Early Church teaching of Eucharist

am946745

Wondering if anyone is up for a discussion on the Eucharist in the Early Church.

there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

"‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’"

"As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

Peregrinus

This "literal vs. metaphorical" debate is an entirely modern thing, stemming from the Protestant reformation. The nature of the eucharist was, obviously, one of the points of controversy there, and the oppositional nature of the discourse led to polarisation (on both sides). Yes, there was much discussion, and a variety of views, about the eucharist before the reformation, but I doubt that many in the early church would have used either the word "literal" or the word "metaphorical" to describe the eucharist. In modern times you'll find some believers who insist that Christ is "physically" present in the Eucharist, and others who insist that the real presence is "purely symbolic"; prior to the reformation both of those views would have been regarded as bizarre, and possibly heretical. And there are few if any mainstream denominations, even today, whose official position is either that of "physical presence" or "pure symbolism"; enthusiasts on both sides take positions that overstate their own traditions.

As regards the eucharist in the early church, a couple of points occur to me:

First, Christians were celebrating the eucharist pretty much from the get-go; it's one of the earliest distinctive Christian practices that we have evidence for. The form of celebration changed fairly significantly over the early decades (moving from an actual full meal celebrated in someone's home to a more formal public service such as we would recognise) but the basics go right back to the beginning.

Secondly, if you had asked the first or second generation of Christians why they celebrated the Eucharist, I'm pretty sure that they would have answered "because the Lord told us to". If you had asked them what it meant, or why they thought the Lord commanded it, I think you would have got either blank looks, or a variety of answers, not many of which would have made mention of the "real presence".

The reason I think this is because I think Christian eucharistic theology is a development of the Christian theology of incarnation - the notion that God has entered into his own creation and become a part of it. This is a pretty staggering notion, particularly for a religion which emerges from Judaism which such a notion is impossible, meaningless and probably blasphemous. We know that it took several centuries for the church to nut out its understanding of the incarnation in the terms in which we now have it. And I think it's impossible that a eucharistic theology affirming that we encounter God in the eucharist could develop ahead of an incarnational theology.

Having said that, I'm not insisting that a "real presence" theology dropped fully formed out of the heavens some time around the fourth century. Ideas about the real presence were certainly being expressed from the second century onwards. But they are usually expressed in fairly simple terms. More than once, Ignatius of Antioch describes the Eucharist as "the flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ", as does Justin Martyr. But they don't explain this, or elaborate with terms like "substantial presence", "real presence", "sacramental presence", "spiritual presence", or any of the other terms with which competing Christian denominations nowadays explain the eucharist. So we can't say that Ignatius, etc, was closer to modern Catholics, or Anglicans, or Lutherans, or Calvinists, or whoever in their eucharistic understanding; they don't talk about it enough for us to categorise their views.

What this suggests, perhaps, is that the nature of the eucharistic presence wasn't a matter of huge debate in the early church. We know they had theological controversies, with passionate and angry exchanges, and lengthy writings, and church councils to hammer things out, and anathemas, and whatnot. But none of them seem to have been about the nature of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

For what it's worth, there's a fairly strong tradition in Eastern and Oriental Christianity of affirming the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a mystical reality, but refusing to go any further and rejecting attempts to explain or categorise the real presence as, basically, misconceived. On this view, you can't analyse or dissect a holy mystery; the proper response to a mystery is to enter into it, not to seek to make it less mysterious. That tradition would see the later squabbles among western Christians about the nature of the real presence as, at best, an irrelevance. And I think that might have been a fairly common attitude in the early church. It isn't until the medieval period and the rise of scholasticism that you get writers talking about the "substance" of the Eucharist, and articulating transubstantiation as a explanation of the real presence. And that's very much a western development; Eastern Christians strongly affirm the real presence, but basically have no time at all for transubstantiation as a explanation of how it happens. That may be closer to the position of the early church than either the modern Catholic or modern Protestant positions.

hinault

Fascinating OP.

The New Testament witnesses to the fact that Eucharist is the Real Presence.

For example Corinthians records

For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk. [22] What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. [23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep

This is St.Paul affirming the Real Presence.

I think Peregrinus raises a very valid point. The change from bread and wine in to the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ is a mystery.

The limited laws of science cannot explain the mystery. Man's limited
comprehension cannot explain and is incapable of understanding, the "mechanics" of that material change. Trying to apply a "natural" explanation for what is a "supernatural" occurrence is impossible.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

This is St.Paul affirming the Real Presence.

