Featured Catholic Eucharist vs the Bible version - are they the same?

Speaking of fakes -

Paul indicated in 2Thess 2 that among the errors springing up in the first century was a culture of deception and lying - producing documents that were fakes. (The Epistle of Barnabas being a later example of a fake).

In 2Thess 2 Paul points to his fear that the church would be getting letters "AS IF from us" that were promoting false doctrine and were not in fact from Paul at all. Paul is providing warning against deliberate efforts among even contemporaries to deceive various congregations.

2Thess 2
2 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,

2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Paul warns about the real problem of "fake apostles" in his day.

2Cor 11
12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast.

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.

14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.

15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

Paul says they preach a false Gospel in the first century
2Cor 11
3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!

Paul says that regardless of the first-century church authority claimed by the ones teaching a false gospel - they should be accursed if their teaching does not line up with scripture.

And he claims it is already turning the first century saints away from the Gospel

Gal 1
6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,

7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Paul is clearly identifying a first-century culture of deception, false gospel, false teaching, fake letters, fake documents springing up within the first century church.

No wonder so many Baptists want to stick with the Bible to determine the actual authentic teaching of the first century saints.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I agree that the texts I have provided do not prove that the Catholic Eucharist idea is false.

My purpose in posting the texts was to show that the "assumption" that they were living in an error-free first century so therefore the 2nd and 3rd centuries must also be "error free" is not supported by the Bible.

I also wanted to prove from the Bible-alone that the problem of fake documents, fake letters, and fake-apostles was an established first century problem. No need to wait until the 2nd century to see it spring up.

in Christ,

Bob

 

It would be well to quote the actual text - if your intent is to provide evidence either for the idea of confecting the body and soul of Christ, or the priest having such "powers" or that a change takes place in the bread at a certain point, or that at the point of saying "This is my body" Christ was either dead or sacrificed on the cross, or that Christ really said "someday in the future when you do this - this bread will become my actual body - but not now since I have not died yet".

in Christ,

Bob

 

I also gave the source document from Justin Martyr showing that his account of the actual liturgy used - does not mention anything about bread turning into something else at some point in the Lord's Communion.

So then we have a document from the middle of the 2nd century which may or may not contain error.

Since the Bible itself says they were already dealing with error in the first century - we have no basis for insisting that no error can appear in the 2nd century.

Better to simply stick with the text of scripture unless you have some way of proving that they solved the problem of error in the first century and came up with an error-free second century - plus no forged material in the 2nd century.

in Christ,

Bob

 

If the baptist position is that nothing can be found in scripture to support the idea of the Lord's table and symbols rather than confecting the body and soul of Christ - and that they need documents from the 2nd century to make their case - then you could just as easily argue that the bible warnings about fake letter, false doctrine, fake apostles - is applicable to such Baptist beliefs.

But if they are arguing the case from the scriptures itself - then we have to look at the texts to see what the case really is.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I am simply observing the point that both cannot be correct. Only one.

AS for "no sacrifice" in the memorial service - even you admit that " It is a simple ceremony which recalls to mind Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. That's pretty much it" - which means that they (and also Adventists) do reference the "once for all" completed sacrifice of Hebrews 10.

That is true. And as 1Cor 5 points out "Christ our passover has BEEN sacrificed" - the once for all sacrifice is mentioned in Hebrews 10 as being "ONE sacrifice" completed at the cross - rather than an ongoing sacrifice.

I think a lot of people would agree that Christ was the Passover Lamb and was slain ON the very day of Passover at the very time when the Passover lamb was to be slain - and was raised on the very day of first fruits.

In the memorial "do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19) Christ is not still on the cross - not still being sacrificed - but now an empty cross no longer to be sacrificed - as Hebrews 9 points out "otherwise would he have needed to suffer often".

This is a once for all sacrifice - completed at the cross according to the Bible. "This do in rememberance of Me" is in fact the words of Christ Himself.

I think most people who observe this as a memorial will agree that the bread is eaten in the Passover and in the communion service.

I think all are agreed that Christ is the once for all sacrifice pointed to by the Passover.

Here is where you evidence falls apart.

The statement you are quoting above is not said at Passover nor at the Lord's Supper.

it is said apart from any participation in Passover - and before all of it -- in John 6.

In John 6 Christ said "I AM the bread that came down out of heaven" -- he does not say "some day in the future" you must eat that bread - but He said it was true right then and there - in John 6.

A day when no one bites Christ, not even Peter bites Christ when Christ asks him about his decision.

Because in John 6 Christ clearly points out "The flesh is worthless - it is my Word that has LIFE" John 6:63

A lot of Baptists may well notice this detail, this problem for the Eucharist- as they consider the option of the Eucharist in the Catholic context.


in Christ,

Bob

 

How so? How do you suppose that even though Christ died for our sins - the only way we can become guilty of his body and blood - in an ungrateful manner - is to have the body and soul of Christ confected by a priest? It is not apparent that this is how a Bapist would view it.

Notice what Paul says in Hebrews 10 (totally apart from the communion service)

Heb 10
26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.”

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


the ONLY repeat or revisit of that sacrifice mentioned in the NT has nothing to do with obedience and the Communion service - rather it is in regard to open rebellion.

Heb 6
4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

But apart from that symbol of crucifying Christ afresh to themselves in disobedience and sin - we have the "offering" of the sacrifice of Christ "offered ONCE".

For in Heb 10 the "offering" of the body of Christ in sacrifice can only be done "once" - in fact "once for all"..

Heb 10

10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

12But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,



It is a completed done finished offering according to Heb 10



13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.

