again. It is finished.
Catholicism leads gullible people to eternal damnation.
The pastor is not Catholic, he is commenting on his realization that the early church centered their worship around communion, not a preacher personality.
Which is the same view found in the Lutheran churches, not counting the heretics like the ELCA.
Part two of msg :) Luther wanted to reform the church; Calvin wanted a revolution, ditto the Baptists. (Henry VII just wanted a divorce.)
Nice summary! But Anglicanism ended up adjusting some more theology too.
No.
Unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you will have no life within you.
That is not a symbol.
It’s the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.
This is something Protestantism has forgotten, and why their churches are gravely deficient.
There is no “sacrificing Him again” Catholic Theology teaches there is only one sacrifice offered once and for all. What is present at the Mass is a memorial of the sacrifice. Literally the one sacrifice made present so that those here and now can partake of the one same offering.
Consider learning clearly what you are bashing.
Check an apologists response to this. This was a simple google.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM_H-VfRW44&t=5s
Whatever disagreements you might have with Catholicism,this shouldn’t be one of them because it’s not a Catholic belief.
I expect most Christians, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox would agree that Holy Week, including the Last Supper is the most consequential week in the entire history of humanity. It’s hard to imagine that in that context Christ would not have chosen his words carefully, and the gospel writers would not have reported those words exactly.
Among the relevant verses in this matter (all KJV) are the following:
Mark 14:22. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Luke 22:19. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Matthew 26:26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
In every case the relevant verb is “is” - not “symbolizes” or “represents” or even
with a modifier such as “is like”. Now I will agree that if one wants to one can interpret those biblical verses as designating a symbolic activity, but I can’t help but see that argument as distinctly Clintonian - it comes down to saying it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
Catholics were the first church...scripture..take this and eat it, this is my body.
The Johnny come lately Christians just react to everything catholic...that,s their whole point.
Wow..what a twisted way to avoid true scripture..
Or is just Christians interpreting scripture different to fit their version of christianity.
The word of God depends on which christian church you go to
Catholics were the first church..
I see again how gullible so many are.
2 Tim 2:15
You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
The Catholic Church portrays Jesus on the cross-their crucifix.
That fits perfectly with the repeated sacrifice in your liturgy of the Eucharist.
Which has nothiing to do with a “repeated sacrifice.” Maybe you like to play pretend.
You used twisted and argue relativism in the same argument.
Maybe according to you its twisted. But I bet your church was founded by people who twisted scripture.
History has it out of the early christian groups..catholic church as such and emerged..so where do the other churches who exist in the last 3 centuries come from..since Luther’s time or before that they didn’t exist.
It’s what christianity was until fairly recently..post midevil
And to this day...Christians can’t even agree on basic theology
Then they quote scripture to fit whichever church or pastor is.
You expect me to believe when the churches can’t agree on theology and scripture and if I disagree you tell me I’m wrong and I’ll go to he’ll.
When Christians are honest I’ll believe,
In John 6, Jesus specifically points to the manna, which Scripture calls "bread of angels" and "bread from heaven" as a type (foreshadowing) of what he will provide. The antitype (thing foreshadowed) always has to be bigger and better than the type, or the topology serves no purpose. A mere symbolic remembrance doesn't beat out "bread of angels" and "bread of heaven," so that can't be it. Hebrews explains that the old covenant consisted of symbols of the heavenly things, which have now been replaced by something muvh better. Replacing one set of symbols by another doesn't do that.
The whole "resacrificing Jesus" canard comes about because you don't understand how OT sacrifice worked. The death of the victim begins the sacrifice, it doesn't end it. It then has to be offered on the altar and finally the priest and usually the person for whom it is being offered have to share it. This is a three part liturgy of killing, offering, and communion.
So when Jesus said "It is finished," the "it" was not his sacrifice, because neither the offering nor the communion had taken place yet. (Paul writes in Romans that Jesus had to be raised for our justification, so clearly all the work he did on our behalf wasn't finished at Calvary.) Hebrews says that the offering is both over with and going on now as Jesus appears in the heavenly Holy of Holies, not with the blood of goats or bulls, but with his own blood.
So nobody is ever "resacrificed". There is one sacrifice, which will continue in the "offering" and "communion" phases until the end of time.
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.