I think Peregrinus raises a very valid point. The change from bread and wine in to the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ is a mystery..

It's St. Paul affirming that Christ is present in the Eucharist. Not affirming the RC doctrine of transubstantiation, which is often used in conjunction with the phrase "Real Presence" to suggest that transubstaniation is necessary for the real presence of Christ. This is not so. You do not have to believe that the bread and wine are actually flesh and blood while retaining the appearance of bread and wine to believe in the real presence of Christ. Christ is present in the Eucharist.

Peregrinus

I'd go a bit further, katydid. Christ is really present in the Eucharist, and the early church affirmed this and saw "flesh and blood" language an an appropriate way of expressing this belief. So, yes, they did believe that in the Eucharist, we really do encounter the flesh and blood of Christ.

You're right, of course, that they did not use the languge of transubstantiation, and I don't think we could say that they believed in transubstantiation. As an account of how Christ is made really present in the Eucharist, transubstantiation doesn't come along for another thousand years or so. It's absurd to suggest that the early church understood the real presence in this way. (Though I note, of course, that hinault has not suggested this.)

I'd sum it up by saying that the early church really did believe that when we take the eucharist we really, truly, actually encounter the flesh and blood of Christ, and they were happy to say so and said so frequently. Modern traditions of Christianity elaborate on this a variety of ways (in the West) or refuse to elaborate on it (in the East). By and large, the various western traditions are consistent with the (somewhat sparse) evidence of the beliefs of the early church (even if they are not always consistent with one another). The one exception I'd make is the Zwinglian understanding that the Eucharist signifies and symbolises the body and blood of Christ, but that's as far as it goes. I doubt that that can be said to build on what we know of the eucharistic beliefs of the early church; it contradicts them.

Manach

From a recent book I read on early Church History (When the Church was young by D’ambrosia) which drew on the works of Cyprian, the understanding of the Eucharist had always been that it was seen as a sacrifice. This stems from and still originates from that unique sacrifice on the Cross. Thus all latter Eucharists are part of that same event.

am946745

katydid wrote: »

It's St. Paul affirming that Christ is present in the Eucharist. Not affirming the RC doctrine of transubstantiation, which is often used in conjunction with the phrase "Real Presence" to suggest that transubstaniation is necessary for the real presence of Christ. This is not so. You do not have to believe that the bread and wine are actually flesh and blood while retaining the appearance of bread and wine to believe in the real presence of Christ. Christ is present in the Eucharist.

Its true that Transubstantiation as term was not used in the first millennium and is pretty much a Latin term. However when I go and ask an Armenian or Orthodox priest what happens when they consecrate the bread and wine they will say it becomes the real body and blood of Christ. Not a metaphor, but his real body and blood.

So while orthodox don't use transubstantiation in their teachings, we both believe that the same thing happens in the mass or divine liturgy.

Many Protestants take exception with Catholic Teaching, its important to got back to the Churchs that exists from the first millennium to understand the true teaching on the Eucharist.

katydid

am946745 wrote: »

Its true that Transubstantiation as term was not used in the first millennium and is pretty much a Latin term. However when I go and ask an Armenian or Orthodox priest what happens when they consecrate the bread and wine they will say it becomes the real body and blood of Christ. Not a metaphor, but his real body and blood.

So while orthodox don't use transubstantiation in their teachings, we both believe that the same thing happens in the mass or divine liturgy.

Many Protestants take exception with Catholic Teaching, its important to got back to the Churchs that exists from the first millennium to understand the true teaching on the Eucharist.

Why do the churches that existed from the first millennium have a monopoly on understanding the Eucharist, or anything else? The appalling scandals of pre-reformation Roman Catholicism - the selling of indulgences and so on - hardly point to these churches being wells of deep understanding and spirituality. They are human institutions, with the positive and negative that goes with that. Post-reformation churches are not devoid of understanding because they developed at a later stage.

Take the Eucharist. You don't seem to understand what Transubstantiation means, if you define it as "it becomes the real body and blood of Christ. Not a metaphor, but his real body and blood." That is not Transubstantiation; that is the Real Presence. Anglicans believe in Consubstantiation; that while the bread and wine remain bread and wine in substance, at the same time they become the real body and blood of Christ".

Angels dancing on a pin territory at the end of the day, but it's important to clarify it, as you seem to think that the post-Reformation churches simply understand the Eucharist as some kind of symbolic exercise. It is true that some do, but not all. And certainly not the Anglican church.

am946745

katydid wrote: »

Why do the churches that existed from the first millennium have a monopoly on understanding the Eucharist, or anything else? The appalling scandals of pre-reformation Roman Catholicism - the selling of indulgences and so on - hardly point to these churches being wells of deep understanding and spirituality. They are human institutions, with the positive and negative that goes with that. Post-reformation churches are not devoid of understanding because they developed at a later stage.

