It is my observation from reading early Church writings that there are divisions regarding differing discernments of the bread and wine. It seems to me the Roman Catholic Church is not Christianity, but a denomination based on a discernment of the bread and wine. As a Christian I believe in the unity of the True Church to be upheld by the Holy Spirit. I cannot subscribe to any discernment that would count any other assemblies taking place in His name as invalid or outside. I know not in whom the Holy Spirit resides except to say they do God’s works. I therefore would count the Roman Catholic view as carnal, not spiritual as far as I understand the terms. I find the issue of “freewill” comes to the top when examining these carnal vs. spiritual matters. Are Roman Catholics aware of the differing discernments and have they compared the two or do they just believe what they are told? Since judgment is at this cup, I would think it of the utmost importance to address this issue, but I have found no Catholics willing to wash my feet.
I am not sure what you are talking about. What might be helpful would be your references to the early Christian writing.
Well that is your view, My view is that the Eucharist is the “Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity of our lord - Jesus Christ.”
Peace to you:thumbsup:
I would really like to know which early Christian writings (lets say the first 200 years) discerned a differing view point on the Eucharist?
From Proving Inspiration:
Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.
Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)
We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.
Further, Christ said he would found a Church. My question to you is, did Christ found a visible Church or an invisible one?
Christ established on church and that church was more than a spiritual union of all true beleivers. That Church was a visible insitituion with the fullness of revelation given to twelve (eleven not counting Judas) men who were the leaders of the early Church. Peter was appointed prime minister.
The office of prime minister was later called the Papacy and the successors to the Apostles are now called Bishops. That original Church established by Christ still exists and it is the Catholic Church. The real presence of the body, blood, sould and divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist has never been doubted or questioned within the Holy Catholic Church from the moment Jesus Christ celebrated the first Mass in the upper room at the Last Suppor on the night before he died until this present day.
Catholics are acutely aware of the incorrect views which non-Catholic Christians have on the Eucharist. What members of other denominations believe or don’t believe is not within the ability of Catholics to control.
I too wonder exacly what early church writing you are referencing.
Which writings, which authors? Quote them specifically. The ECF’s are online. So they are easily accessed and quoted.
Which brand of 30,000 protestant denominations are you?
That’s because you don’t want to believe it’s possible to be seperated from the one true Church. Do you really believe that protestantism is the Church? We know who started each protestant group that calls itself a church. We know when it was started. They all have one thing in common. Dissent from the one true Church
ANYONE who seperates from the one true Church isn’t serving our Lord but their own appetites. [Rm 16:17…]
Paul gave that warning to the Church of Rome regarding anyone who divided from her. And yes that goes for all those who divided from her in the 16th century.
another driveby :rolleyes: sheesh!!!
Highlight is mine. What can you say about this verse?
Ask yourself why Jesus speaks truth except when He speaks directly about His Body and Blood being “true” food and “true” drink in John 6: 51-55.
Or Matthew 26:14-15
Or Mark 14:22
Or Luke 22:19
Jesus said, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, **“This saying is hard; who can accept it?” **
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them,
“Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
**As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. **
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.
Acts of the Apostles 2:41-42:
“Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day. 8 They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.”
Gospel of John 6:30
The crowd said to Jesus:
“What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you?
What can you do?
Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written:
He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”
So Jesus said to them,
“Amen, amen, I say to you,
it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven;
my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven
and gives life to the world.”
So they said to Jesus,
“Sir, give us this bread always.”
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life;
whoever comes to me will never hunger,
and whoever believes in me will never thirst.”
Thank you for your responses. There are several writings comcerning the divisions regarding differing discernments beginning with the bible, 1 Corinthians 11:19 and 11:29.
The diedeche which does not conform to the same consecrating words as the Roman Church and refers to the flesh and blood as spiritual food.
Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica, chapter 10, “As we have recieved a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of his body and saving blood according to the laws of the New Covenant”
But most profoundly are the writings of St. Augustine,
The City of God, book XXI chapter 25, " For to abide in Him is to abide in the faith of Christ. And this faith according to the apostle’s definition of it, “worketh by Love”. And “Love” as he says elswhere, “worketh no evil”.
