GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: About Mass ?  (Read 5332 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5587
  • Manna: 113
    • View Profile
Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #175 on: Wed Apr 11, 2018 - 21:49:42 »
Yeah, it was so obvious it took like 1600 years to come to that conclusion.

Ladonia,

You are actually turning the tables around, so lets set the record straight.
transubstantiation was only confirmed and concluded by the RCC in 1551!

It took YOU almost 1600 years to come to that conclusion.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #175 on: Wed Apr 11, 2018 - 21:49:42 »

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #176 on: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 03:43:54 »
Ladonia,

You are actually turning the tables around, so lets set the record straight.
transubstantiation was only confirmed and concluded by the RCC in 1551!

It took YOU almost 1600 years to come to that conclusion.

Like I said before, that was just when they gave it a name. Look, from the outset of the Christianity there was but one denomination and the head Bishop was in Rome - the Western Church. In 1054 there was the great schism and the Church in the East known as the Eastern Orthodox and the Western Church which subsequently was called the "Roman" Catholic Church split and both of them believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Early Church Fathers believed this reality and taught this to the faithful.

While there might have been some minor Christian sects during that time who differed, they probably added up to no more than 2 to 3 percent of all the Christians in the world. So we can see that the great majority of believers throughout the whole history of Christendom believed in the "Real Presence" of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Your belief that the Holy Eucharist is but a mere symbol never really came about until a man named Huldrych Zwingli came up with the idea in the 1500's. Those are the facts my brother and neither you nor I can change them.
« Last Edit: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 04:15:09 by Ladonia »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #176 on: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 03:43:54 »

KiwiChristian

  • Guest
Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #177 on: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 04:49:38 »
Look, from the outset of the Christianity there was but one denomination and the head Bishop was in Rome - the Western Church.

Rubbish.

The Roman Catholic "Church" was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church.  The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire.  Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its false claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.


The early church as described in the NT did the following: shared all things in common, relationships, support missionaries/ministers, teaching & preaching, praying, worshiping, reading of scripture, evangelism, fostering spiritual gifts. No where does the NT dictate fancy buildings, robes, repetitive prayer, a priesthood, Mary worship, sectarianism, or any order of service, etc.. all these are MAN MADE traditions ADDED ON.

The true church isn't catholic or protestant. It doesn't have a mailing address or a zip code. It is the body of believers in Jesus Christ the world over. Christ has written their names in the book of life. Christ knows who His friends are.

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5587
  • Manna: 113
    • View Profile
Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #178 on: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 06:58:13 »
Like I said before, that was just when they gave it a name. Look, from the outset of the Christianity there was but one denomination and the head Bishop was in Rome - the Western Church. In 1054 there was the great schism and the Church in the East known as the Eastern Orthodox and the Western Church which subsequently was called the "Roman" Catholic Church split and both of them believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Early Church Fathers believed this reality and taught this to the faithful.

While there might have been some minor Christian sects during that time who differed, they probably added up to no more than 2 to 3 percent of all the Christians in the world. So we can see that the great majority of believers throughout the whole history of Christendom believed in the "Real Presence" of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Your belief that the Holy Eucharist is but a mere symbol never really came about until a man named Huldrych Zwingli came up with the idea in the 1500's. Those are the facts my brother and neither you nor I can change them.

Is that so? Lets indeed check with the Early Church Fathers which both you and I hold so dear.

Tertullian
“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh”

The Didache
Refers to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9)

Justin Martyr
“the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood

Clement of Alexandria
“The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood”

Origen
“We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist”

Cyprian
“I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ”

Eusebius of Caesarea
For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk”

Athanasius
What He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.”

Augustine
Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood

Augustine
“He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood.”

Augustine
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us"


9th century - Paschasius Radbertus proposed the Eucharist was identical with Christ's heavenly body
9th century - Ratramnus proposed a purely figurative view of the Eucharist
11th century - Berengar of Tours denied transubstantiation

The first time the term "transubstantiation" is ever used is in the 11th century, introduced by Hildebert de Lavardin
It was only widely used by the 12th century

You do understand that all the way up to this point NONE of these guys were declared heretics because the RCC had not made up their mind yet.
Both views, as far as the church was concerned were valid views and up for debate.
It was only in the 13th century that the RCC started to develop a doctrine around transubstantiation,

And then came the Reformation.
During the Reformation the RCC still had not confirmed the transubstantiation of the Eucharist.
Only at the Council of Trent in 1551 this happened.


