Replies

Beckwith was a revert to [Roman] Catholicism, rather than a convert.

He was educated at 'Catholic' universities (to a large extent -- perhaps a greater extent?) and bills himself as having long been a Thomist.

He was never a 'Protestant' in his own mindset -- other than having attended church with and been greatly influenced by other-than Roman Catholic Christians (but not *quite* well enough) to have been an actual "born again" sort of Evangelical.

Then again, only the Lord Himself can bring about this born again/born from above transformation...

I could go on with more concerning him, but for now, that is enough.

As usual, you've got far less than it may appear to yourself.

At least we may be having some conclusion here. It appears to boil down on whether or not the early Church fathers believed the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ.

If you intend to mean that equating to a corporeal flesh and blood type of consideration, as in Christ coming down again from heavenly places, to then again become just exactly as the carnal/corporeal flesh and blood as we otherwise know flesh and blood to exist in earthly, even animalistic "meaty" sense (man is something of a form of animal -- a mammal, to be precise about it) --- then no, many of them (as what boatbums brought here indicated) did not view the thanksgiving meal which they shared among themselves as being in that way the "flesh and blood".

There are a few [Roman] Catholics who are members of this forum who do not view it in that type of corporeal, "fleshy" sense, either.

One is a priest iirc, and another is an RCIA instructor.

Perhaps try thinking of Eucharist elements in this way ----
Before Christ was born -- did he have "flesh and blood" the same as He did after He was born of Mary?

Where He is (as it is written) now seated (at the right hand of the Father) does he there have the same exact composition of flesh & blood as He did when in the form of a man --- or when (and after) returning to the place he was before;

Does He now -- seated in Heavenly places --- need to eat food as it were? How about -- breath oxygen? Drink water?

If possibly not --- then why, oh, why think that when He comes to us again to fellowship with us, in context of ourselves partaking of communion meal, that there must be some sort of "meaty" flesh and blood instead of that visitation be one of Spirit?

Early liturgies strongly suggest "Spirit" for those invoke the Spirit to inhabit/become/be the bread and wine.

Would the early Christians whom prayed in that manner be thinking Him invisibly turn into some form of human steak tartare?

They were accused of such (eating human flesh) but demurred, with an example that boatbums having brought showing that one early church noteworthy individual turned the accusation back upon the accusers, saying it was the accusers of the early church who ate of literal human flesh.

Or; does Jesus place Himself on a Holy Rotisserie in the Sky before descending upon (and then invisibly becoming) the memorial bread and wine?

So if we settle this question, this continuing argument ends.

The question is settled in my own mind --- and experience also.

Having ECF's (as those are often referred to) indicate the same sort of view (a spiritual, or pneumatic view, and one not lacking a strong component of receptionism, rather than be by the "power and authority" of a sacerdotal priesthood alone) is all that more comforting to myself.

Moses did not bring the manna down from heaven.

Who was it that reminded the Apostles of that aspect?

It was Jesus himself. It's all there in John 6 -- if one could but understand that the flesh He was talking about was ---- His own body that He would willingly give up,unto death, upon a cross, and that He was the Passover, giving His own life freely, unto death, as ransom for many.

And was also the Passover which the Jews had long observed.

He was not physically, literally that bread of the Passover which He broke and blessed -- saying "this is my body" for it was obvious at that point that the bread was the bread -- and His own body something else yet again.

He was no more literally, in physical sense that bread, than the lambs without spot or blemish, and the kids of the goats which the Jews in Egypt were instructed to partake of, (and strike the blood of those animals upon their doors and door lintels) were His own literal, physical flesh and blood.

Yet He did give up His own literal, physical body upon the cross. And again, when He rose again -- 40 days after the Resurrection --- where did He go, but back to where He WAS before.

It is from there, from where He was BEFORE, that He condescends to men of low estate.

Why must this conversation be so difficult?

Tell us --- just what exactly (other than to spew at those whom could be perceived as "Protestants") are you arguing for?

Are you arguing for "steak tartare" even though not using those words?

Flesh and blood, right?

WHAT precisely do you mean when you say those words, in this context?

Human flesh? He was fully man as it were, even as He was fully God (having been fully God, long before He was ever born in the form of a man -- or else the writers of the New Testament have things wrong).

Tell me sir, what part of

"the words I speak to you are spirit and life, the flesh profits nothing"

do you not understand?

But spare me the usual spewing, eh?

All the talk about David Koresh's and Benny Hinn (and Benihana's?) is not helping. Not if you desire to "settle this".

The choices are;

Holy Rotisserie in the Sky

To be spiritual discerned

Choose wisely

BlueDragon’s reference that Prof. Francis J. Beckwith reverted to Catholicism makes for a far stronger case of Catholic belief. He’s studied both sides of it and after all he was so well esteemed by his colleagues that he became president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians. He was prepared to leave this prestigious pedestal and with humility go back to the truth.

You and others in your group try telling us that the Eucharist is not the true body and blood of Christ without realizing for a moment the sheer absurdity of this assertion. This counters FIFTEEN CENTURIES of belief by the very same early Church fathers who with their infallible authority pronounced their selection of the canonical texts as God’s word with their labors inspired by the Holy Spirit and under Petrine authority.

Indisputable confirmation of this belief has been canvassed on this thread many times over and was one was shared by saints and martyrs. You don’t split infallible authority in the light of Christ’s explicit command that upon establishing ONE Church, He will make certain that His ONE teaching will remain until the consummation of the world.

