Replies

LOL, some make the mistake of believing because they can’t find a word for a particular doctrine before a certain point in history, that that means the doctrine was not believed or known before that time. In reality, it means just the opposite! the best example of this is Jehovah Witnesses claiming that Jesus Christ was made God at the Council of Nicea and before this no one believed He was God. Totally FALSE! It is when a doctrine or belief is challenged that the Church feels the need to defend it or to explain it more fully. Same thing can be said for the doctrine of the Trinity in the 4th century, the doctrine of God as One BEING in three persons ( btw, the Holy Spirit is not the Lord Jesus Christ, you haven’t been reading Ellen G White have you?? )was attacked and the Church defined the Trinityn formally.
so anyone who believes that “transubstantiation” was first believed in the 13th century, must explain how the Coptic Church and the Chaldean Orthodox Church, both of which broke from the Catholic Church in the 5th century believe it? hmm, isn’t that interesting? let’s look at the Greek Orthodox Church which went into schism in the 11th century, they believe it. how can that be if the belief came in the 13th century?
you bring up Tertullian quote, but even that qote says “he made it his own body” did you read that? the bread was made into his own body. lest you doubt that, here are more Tertullian quotes:

Tertullian’s The Resurrection of the Dead [8,2] A.D. 208-212:
The flesh, then, is washed, so that the soul may be made clean. The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded with the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. They cannot, then, be separated in their reward, when they are united in their works.

Tertullian [ca. 200/206 AD] in his treaties on Prayer [6,2], quotes John 6 in connection with a spiritual understanding of the Lord’s prayer “give us this day our daily bread.” In a spiritual sense Christ is our daily Bread, presumably because of the practice of the daily reception of the Eucharist.
Later in that same treatise [19,1] he writes;

Likewise, regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the sacrificial prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive the Body of the Lord. Does the Eucharist, then, obviate a work devoted to God, or does it bind it more to god? Will not your fast be more solemn if, in addition, you have stood at God’s altar? The body of the Lord having been received and reserved, each point is secured: both the participation in the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.

while i am at it, i will throw in a bonus quote from Justin Martyr written to the Roman Emperor explaining Christian belief in his Apology:

Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ

It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.’’ Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood’’, and he gave it to them alone

notice his statement that they were taught after the “change” is the “flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh”.

what i love about the writings of Ignatius, Justin and Tertullian is they show what the Catholic Faith was in the 2nd century, 1,300 years before the world even heard of a Protestant.

i am sorry if you feel i am repeating myself, but the doctrine of the Eucharist is a central doctrine of the Christian Faith, one that is so important that Jesus Christ Himself delivered it to Paul ( 1 Corinthians 11:23 )

i will leave you with a new thought to pray over. In 1 Corinthians 11:27 Paul says “whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of PROFANING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD.
how can someone be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, if the body and blood of the Lord aren’t present??

You have proved repeatedly here that no amount of discussion will sway you from the dogma you hold to be true and by which you hold the Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY true church of Jesus Christ. This doctrine of the Eucharist - one that DID develop over centuries and which was NOT held by the early church OR the Apostles - is what the Roman Catholic Church has asserted is her "trump card". By that, I mean she has proclaimed that ONLY Catholic ordained priests are entitled and deemed "worthy" to confect the elements of the communion service by their special prayers and change them mysteriously into the literal body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ BY WHICH all those who partake are given the "right" kind of infused grace necessary to pay for their currently confessed and penanced sins and which is only a promissory note of final sanctification sufficient to permit one into heaven after all Purgatory time is exhausted. This understanding of the Eucharist was certainly NOT held by the ECFs and you have nothing to prove they did. That's why all you can do is piecemeal snippets from early Christians into the explanation you presume they meant. All we SHOULD be doing is taking what Holy Scripture actually says and not the collected musings of men that lived centuries ago. They, and your magesterium, are NOT infallible, so they cannot overrule what the word of God states.

You have avoided answering these challenges here and continued to assert the same ECF arguments read through the Roman Catholic-tinted glasses. This is the way you interact on just about all the religion forum threads and if it's not the Eucharist, it's baptism that you steer any and all threads to regardless of the topic or what others have already addressed. I get it, you reject any opinion but your own interpretation of your church's. Just as my words will not sink in, neither will yours to my heart. I KNOW whom I have believed and am CONFIDENT that my faith in Christ WILL deliver me into heaven and not the works of my hands. Only those whose eyes and hearts have been opened to the truth of the grace of the Gospel will be able to see and receive the gift of everlasting life through Christ. I'll not be answering anymore of your so-called challenges nor do I have to "pray" about what you presume I should.

unworthy manner will be guilty of PROFANING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. how can someone be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, if the body and blood of the Lord aren’t present??

WOW! The same way they did when JESUS WAS present - NOT Believing on HIM. And when HE says 'remembrance' that is what HE means.

It's catholicsm and it's teaching that have their flock taking communion in an unworthy manner by unbelief. They also don't believe HE shed ALL His blood, nor that HE is sitting at the right Hand of the Father nor that Jesus gave up HIS Body for ALL and Catholicism says 'no, my people are eating it.' Catholics are profaning the blood Christ much to the pleasure of the one they believe 'man who is evil' who sits on his throne as if it's the most high.