As you can see the discussion regarding transubstantiation (or the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist) was alive and has been alive all the way until the 16th century when the matter was finally decided on by the Council of Trent.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #178 on: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 06:58:13 »

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #179 on: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 08:13:01 »
Is that so? Lets indeed check with the Early Church Fathers which both you and I hold so dear.

Tertullian
“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh”

The Didache
Refers to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9)

Justin Martyr
“the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood

Clement of Alexandria
“The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood”

Origen
“We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist”



Athanasius
What He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.”

Augustine
Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood

Augustine
“He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood.”

Augustine
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us"


9th century - Paschasius Radbertus proposed the Eucharist was identical with Christ's heavenly body
9th century - Ratramnus proposed a purely figurative view of the Eucharist
11th century - Berengar of Tours denied transubstantiation

The first time the term "transubstantiation" is ever used is in the 11th century, introduced by Hildebert de Lavardin
It was only widely used by the 12th century

You do understand that all the way up to this point NONE of these guys were declared heretics because the RCC had not made up their mind yet.
Both views, as far as the church was concerned were valid views and up for debate.
It was only in the 13th century that the RCC started to develop a doctrine around transubstantiation,

And then came the Reformation.
During the Reformation the RCC still had not confirmed the transubstantiation of the Eucharist.
Only at the Council of Trent in 1551 this happened.


As you can see the discussion regarding transubstantiation (or the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist) was alive and has been alive all the way until the 16th century when the matter was finally decided on by the Council of Trent.

St. Paul the Apostle "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?  Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons".

And then we have the tour de force by St. Paul where he says:

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord". Ummmm,  "shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" - not much that he thinks it is just a symbol with those words, right my friend?

But let's go to the Early Church Fathers, because they say:

ST. HILARY OF POITERS  (Alt)
St. Hilary firmly defended the Nicene Creed against Arian false doctrines. He was ordained Bishop of Poiters in 350 A.D. His efforts led to the collapse of Arianism in the West. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pius IX in 1851.
"When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously - had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: 'My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.' As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God."
-"The Trinity" [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D


ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO  (Alt)
"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ."
-"Sermons", [227, 21]

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the  Philadelphians 4:1)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor 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. (First Apology, 66)

Tertullian (c. 155 - 250 A.D.)
Likewise, in 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…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE… (Prayer 19:1)
The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3

St. Athanasius (c. 295 - 373 A.D.)
You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ….Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine -- and thus is His Body confected. (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)


St. John Chrysostom (c. 344 - 407 A.D.)
When you see the Lord IMMOLATED and lying upon the ALTAR, and the priest bent over that SACRIFICE praying, and all the people empurpled by that PRECIOUS BLOOD, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven? (Priesthood 3:4:177)

Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the SACRIFICIAL VICTIM WHO IS PLACED THEREON! (Homilies on Romans 8:8)

Christ is present. The One [Christ] who prepared that [Holy Thursday] table is the very One who now prepares this [altar] table. For it is not a man who makes the SACRIFICIAL GIFTS BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ, but He that was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest stands there carrying out the action, but the power and the grace is of God, "THIS IS MY BODY," he says. This statement TRANSFORMS the gifts. (Homilies on Treachery of Judas 1:6)

You missed some of the quotes, so I have posted them here for you.

As for 'transubstatiation" that was the word given to what happens, the belief however was there from the very beginning. Did some deny this truth? Of course - they were being heretical in their viewpoint of this. Face it, the prepondurance of the evidence shows without a doubt what the Church taught and what all Christendom believed about this. Your viewpoint only really took hold way down the line in the 16th century. Sorry, but those are the facts.


« Last Edit: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 08:54:09 by Ladonia »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #179 on: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 08:13:01 »



Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5587
  • Manna: 113
    • View Profile
Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #180 on: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 09:03:48 »
St. Paul the Apostle "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?  Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons".

And then we have the tour de force by St. Paul where he says:

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord". Ummmm,  "shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" - not much that he thinks it is just a symbol with those words, right my friend?