Take the Eucharist. You don't seem to understand what Transubstantiation means, if you define it as "it becomes the real body and blood of Christ. Not a metaphor, but his real body and blood." That is not Transubstantiation; that is the Real Presence. Anglicans believe in Consubstantiation; that while the bread and wine remain bread and wine in substance, at the same time they become the real body and blood of Christ".

Angels dancing on a pin territory at the end of the day, but it's important to clarify it, as you seem to think that the post-Reformation churches simply understand the Eucharist as some kind of symbolic exercise. It is true that some do, but not all. And certainly not the Anglican church.

The Protestant reformation was against the Catholic Roman Church. Leave the Catholic church aside for a moment and look at the East who are not united with Rome and you see how far Protestantism has moved from what was common in all churches.

Different strands of Anglicans have different views on the Eucharist, However Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Copts, Armenians, Eastern Orthodox retain the common practice from the Early Church.

katydid

am946745 wrote: »

The Protestant reformation was against the Catholic Roman Church. Leave the Catholic church aside for a moment and look at the East who are not united with Rome and you see how far Protestantism has moved from what was common in all churches.

Different strands of Anglicans have different views on the Eucharist, However Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Copts, Armenians, Eastern Orthodox retain the common practice from the Early Church.

How far, exactly? How is the standard Protestant understanding so different? The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Hardly rocket science.

am946745

katydid wrote: »

How far, exactly? How is the standard Protestant understanding so different? The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Hardly rocket science.

Well for one the Thirty-Nine Articles was a radical departure in the anglican church.

katydid

am946745 wrote: »

Well for one the Thirty-Nine Articles was a radical departure in the anglican church.

The Thirty Nine Articles didn't address core issues like the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They were in some cases simple restatements of basic Christian belief, and in other cases they indicated changes in tradition and practice.

The fundamental Christian beliefs are the same.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

The Thirty Nine Articles didn't address core issues like the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Yes, they did. Article XXXVIII:

"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

In other words, the XXXIX Articles (a) affirm the real presence and the sacrificial nature of the eucharist, (b) reject transubstantiation as an account of the real presence, and (c) claim that the real presence is a spiritual reality, rather than a physical one.

On point (a), the XXXIX Articles would align closely with the Catholic position and with the views of am946745's hypothetical Armenian or Orthodox priest. On point (b) the Anglicans and the Catholics would obviously disagree; the Armenian Orthodox priest would probably tog out with the Anglicans. He might nor reject the notion of transubstantiation with quite such pejorative language, but he would reject it. On point (c) all three traditions would agree that the real presence is a spiritual reality rather than a physical one; they would disagree, I think, about the role of faith in realising the Presence. That's, I think, a Calvinist perspective wich both the Catholics and the Orthodox would reject.

am946745

katydid wrote: »

The Thirty Nine Articles didn't address core issues like the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They were in some cases simple restatements of basic Christian belief, and in other cases they indicated changes in tradition and practice.

The fundamental Christian beliefs are the same.

Edward VI introduced a drastically altered and invalid version of the rite of ordination. Changing conferred powers to committed powers.

Also the above post is good.

When the Church of England broke from Rome there were many radical changes. However if you look Orthodoxy who separated 1000 years ago, you don't see such changes, They rejected Papal supremacy, by not the Popes Primacy, They took exception with Filoque and unlevened bread. Orthodox also don't believe in some of our Marian Dogma's however they have a deep devotion to Mary ever Virgen.

Protestantism rejected many of the traditions from the first 1500 years, by traditions I mean what was passed from the early church.

katydid

am946745 wrote: »

Edward VI introduced a drastically altered and invalid version of the rite of ordination. Changing conferred powers to committed powers.

Also the above post is good.

When the Church of England broke from Rome there were many radical changes. However if you look Orthodoxy who separated 1000 years ago, you don't see such changes, They rejected Papal supremacy, by not the Popes Primacy, They took exception with Filoque and unlevened bread. Orthodox also don't believe in some of our Marian Dogma's however they have a deep devotion to Mary ever Virgen.

Protestantism rejected many of the traditions from the first 1500 years, by traditions I mean what was passed from the early church.