14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”

17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.


A lot of Baptists are going to notice this finished offering language , which would mean rejecting the continued offering idea in the Eucharist.

-------------------

But since you mention 1Cor 11 - and being guilty when taking part in the communion service - notice the language there is 'memorial" it is not "participation in a continued offering - or even sacrifice".

1Cor 11
“This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
in Christ,

It is not Christ on the cross at the communion service in Luke - it is Christ before the cross - not yet even sacrificed at all. And in that service he asks to be "remembered" - He uses memorial language. And so we are participating in a memorial service of a once-for-all offering of Christ - sacrificed "once for all" at the cross.


Bob

 

I am just pointing out that a lot of Baptists are going to 'notice' that this historic report by Justin Martyr of the an early Communion service does not use the language of bread-changing or the language of confecting the body and soul of Christ or the language of a continued sacrifice.

The language Justin Martyr quotes is -

[FONT=&quot]"As often as you do this [/FONT][FONT=&quot]you do make my commemoration[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”[/FONT]

Rather than "make my sacrifice" or "participate in a sacrifice".

====================

[FONT=&quot]Bokenkotter – A Concise History of the Catholic Church p 40-41[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Mass, originally called the Lord’s Supper[/FONT][FONT=&quot], the breaking of bread, the Eucharist, was celebrated by the first Christians in the late afternoon and was joined with a regular meal of ritual character. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Toward the middle of the second century, however, the sacramental meal had become an independent rite[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and was now celebrated on Sunday morning and combined with a service of reading and preaching.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Our [/FONT][FONT=&quot]earliest description of the Mass is from the pen of Justin Martyr[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (d. 165) and reflects this development. It is a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]simple service consisting of prayers[/FONT][FONT=&quot] by the whole assembly followed by a kiss of peace. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Bread and wine were then brought to the president of the assembly, who recited a long prayer of thanksgiving[/FONT][FONT=&quot], all present finally consumed the bread and consecrated wine. On some occasions, the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Eucharist was preceded by a reading of the prophets[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and memoirs of the apostles, as well as a homily by the president.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The [FONT=&quot]oldest liturgical form of the Mass[/FONT] (except the Didache[/FONT][FONT=&quot], a different type) is found in the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Church Order of Hippolytus[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (d. 236). It is evidently the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]basis of all Eucharistic prayers[/FONT][FONT=&quot] that have since been composed. The bishop lays his hands upon the bread and wine and water offered upon the altar table and begins the following dialogue: (Bokenkotter p 41)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bishop: The Lord be with you[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Congregation: And with thy spirit[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bishop: Hearts up[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Congregation: We have them to the Lord[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bishop: We thank Thee, God, through Thy beloved Servant Jesus… [/FONT][FONT=&quot]he took the loaf, gave thanks[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and spake “Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you” Likewise also the cup and said, “This is my blood which is poured out for you. As often as you do this [/FONT][FONT=&quot]you do make my commemoration[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Remembering therefore His death and resurrection[/FONT][FONT=&quot], we [/FONT][FONT=&quot]offer to Thee the loaf and the cup[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and give thanks to Thee that Thou hast counted us worthy to stand before Thee and to do Thee priestly service.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And we beseech Thee, that Thou send down Thy holy Spirit upon this offering of the church. Unite it and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]grant to all the saints who partake of it to their fulfilling with holy Spirit[/FONT][FONT=&quot], to their strengthening of faith in truth, that we may praise and glorify Thee through Thy Servant Jesus Christ, through whom to Thee be glory and honor in Thy holy church now and ever. Amen.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Bokenkotter p42) [/FONT]

====================

It is bound to be noticed that the language Martyr said was actually used IN the liturgy does not include Martyr's own language on what that sacrifice is.

In the first century we have a number of players - the Judaizers of Acts 15:1, Peter before he met Cornelius still unaware that the Gospel was supposed to go to Gentiles in Acts 10, the Apostles of Gal 1:6-11, the deceivers of 3John and 1John 4:2-6, the antichrist teachers in 1John 2... any of them could "write".

So in the broad spectrum of the 2nd century that would have existed 100 years AFTER Paul - unchecked by any existing Apostles of Christ from the first century - what part of the spectrum might Martyr be in? Who knows?

Fortunately we don't need to worry about that since we have the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Hebrews does not attribute "powers" to the sacraments to "mark the soul" etc.

A key element missing for the Catholic view.

Since no one bites Christ in John 6 - not even the faithful disciples a lot of people observe that this was a symbol.

Since Christ said in John 6:63 "the flesh is worthless - my WORD is life" many conclude that eating his flesh meant accepting his WORD in John 6 - since John introduced this to us as "THE WORD became FLESH" John 1.

And since the reference in John 6 to "bread coming down out of heaven" goes back to Deu 8 the "lesson" of Manna "Man shall not live by BREAD alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God".

Thus in the same way Jesus said John 6:63 "My WORD is spirit and life".

And since in Matt 16:11-12 Christ reprimands the disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally and not accepting it as a symbol for teaching.

But the faithLESS followers of John 6 DO take him too literally and complain as you noticed

They accused him falsely of a number of things - include the charge that he would destroy the temple and then rebuild it in 3 days.

He did not correct them.

Correcting those who were determined to be in rebellion was not his work as He states in Matt 13 -- but He did have the work of instructing faithFUL disciples and so in John 6 He does that - and not one of them bites him.

Had the remaining faithFUL disciples all chosen to bite Jesus in John 6 - there could have been no cross, no trial, no Passover meal, no last supper. I think people may notice that detail.

in Christ,

Bob