But let's go to the Early Church Fathers, because they say:

ST. HILARY OF POITERS  (Alt)
St. Hilary firmly defended the Nicene Creed against Arian false doctrines. He was ordained Bishop of Poiters in 350 A.D. His efforts led to the collapse of Arianism in the West. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pius IX in 1851.
"When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously - had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: 'My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.' As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God."
-"The Trinity" [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D


ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO  (Alt)
"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ."
-"Sermons", [227, 21]

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the  Philadelphians 4:1)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor 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. (First Apology, 66)

Tertullian (c. 155 - 250 A.D.)
Likewise, in 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…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE… (Prayer 19:1)
The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3

St. Athanasius (c. 295 - 373 A.D.)
You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ….Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine -- and thus is His Body confected. (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)


St. John Chrysostom (c. 344 - 407 A.D.)
When you see the Lord IMMOLATED and lying upon the ALTAR, and the priest bent over that SACRIFICE praying, and all the people empurpled by that PRECIOUS BLOOD, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven? (Priesthood 3:4:177)

Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the SACRIFICIAL VICTIM WHO IS PLACED THEREON! (Homilies on Romans 8:8)

Christ is present. The One [Christ] who prepared that [Holy Thursday] table is the very One who now prepares this [altar] table. For it is not a man who makes the SACRIFICIAL GIFTS BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ, but He that was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest stands there carrying out the action, but the power and the grace is of God, "THIS IS MY BODY," he says. This statement TRANSFORMS the gifts. (Homilies on Treachery of Judas 1:6)

You missed some of the quotes, so I have posted them here for you. As for 'transubstatiation" that was the word given to what happens, the belief however was there from the very beginning. Did some deny this truth? Of course - there were being heretical in their viepoint of this. Face it, the prepondurance of the evidence shows without a doubt what the Church taught and what all Christendom believed about this. Your viewpoint only really took hold way down the line in the 16th century. Sorry, but those are the facts!

True, and I am not disputing the fact that potentially the notion of transubstantiation could be derived from the quotes.
But that was not the claim I was responding to.

Your claim was: "The Early Church Fathers believed this reality and taught this to the faithful."

My response shows that this is not true. The ECF's did not (all) believed this reality and taught this to the faithful. It is not truth to claim that this was an established fact, and that the ECF's were in one accord. In fact the quotes you have brought up are still ambiguous about what the ECF's taught or thought about this issue.

What I am asking you to do is to be accurate in your claims.

Take the rest of your claims for example:

- Like I said before, that was just when they gave it a name.
- Look, from the outset of the Christianity there was but one denomination and the head Bishop was in Rome - the Western Church.


The term transubstantiation first shows up in the 11th century, it was confirmed by the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
So it is not that that the Council of Trent "just gave it a name". The name already existed for 500 years.
Transubstantiation was affirmed and concluded by the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
So it is kind of unfair by you to accuse the Reformers they took 1600 years to make up their mind, whilst it took the RCC 30 years longer to make up their mind.

Then your claim that their was one denomination from the onset, and the head bishop was in Rome also is an incorrect claim.

Firstly, scripture tells us that some said "they were of Paul" and others "they were of Apollos", yet others "they were of Cephas" and others "they were of Christ".
It appears to me that right from the onset people were divided and formed different denominations.
There was not just one denomination, and there never have been.
It's very simple, just google for church history and different denominations. Everything is there to show you wrong.

Secondly, the head bishop has not always been in Rome.
Just one example, from 1309 to 1377 the head bishop (7 in total) resided in Avignon, France. It is known as the Avignon Papacy.


Yes I am aware that you are repeating what the church tells you, what they want you to believe.
The truth however is just a google away. It is so simple to check these so-called facts and find out they are not.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5519
  • Manna: 93
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #181 on: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 09:41:59 »
St. Paul the Apostle "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?  Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons".

And then we have the tour de force by St. Paul where he says:

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord". Ummmm,  "shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" - not much that he thinks it is just a symbol with those words, right my friend?

But let's go to the Early Church Fathers, because they say:

ST. HILARY OF POITERS  (Alt)
St. Hilary firmly defended the Nicene Creed against Arian false doctrines. He was ordained Bishop of Poiters in 350 A.D. His efforts led to the collapse of Arianism in the West. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pius IX in 1851.
"When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously - had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: 'My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.' As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God."
-"The Trinity" [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D


ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO  (Alt)
"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ."
-"Sermons", [227, 21]

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the  Philadelphians 4:1)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor 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. (First Apology, 66)

Tertullian (c. 155 - 250 A.D.)
Likewise, in 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…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE… (Prayer 19:1)
The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3

St. Athanasius (c. 295 - 373 A.D.)
You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ….Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine -- and thus is His Body confected. (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)


St. John Chrysostom (c. 344 - 407 A.D.)
When you see the Lord IMMOLATED and lying upon the ALTAR, and the priest bent over that SACRIFICE praying, and all the people empurpled by that PRECIOUS BLOOD, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven? (Priesthood 3:4:177)

Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the SACRIFICIAL VICTIM WHO IS PLACED THEREON! (Homilies on Romans 8:8)

Christ is present. The One [Christ] who prepared that [Holy Thursday] table is the very One who now prepares this [altar] table. For it is not a man who makes the SACRIFICIAL GIFTS BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ, but He that was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest stands there carrying out the action, but the power and the grace is of God, "THIS IS MY BODY," he says. This statement TRANSFORMS the gifts. (Homilies on Treachery of Judas 1:6)

You missed some of the quotes, so I have posted them here for you.