Radical changes to things that needed to be fixed, such as the use of the vernacular or the end of celibacy. Papal supremacy or primacy is nothing but an historical anomaly, it is not scriptural or doctrinal; if the Orthodox churches are happy to accept the primacy of the bishop of Rome, that's fine for them; the Anglican church chose not to, and it has worked out just fine. Every country of the communion has its own administration and its own decision making process.

None of these are radical theological changes. The fundamental beliefs, as defined and outlined in the Nicene creed, the product of centuries of debate within the Christian family, are the same.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, they did. Article XXXVIII:

"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

In other words, the XXXIX Articles (a) affirm the real presence and the sacrificial nature of the eucharist, (b) reject transubstantiation as an account of the real presence, and (c) claim that the real presence is a spiritual reality, rather than a physical one.

On point (a), the XXXIX Articles would align closely with the Catholic position and with the views of am946745's hypothetical Armenian or Orthodox priest. On point (b) the Anglicans and the Catholics would obviously disagree; the Armenian Orthodox priest would probably tog out with the Anglicans. He might nor reject the notion of transubstantiation with quite such pejorative language, but he would reject it. On point (c) all three traditions would agree that the real presence is a spiritual reality rather than a physical one; they would disagree, I think, about the role of faith in realising the Presence. That's, I think, a Calvinist perspective wich both the Catholics and the Orthodox would reject.

Sorry, I phrased it badly. What I mean was they didn't change anything theologically, just clarified understanding.

am946745

katydid wrote: »

Radical changes to things that needed to be fixed, such as the use of the vernacular or the end of celibacy. Papal supremacy or primacy is nothing but an historical anomaly, it is not scriptural or doctrinal; if the Orthodox churches are happy to accept the primacy of the bishop of Rome, that's fine for them; the Anglican church chose not to, and it has worked out just fine. Every country of the communion has its own administration and its own decision making process.

None of these are radical theological changes. The fundamental beliefs, as defined and outlined in the Nicene creed, the product of centuries of debate within the Christian family, are the same.

The use of vernacular languages already exists before the reformation. Celibacy was a discipline not a dogma. Papacy has nothing to do with the Eucharist.

You mention the Nicene creed, which is a product of centuries of discussions about who Christ was, was he true man or God .. etc.. Thus the creed. There was no division on the Eucharist so it was not mentioned in the Creed. All Christians went to confession or celebrated Immaculate Conception .


As I said Protestantism is a protest mainly against Catholicism. Yet the core faith that Catholics have is the same faith shared in the East, Protestantism changed the faith for political reasons.

katydid

am946745 wrote: »

The use of vernacular languages already exists before the reformation. Celibacy was a discipline not a dogma. Papacy has nothing to do with the Eucharist.

You mention the Nicene creed, which is a product of centuries of discussions about who Christ was, was he true man or God .. etc.. Thus the creed. There was no division on the Eucharist so it was not mentioned in the Creed. All Christians went to confession or celebrated Immaculate Conception .


As I said Protestantism is a protest mainly against Catholicism. Yet the core faith that Catholics have is the same faith shared in the East, Protestantism changed the faith for political reasons.

The use of the vernacular was not the norm before the Reformation. I have never heard of it being used; perhaps it was in some rare occasions. Can you give me examples? It certainly was on of the major issues in the Reformation, that scripture especially be made available to the faithful.

Yes, as you said, celibacy was a discipline, not a dogma. So reversing the ruling wasn't a radical change, given that for most of the existence of the Christian church in its different guises, celibacy was not the norm.

No, the Eucharist was not mentioned in the Nicene Creed. That's my point. The fundamentals of Christian belief were...those didn't change.

am946745

katydid wrote: »

The use of the vernacular was not the norm before the Reformation. I have never heard of it being used; perhaps it was in some rare occasions. Can you give me examples? It certainly was on of the major issues in the Reformation, that scripture especially be made available to the faithful.

Yes, as you said, celibacy was a discipline, not a dogma. So reversing the ruling wasn't a radical change, given that for most of the existence of the Christian church in its different guises, celibacy was not the norm.

No, the Eucharist was not mentioned in the Nicene Creed. That's my point. The fundamentals of Christian belief were...those didn't change.

Pope John the VIII gave Methodius permission to celebrate the mass in Slavonic well before the reformation. There was no Dogma saying the mass could not be in the vernacular, otherwise we would not have Greek, Syriac, Aramaic masses etc..