This infallible Petrine authority did not take flight with the arrival of Martin Luther.

Indeed no sooner did Protestantism began to question this infallibility, like a cancer cell it began dividing itself to the point that now mainline Protestant and Lutheran denomination ordain married gay and lesbian pastors based on “their” interpretation of Scripture. Look around and will you find thousands of Protestant sects and sub-sects rproviding us with “their” own interpretations of scripture from the Moonies to the Grahams to the Creflo Dollars.

That there is either only ONE truth based on infallible Petrine authority or you must absurdly admit to the fact that the church “you” have in mind is some amorphous group of followers holding different and conflicting views. In short, the Moonies, Grahams, Jim Jones will all have a claim to “their” truth!

To say that each such person can invoke the “Holy Spirit” not only contradicts fifteen centuries of unbroken Catholic teaching, beliefs, and practices, it flatly contradicts the command of Christ to “Go forth and TEACH…..” This is not a teaching on historical maters. It is as Benedict says of the Resurrection, an “ontological” matter. This is not about a dead man coming to life. It has to do with life everlasting in the “Living Bread” of the Eucharist.

If one makes room for parsing or accommodating differences in scriptural interpretation between the Moonies, the Grahams, the Jim Jones and the Jeremiah Wrights we have a contradiction in itself: several “truths.”

This is why America’s pre-eminent Lutheran theologian at the time, Rev. Richard Newhaus who upon converting to Catholicism said he found “the fullest expression of Christ in the Catholic Church.”

Apparently the folks here know more about scripture that their own former Lutheran theologians.

Boatbums having cut and pasted a random blogger’s comment on the Eucharist now invites us to dispute the blogger’s interpretations despite having assailed this before. And this is how serious discussion is to be conducted by one with a B.A. degree in Divinity?

Surely we can agree that if this Catholic belief and practice in the Eucharist were considered unsupportable, there would have been a major schism of seismic proportions during these fifteen centuries. But there is not a scintilla of such evidence. On the contrary, Catholics re-affirmed this belief with the Feast of Corpus Christ publicly celebrated on city streets around the world.

We continue to hear ealgone and CynicalBear doing what they do. Ignoring in-depth analyses and instead offering a random quote of scripture from here and there, or let loosing a tsunami of scriptural interpretations.

Here’s Cynical Bear in typical fashion. He quotes Luke “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” and follows it up with “ So why do you reject what Paul wrote? You never prove that what you teach is what the apostles taught.”

It does not occur to Cynicalbear that Catholics turn this around on Protestants because it confirms that Christ wants us to hear and listen to ONE truth. Thus, Hillaire Belloc aptly noted in his book The Great Heresies that Protestantism “spawned a cluster of heresies.”

Seriously, is this the level of theology we are now dealing with? Apparently for fifteen centuries before Protestantism came along, the Catholic Church got it all wrong, and it was not only Catholic theologians, scholars, saints, and martys but even a stellar group of Protestant theologians who have decamped the Protestant falsity.

Finally, Iscool apparently has either not understood early Church practices and liturgies, nor has he taken the trouble to learn them. Instead, he invites us to weigh his opinion against the brilliant scholarly work of an Oxford-educated Protestant whose work informs the curriculum of theological departments even at Protestant colleges. So just for him, maybe it is worth repeating and reproducing the relevant texts of J.N.D. Kelly who writes.

“[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it.” (“Early Christian Doctrines” p. 37.)

Without belief in the Eucharist, the Resurrection collapses into a mere historical story drained of all its meaning. One may as well flock to the beach for whatever goes under the name of “Easter Sunrise Services,” pack a picnic lunch, with dog in tow, sings hymns and do a kumbaya. This is a feel good exercise for sure, but where’s the “Living Bread”?

John 6: 53 “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”

I think you explained it quite well. The REAL issue I see going on here in this never-ending dialog is that some religionists want to make this about their "church's" authority over everything and they are bound by an oath to defend them else see the house of cards fall all around them. The Council of Trent made this a defining issue separating Rome from "Protestants" more than had ever been in the past. With their anathemas and excommunication threats, the leaders declared several doctrines as "settled" when they weren't then nor even afterward.

Asserting an authority that presumes to be ABOVE the very word of God instilled in them a heady sense of power that has not really settled anything dogmatically even to this day. That the observance of the Lord's Supper is a common and ongoing tradition of ALL Christians and Jesus' command to, "This do in remembrance of me.", is obeyed to this day, seems to be forgotten by some of the more vociferous posters. If the exact same process and surrounding points do not match up to theirs, they will proudly and smugly boast they are ineffectual and not "real". The Roman Catholic church has made of this remembrance a matter of a salvific imperative. IF you don't have a "valid" priest, IF you don't have the exact words of "consecration" spoken, IF you don't have the same order and gestures, IF you don't have the specifically made bread and wine, IF you don't all believe in it the way they do...the list goes on...then you aren't "doing" it right and God won't honor your actions. When the Eucharist (which meant Thanksgiving) was decided to be an actual expiatory act and had to follow a valid confession before ones currently committed sins were fully forgiven, the Catholic church placed herself smack dab in the middle between the Christian and God. Jesus was no longer the mediator, the priest was - IN HIS PLACE.

How I pray that the blinders come off and those trapped in a false version of the gospel begin to see the true light of life and come to know the gentle Savior who loved us before we loved Him and who, while we were YET sinners, died for us. He said His yoke is easy and His burden is light. I know it is. He desires that all be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. We shouldn't allow men to erect barriers to that knowledge.