As for 'transubstatiation" that was the word given to what happens, the belief however was there from the very beginning. Did some deny this truth? Of course - they were being heretical in their viewpoint of this. Face it, the prepondurance of the evidence shows without a doubt what the Church taught and what all Christendom believed about this. Your viewpoint only really took hold way down the line in the 16th century. Sorry, but those are the facts.

I haven't got time to get involved in this but have you noticed the BIG difference between your quotes and those of AVZ?

You give references and they can be checked.

AVZ gives none so it is not possible to check them.

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #182 on: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 10:11:20 »
True, and I am not disputing the fact that potentially the notion of transubstantiation could be derived from the quotes.
But that was not the claim I was responding to.

Your claim was: "The Early Church Fathers believed this reality and taught this to the faithful."

My response shows that this is not true. The ECF's did not (all) believed this reality and taught this to the faithful. It is not truth to claim that this was an established fact, and that the ECF's were in one accord. In fact the quotes you have brought up are still ambiguous about what the ECF's taught or thought about this issue.

What I am asking you to do is to be accurate in your claims.

Take the rest of your claims for example:

- Like I said before, that was just when they gave it a name.
- Look, from the outset of the Christianity there was but one denomination and the head Bishop was in Rome - the Western Church.


The term transubstantiation first shows up in the 11th century, it was confirmed by the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
So it is not that that the Council of Trent "just gave it a name". The name already existed for 500 years.
Transubstantiation was affirmed and concluded by the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
So it is kind of unfair by you to accuse the Reformers they took 1600 years to make up their mind, whilst it took the RCC 30 years longer to make up their mind.

Then your claim that their was one denomination from the onset, and the head bishop was in Rome also is an incorrect claim.

Firstly, scripture tells us that some said "they were of Paul" and others "they were of Apollos", yet others "they were of Cephas" and others "they were of Christ".
It appears to me that right from the onset people were divided and formed different denominations.
There was not just one denomination, and there never have been.
It's very simple, just google for church history and different denominations. Everything is there to show you wrong.

Secondly, the head bishop has not always been in Rome.
Just one example, from 1309 to 1377 the head bishop (7 in total) resided in Avignon, France. It is known as the Avignon Papacy.


Yes I am aware that you are repeating what the church tells you, what they want you to believe.
The truth however is just a google away. It is so simple to check these so-called facts and find out they are not.

You have mixed the facts with your determination. The quotes I posted from the ECF's confirm this fact and anyone who did not believe this was in heresy of the teachings of the Church. This is what the Church has always taught about this and what it teaches now. This is one of it's most steadfast and rock solid teachings FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. When the Eastern Church went their own way, did they abandon this? No!

There might have been "of Paul"; "of Apollo"; "of Cephas", but if they did not toe the line from those in authority - they were out. Good grief, that's what all the letters by St. Paul to the outlying churches were all about - him telling them where they were messing up and they had better get with the program. There was One Church and it grew from that place to a point of the ECF's, the Bishop's of the Christian Church - there was no other. They held council's and synods to decide things and decide they did and the faithful listened. This lasted until 1054 when the East and West parted ways - this is historical fact! Any others claiming to be Christians  who were not allied with the Universal Church were in an extreme minority.

Sure, I know all about what has happened in the Church throughout the years with "Avignon" Popes and what not, those were aberrations, but things eventually went right back to Rome. The idea of no "Real Presence" only took hold after the so called "Reformers" came on the scene. They have no place to talk as they were soon splitting from each other, individual men coming up with something different than the last guy. Yep, they have no credibility as far as I am concerned.
 
Look, you folks have rejected everything of orthodox Christianity including the sacraments etc., right down to no altars in your churches. That's fine if you want to go that way and you can believe whatever you want to believe. You have your own interpretation of the Scriptures that works well for you, so go for it.