As regards Nicene creed as the fundaments.. Well Israel is not mentioned, or Moses, or Jersusalem. All the wealth of the faith that exists was not in dispute until protestantism focused on trying to understand faith without the repository of tradition. What the reformation did was throw the baby out with the bath water and believed only in one interpretation of one pillar of our faith.

katydid

am946745 wrote: »

Pope John the VIII gave Methodius permission to celebrate the mass in Slavonic well before the reformation. There was no Dogma saying the mass could not be in the vernacular, otherwise we would not have Greek, Syriac, Aramaic masses etc..

As regards Nicene creed as the fundaments.. Well Israel is not mentioned, or Moses, or Jersusalem. All the wealth of the faith that exists was not in dispute until protestantism focused on trying to understand faith without the repository of tradition. What the reformation did was throw the baby out with the bath water and believed only in one interpretation of one pillar of our faith.

So one pope gave one person permission to use the vernacular, and that means the vernacular wasn't an issue in the Reformation? Seriously? The fact that he had to give someone permission shows that in the Roman church it was an issue. What they did in the Orthodox churches is irrelevant - the Reformation was a reforming of the Roman Catholic church.

Why would Israel, Moses etc. be mentioned in a Christian profession of belief? It goes without saying that Christianity comes out of Judaism and accepts its traditions; hence the use of the Jewish Scripture as the Old Testament. The Creed is not the place for stating this.

Protestantism never questioned faith. It certainly questioned tradition - tradition is not faith, it is a man made construct. Some elements of tradition are good, some not so good. But the Roman church had got so caught up in tradition as an end in itself that it had lost sight of what was really important.

The Protestant tradition, to differing degrees, retained many of the good traditions, but rejected, rightly in my opinion, traditions that were counterproductive to a proper Christian understanding. For example, the "tradition" of the cult of relics had reached a ridiculous stage where the relics were being worshipped for themselves, and had become a vast commercial enterprise. Tradition, being man made, has to be looked at and re-evaluated by man when it reaches a stage where it has lost sight of its origin and purpose.

I'm baffled as to what "baby" you think has been thrown out that was valuable.

am946745

katydid wrote: »

So one pope gave one person permission to use the vernacular, and that means the vernacular wasn't an issue in the Reformation? Seriously? The fact that he had to give someone permission shows that in the Roman church it was an issue. What they did in the Orthodox churches is irrelevant - the Reformation was a reforming of the Roman Catholic church.

Why would Israel, Moses etc. be mentioned in a Christian profession of belief? It goes without saying that Christianity comes out of Judaism and accepts its traditions; hence the use of the Jewish Scripture as the Old Testament. The Creed is not the place for stating this.

Protestantism never questioned faith. It certainly questioned tradition - tradition is not faith, it is a man made construct. Some elements of tradition are good, some not so good. But the Roman church had got so caught up in tradition as an end in itself that it had lost sight of what was really important.

The Protestant tradition, to differing degrees, retained many of the good traditions, but rejected, rightly in my opinion, traditions that were counterproductive to a proper Christian understanding. For example, the "tradition" of the cult of relics had reached a ridiculous stage where the relics were being worshipped for themselves, and had become a vast commercial enterprise. Tradition, being man made, has to be looked at and re-evaluated by man when it reaches a stage where it has lost sight of its origin and purpose.

I'm baffled as to what "baby" you think has been thrown out that was valuable.

The Catholic Church never taught or allowed the worship of relics. But it was ridiculous the commercial trade of them. I suppose we have something similar with the Mega churchs today, religion has a always had a commercial side.

Its not that the Pope gave or did not give permission regarding vernacular languages, its just that there was always vernacular languages used in the the Church. Latin of the day was the vernacular in Rome, so was Greek, so was armenian or syriac. What happened over time is that language changed, but people held fast to their traditional liturgical languages. There was never JUST latin in the Catholic Church.

The Eucharist was not disputed up to the reformation. It was a fundamental biblical part of the faith.

katydid

am946745 wrote: »

The Catholic Church never taught or allowed the worship of relics. But it was ridiculous the commercial trade of them. I suppose we have something similar with the Mega churchs today, religion has a always had a commercial side.

Its not that the Pope gave or did not give permission regarding vernacular languages, its just that there was always vernacular languages used in the the Church. Latin of the day was the vernacular in Rome, so was Greek, so was armenian or syriac. What happened over time is that language changed, but people held fast to their traditional liturgical languages. There was never JUST latin in the Catholic Church.

The Eucharist was not disputed up to the reformation. It was a fundamental biblical part of the faith.

The worship of relics was certainly allowed and facilitated by the RC church. Clerics presided over the shrines where these relics were displayed, and encouraged the commercial trade surrounding them.