Also, "In fine, He himself, when He says, “he that eatheth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, shows what ir is im reality, and not sacramentally, to eat His body and drink His blood; for this is to dwell in Christ, that He also may dwell in us. So that it is as if he said, He that dwelleth not in me, and in whom i do not dwell, let him not sya that he eateth my body or drinketh my blood”
Tractate 26:12 on the gospel of John, “This is the bread which comes down from heaven. Manna signified this bread; God’s altar signified this bread. Those were sacraments. In the signs they were diverse; in the thing which was signified they were alike”.
Also, “But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not the visible sacrament; he that eats within, not without; who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth.”
Have you read St. Justin Martyr’s apology, 100 - 150 A.D.?
“Justin Martyr (also Justin the Martyr, Justin of Caesarea, Justin the Philosopher, Latin Iustinus Martyr or Flavius Iustinus) (103 A.D. –165 A.D.) was an early Christian apologist and saint. His works represent the earliest surviving Christian “apologies” of notable size.”
"No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.
We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.
The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.
On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray.
On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen”. The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent.
The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need.
We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration."
That sounds literal to me. An invisible sacrament does not mean “symbolic”. In that case, everything invisible is only symbolic.
Augustine’s is right on. You do have some misspellings so it is hard to discern what he actually said. But, he viewed it as a reality of His Body and Blood, not just a sacrament.
John 6 plus Romans 8:11 should shed some light on the Truth of the Eucharist.
Can you give a few examples of Early Christing writings that you believe show them differing on the Eucharist? The citations that you gave are in complete conformity with The Catholic Teaching on The Eucharist. In fact those writings are cited in teaching the Eucharist. How is it that you think they are in conflict with each other?
At least you agree that your observing something does not make it true.
You cannot just say something without giving some sort of legalistic argument for as to how you see that.
So, you do not believe there is Truth? Jesus Himself said, “He who hears you, hears me.” If that “He” spoke falsehood, then we are obviously not hearing Christ. Somebody has to have the Truth. Although I believe that it is the Catholic Church, that point is irrelevant right now.
The point is that somebody has to have the Truth. The Catholic Church is the only one who has the guts to claim infallibility. Jesus hates cowards according to Revelations. The Catholic Church is hardly a coward.
Well, so far, you have not justified anything you say. So until then, I can say nothing about your opinions.
“He who hears you, hears me.” I would rather be told what to believe by someone who at least claims infallibility than to trust myself in figuring out what the over-30,000-verse Bible is trying to say. If I did this, not only would my doctrines be wrong and not only would that be wrong in itself, but that would be very prideful to do.
Are you aware that you are being told what to believe also? In your case, that minister or preacher is not infallible, nor does he claim to be. Do you know exactly what the over-30,000-verse Bible is trying to convey as far as eternal truths go? If yes, then perhaps you should start another denomination or even religion altogether. If not, then good. The Church is more trustworthy then you think.
He founded a visible church that was divided so that we who exist millennia later now have many denominations. as Jesus said, “beware of ravenous wolves who come in sheeps clothing”. And “you can tell them by their fruits”. The history of the Roman church burning alive those who disagree with them is in stark contrast to the Christ who submits himself to torture yet forgives them who crucify him.
If I may, this reminds me of an argument I found in a book (I cannot recall the title at the moment, it was at the bookstore at my university) in which the author proposed that Christianity started out as many churches that more or less had a Darwinian-esque competition in which one form kind of “won out” and survived and the rest were either absorbed into that one or were extinguished. This view is unsupported by evidence unless one assumes the following:
- The dissidents who broke away after Christianity was established (otherwise called heretics) were valid and original forms of Christianity.
- The branch that “won out” destroyed all evidence in a sort of method of controlling the populace.
- The heretics mentioned in 1 were at some prior point equal to or exceeding in population the later mainstream.
Also, I am leery when someone mentions something that is generally given much authority, such as ("Science says . . . ", “The early Church says . . .”) without providing documentation. I will gladly discuss this with you, but please, as others have stated, please give us documentation so we have at least a common footing for discussion. Thank you.