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #183 on: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 11:05:54 »
Ladonia,

It seems that one of the problems, if not the problem, has to be whether we can understand Jesus use of the phrase, “This is...” symbolically, or if it has to be understood literally.

The Bible is chock full of figurative language and symbolisms. KiwiChristian posted some. Obviously, the phrases, “You are...” and “I am...” can and should be understood figuratively in those contexts. A person invites a look at a picture of a loved one and says, "This is my sister." Obviously, it is a picture of the sister, not the person herself. The phrase, “This is...” as used by Jesus, can be understood and used the same way in the context of instituting the Lord’s Supper.

The Eucharist was instituted at the same time as another memorial meal, the Passover. The Passover was observed as a reminder of the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage. In the same way, the Eucharist was set up to be observed as a reminder of our deliverance from bondage to sin through the sacrifice of Christ.

The Passover was observed yearly, while the event that inaugurated it, the passing over of the destroyer to strike the firstborn of those who had not applied the blood, occurred just once. In the same way, while the Lord’s Supper is observed often, the event that inaugurated it, the crucifixion of our Lord, occurred just once. Inasmuch as the destroyer is not still passing over the houses like he did back then, looking for lambs' blood on door posts, Jesus is not repeatedly being crucified; His flesh and blood are not continually being offered.

They are memorials meant to hearken the partakers back to the inaugurating events. The only thing more important than the emblems being used are the hearts of those partaking. I believe partaking of the Eucharist will have no meaningful application to the partaker if he or she is not eating and drinking with humility and thanksgiving to God in heart and mind.

One question we ought to ask ourselves is, “What would the disciples being served the Passover by Jesus have understood when He said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood”? Would they have taken the phrases literally to mean they were literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood? I have to seriously doubt it. Was Jesus partaking of His own flesh and blood then? I have to seriously doubt it.

Jesus was using metaphors to describe the significance of partaking of the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. It does bear great significance, to the extent that we take seriously and fully appreciate the sacrifice Jesus made for us. The inaugurating event, Christ’s one time sacrifice, and our heartfelt response to that event, is what gives meaning and significance to the Lord’s Supper.

Jesus was right there. How much more "Real Presence" can you get than that? Also, Jesus said He would partake with the believes during their/our partaking. How much more Real Presence can you get than His being among His worshipers during worship?

Jesus has ascended into heaven to be seated at the right hand of God. I personally do not believe He occupies the same kind of physical body that He did while He was here during His ministry. We are not going to experience a "Real Presence" beyond what He had promised His disciples during the Lord's Supper, concerning His partaking with them. Obviously, I would think, that presence is spiritual. We are not going to experience a physical presence of any shape, kind, or form until the Second Coming.

Firstly, even though many times words are used to mean something else, in this instance I do not agree with you at all that the words "This is...." means "this represents". No, no, no, not in this case. This was too important a thing to be playing around with.  Jesus wanted to be direct and leave the faithful with no doubt as to what He meant and many left Him because of this. Those that did depart from Him knew exactly what He was talking about.

You said: "Jesus is not repeatedly being crucified; His flesh and blood are not continually being offered". I will defer to the Church's teaching on this. Yes, we agree, He was crucified one time and for all in this "bloody" manner, His blood having to be shed for salvation, but for His memorial He wanted to bring us there, right to the foot of Calvary, so the sacrifice, now in an un-bloody manner, can be seen by all. To do that,  the elements of bread and wine would indeed become His Body, His Blood, His Soul, and Divinity, sacramentally present, the "Real Presence" if you will, called such to differentiate this from His mere spiritual presence in other ways. This is not an impossible thing for God to accomplish - the man who was birthed from a Virgin via the Holy Spirit, raised others from the dead, cured diseases, walked on water, and who Himself came back from the dead to defeat it and give eternal life to all who believe.

This is what the Church has taught from the beginning, what the Early Fathers of the newly emerging Christian Church believed and passed on, and what so many believe right to this day. This is an act of faith, as much an act of faith as even believing that there is a heaven that awaits us after this long journey here. We Catholics are often accused of taking the things in the Scriptures we read about figuratively, but when we take this particular thing literally we are still called to account - we just can't win. But hey, that's okay, because we are as secure in our faith, as secure in our biblical interpretations as anyone else out there.

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: About Mass ?
« Reply #184 on: Thu Apr 12, 2018 - 11:07:13 »
I haven't got time to get involved in this but have you noticed the BIG difference between your quotes and those of AVZ?

You give references and they can be checked.

AVZ gives none so it is not possible to check them.

He just missed them by "mistake" - no problem.