YOU said the pope gave permission for someone to use the vernacular. Not me. The fact is that Latin was the norm, and the use of the vernacular was an issue in the Reformation. That is a simple fact.

The Eucharist was not disputed at the Reformation. As others have pointed out, in the different branches of Christianity prior to and after the Great Schism, there was never total agreement on the exact form the presence of Christ takes in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation was a relatively new concept, and one subscribed to by the RC church. Other Christian churches didn't use the word. So the Reformation putting the Eucharist in the spotlight and clarifiying the definition was nothing new.

Still waiting to find out what these radical changes were you claimed a few posts back...

I note you haven't dealt with my points about tradition...

am946745

katydid wrote: »

The worship of relics was certainly allowed and facilitated by the RC church. Clerics presided over the shrines where these relics were displayed, and encouraged the commercial trade surrounding them.

YOU said the pope gave permission for someone to use the vernacular. Not me. The fact is that Latin was the norm, and the use of the vernacular was an issue in the Reformation. That is a simple fact.

The Eucharist was not disputed at the Reformation. As others have pointed out, in the different branches of Christianity prior to and after the Great Schism, there was never total agreement on the exact form the presence of Christ takes in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation was a relatively new concept, and one subscribed to by the RC church. Other Christian churches didn't use the word. So the Reformation putting the Eucharist in the spotlight and clarifiying the definition was nothing new.

Still waiting to find out what these radical changes were you claimed a few posts back...

I note you haven't dealt with my points about tradition...

You can't worship relics, that was always idolatry. There was a tradition of venerating relics, not worshipping them.

The Latin church used the word transubstantiation, the east didn't accept the philosophical interpretation of understanding the Eucharist. However East and West believed that same thing, the Real presence, body and Blood, Soul and divinity of the actual person of Christ as he was 2000 years ago. Protestantism does not believe this, certainly not today. Anglicans have broad range of opinions, there is not unified teaching on the Eucharist.

katydid

am946745 wrote: »

You can't worship relics, that was always idolatry. There was a tradition of venerating relics, not worshipping them.

The Latin church used the word transubstantiation, the east didn't accept the philosophical interpretation of understanding the Eucharist. However East and West believed that same thing, the Real presence, body and Blood, Soul and divinity of the actual person of Christ as he was 2000 years ago. Protestantism does not believe this, certainly not today. Anglicans have broad range of opinions, there is not unified teaching on the Eucharist.

Where is the line between worshipping and venerating? The church facilitated the idolatry; there is a description, for example, from the Lollards, of people kissing and licking the feet of statues. That is not veneration.

I have already explained that Protestantism, apart from some of the fundamentalist offshoots, certainly does believe in the Real Presence. Anglicanism and Episcopalianism do, as does mainstream Methodism. Actually there IS a unified teaching on the Eucharist in Anglicanism.

I have also explained to you that a belief in the Real Presence is not the same as a belief in Transubstantion...

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'd go a bit further, katydid. Christ is really present in the Eucharist, and the early church affirmed this and saw "flesh and blood" language an an appropriate way of expressing this belief. So, yes, they did believe that in the Eucharist, we really do encounter the flesh and blood of Christ.

You're right, of course, that they did not use the languge of transubstantiation, and I don't think we could say that they believed in transubstantiation. As an account of how Christ is made really present in the Eucharist, transubstantiation doesn't come along for another thousand years or so. It's absurd to suggest that the early church understood the real presence in this way. (Though I note, of course, that hinault has not suggested this.)

St.Paul asserts the real presence of the Eucharist in the NT.

Saying that the word "transubstantiation" didn't come along for another thousand years, doesn't invalidate anything which St.Paul and others asserted in the NT concerning the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Eucharist.

hinault

am946745 wrote: »

As I said Protestantism is a protest mainly against Catholicism.

And founded by a failed Catholic priest no less.

keano_afc

Its quite a leap to take what Paul says as any sort of assertion for the real presence.

I'd gladly debate it with you hinault, but I know you're not particularly fond of that.

homer911

hinault wrote: »

And founded by a failed Catholic priest no less.

Still praying..

katydid

hinault wrote: »

And founded by a failed Catholic priest no less.

Protestantism was founded by a failed Catholic priest? Are you referring to Luther? Er, it was a LITTLE bit more complicated than that...

katydid

hinault wrote: »

St.Paul asserts the real presence of the Eucharist in the NT.

Saying that the word "transubstantiation" didn't come along for another thousand years, doesn't invalidate anything which St.Paul and others asserted in the NT concerning the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Eucharist.

What has St. Paul's opinion on the real presence got to do with anything? We're not debating the real presence. Transubstantiation is not the same as the real presence, it is one view of it.

hinault

homer911 wrote: »

Still praying..

Pray for Luther.:)

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

Pray for Luther.:)

Praying for the dead is not scriptural.

am946745

keano_afc wrote: »

Praying for the dead is not scriptural.

Then why did St. Paul offer a prayer for a man named Onesiphorus who had died: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day” ?

hinault

am946745 wrote: »

Then why did St. Paul offer a prayer for a man named Onesiphorus who had died: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day” ?

Exactly.

keano_afc

am946745 wrote: »

Then why did St. Paul offer a prayer for a man named Onesiphorus who had died: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day” ?

Ah, that old chestnut.

A few things to notice. Firstly, there is no inference that Onesiphorus was dead. Do you have evidence that he was? The very fact that Paul is praying for him is proof that he is alive. Secondly, if he was a Godly man, there would be no need to pray for him as scripture is quite clear that praying to the dead is wrong. He would have already received judgement.

You've fallen into the trap of taking a verse and shoehorning your doctrine into it. I've had this thrown at me before from RCs but as you can see the evidence just doesnt stack up.

am946745

keano_afc wrote: »

Ah, that old chestnut.

A few things to notice. Firstly, there is no inference that Onesiphorus was dead. Do you have evidence that he was? The very fact that Paul is praying for him is proof that he is alive. Secondly, if he was a Godly man, there would be no need to pray for him as scripture is quite clear that praying to the dead is wrong. He would have already received judgement.

You've fallen into the trap of taking a verse and shoehorning your doctrine into it. I've had this thrown at me before from RCs but as you can see the evidence just doesnt stack up.

The praying for the dead has come up many times. Catholics believe in Purgatory.. Orthodox don't.. Yet we both pray for the dead, if for Orthodox there is no purgatory then why pray for the dead?

I agree mostly that we should always act with the intent of going to heaven. You can take from Machabees what you want, but there has always been a tradition of praying for the dead from the early church to the present. St. Paul referred to Onesiphorus — "as to a family in need of consolation"

I don't think we should ever play with salvation, If purgatory exists there is no certainty that we might go there. Hell 100% does exist. Christ said so.

However to appear before God we need to be pure, and Catholics believe that those who does in grace but not totally pure go in a process of purification to appear before God. Orthodox don't take this view,, however bother east and west have always prayed for the dead.. from the very beginning of the Church.

hinault

am946745 wrote: »

The praying for the dead has come up many times. Catholics believe in Purgatory.. Orthodox don't.. Yet we both pray for the dead, if for Orthodox there is no purgatory then why pray for the dead?

I agree mostly that we should always act with the intent of going to heaven. You can take from Machabees what you want, but there has always been a tradition of praying for the dead from the early church to the present. St. Paul referred to Onesiphorus — "as to a family in need of consolation"

I don't think we should ever play with salvation, If purgatory exists there is no certainty that we might go there. Hell 100% does exist. Christ said so.

However to appear before God we need to be pure, and Catholics believe that those who does in grace but not totally pure go in a process of purification to appear before God. Orthodox don't take this view,, however bother east and west have always prayed for the dead.. from the very beginning of the Church.

Reading Timothy 2 Chapter 1, it is clear from the text that writer quotes Paul discussing Onesiphorus

1:16 The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain:

1:17 But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me.

1:18 The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest.

It is clear from the verses in Timothy that Onesiphorus is dead. Paul refers to Onesiphorus using the past tense (hath, ministered). The verse confirms
Onesiphorus is dead because "in that day" refers to the divine judgement of Onesiphorus.

If Onesiphorus was alive at the time of text contained in Timothy, he would not be facing divine judgement.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

It is clear from the verses in Timothy that Onesiphorus is dead. Paul refers to Onesiphorus using the past tense (hath, ministered). The verse confirms
Onesiphorus is dead because "in that day" refers to the divine judgement of Onesiphorus.

If Onesiphorus was alive at the time of text contained in Timothy, he would not be facing divine judgement.

The past tense could be because he is somewhere else. Praying that someone would find mercy on the day of judgement doesn't mean necessarily mean the are dead.

am946745

katydid wrote: »

The past tense could be because he is somewhere else. Praying that someone would find mercy on the day of judgement doesn't mean necessarily mean the are dead.

@Katydid,,, Christians from the 1st century have been praying for the dead. I know that protestantism does not accept this, but it has been such since the start of Christianity.

katydid

am946745 wrote: »

@Katydid,,, Christians from the 1st century have been praying for the dead. I know that protestantism does not accept this, but it has been such since the start of Christianity.

It's not scriptural.

am946745

katydid wrote: »

It's not scriptural.

Where in the scriptures does it say we ONLY believe in what is written?

katydid

am946745 wrote: »

Where in the scriptures does it say we ONLY believe in what is written?

Nowhere. Why do you ask?

am946745

katydid wrote: »

Nowhere. Why do you ask?

Then why are you saying that praying for the dead (which christians have been doing for 2000 years) is not in your opinion scriptural.

lazybones32

am946745 wrote: »

@Katydid,,, Christians from the 1st century have been praying for the dead.

Even some of the early writings show that anniversary masses were offered for deceased spouses.

katydid

am946745 wrote: »

Then why are you saying that praying for the dead (which christians have been doing for 2000 years) is not in your opinion scriptural.

Because it's not mentioned in scripture. Duh. That is the basis to some objections to it.

am946745

katydid wrote: »

Because it's not mentioned in scripture. Duh. That is the basis to some objections to it.

Where does it say that Christians should only believe what is written in the Scripture? Because I have already quoted Scripture as a basis for why we pray for the dead (which has been refuted) and I have also detailed the 2000 year old practice of praying for the dead.

So my question to you.. What basis do you have for refuting what I believe in?

katydid

am946745 wrote: »

Where does it say that Christians should only believe what is written in the Scripture? Because I have already quoted Scripture as a basis for why we pray for the dead (which has been refuted) and I have also detailed the 2000 year old practice of praying for the dead.

So my question to you.. What basis do you have for refuting what I believe in?

It doesn't say it anywhere. I already answered this question.

You quoted a controversial and unclear piece of scripture, not from the gospels, but from Paul.

I'm not arguing for or against praying for the dead. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong. I'm simply saying it's not scriptural. It is, as you say, tradition.

am946745

katydid wrote: »

It doesn't say it anywhere. I already answered this question.

You quoted a controversial and unclear piece of scripture, not from the gospels, but from Paul.

I'm not arguing for or against praying for the dead. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong. I'm simply saying it's not scriptural. It is, as you say, tradition.

Its not scriptural according to your opinion.

For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

I could go on.. But there is 2000 year old tradition of praying for the dead, and Scriptural proof. (in my opinion)

katydid

am946745 wrote: »

Its not scriptural according to your opinion.



I could go on.. But there is 2000 year old tradition of praying for the dead, and Scriptural proof. (in my opinion)

No, it's not scriptural. The jury is out on the scriptural "proof" you offered. It's that simple.

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

Reading Timothy 2 Chapter 1, it is clear from the text that writer quotes Paul discussing Onesiphorus



It is clear from the verses in Timothy that Onesiphorus is dead. Paul refers to Onesiphorus using the past tense (hath, ministered). The verse confirms
Onesiphorus is dead because "in that day" refers to the divine judgement of Onesiphorus.

If Onesiphorus was alive at the time of text contained in Timothy, he would not be facing divine judgement.

Your assumptions truly are astounding. Nowhere in the passage are we told Onesiphorus is dead, because he isn't. Its a stratospheric leap to come to your conclusion.

As for praying for the dead, I see no need to drag this thread off topic. Scripture is clear that we die, then face judgement. There is no "waiting room", if such a thing existed I think Jesus in his ministry would have mentioned it at least once.

hinault

am946745 wrote: »

Where does it say that Christians should only believe what is written in the Scripture? Because I have already quoted Scripture as a basis for why we pray for the dead (which has been refuted) and I have also detailed the 2000 year old practice of praying for the dead.

So my question to you.. What basis do you have for refuting what I believe in?

That's correct.

protestants for reasons only best known to themselves of course, refuse to accept what the Bible makes clear. One should pray for the dead.

Onesiphorous was highlighted in Timothy.

Acts 9 verse 36-40

9:36 And in Joppe there was a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas. This woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.

9:37 And it came to pass in those days that she was sick, and died. Whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber.

9:38 And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppe, the disciples hearing that Peter was there, sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not be slack to come unto them.

9:39 And Peter rising up, went with them. And when he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber. And all the widows stood about him weeping, and shewing him the coats and garments which Dorcas made them.

And they all being put forth, Peter kneeling down prayed, and turning to the body, he said: Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes; and seeing Peter, she sat up.