Bible Study Lords Supper

[one_lost_coin]

Thank you Tina for your words. I hope my reply to one_lost_coin addresses your comment about non-believers partaking of the Lord's Supper.

one_lost_coin,

...Jesus was willing to fellowship with us where we are at. Jesus at with sinners, tax collectors and yes, even those who did not believe He was the Son of God as shown in the meals outlined in Luke...

You misinterpret this. Read the warning in the Didache "Do not give what is Holy to dogs", read the warning from St. Paul, read the warning from St. Augustine. It is not an act of love to admit to a valid Eucharist those who not yet in a state grace there is actual danger in it. And Jesus never celebrated the Lord's Supper outside the Community of Faith whether in the feeding of the multitudes or at the Last Supper or with those he traveled with on the road to emmaus.

 

[lovely]

Christian Crusader,

In light of one_lost_coin's post I looked back over this topic, and I forgot to thank you for the quotes you presented to show me what you believe. I read them, and I appreciate you taking the time to post them as we consider this topic. It is a good topic, Jeff, and I am enjoying the thread. The Lord bless you both.

 

[stovebolts]

One lost coin,

I see that you’ve edited your post since yesterday. Thanks you, it makes it much simpler to reply. (BTW, I think Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans is a tad out of context for this discussion)

I actually was wanting to be deliberate about all of John 6 in its entirty as I think it is all the elements of this story together that help protect it from misinterpretation.

Just to take a step back to your earlier post, I plan on doing an outline on John 6 next week if the Lord allows. I am sure that you recognize the Exodus language in the words of Jesus as he affirms the anticipation of the New Covenant to the children of Israel.

You memory is failing you about it beginning with Jerome you can start as early as Ignatius also a disciple of John.

Ahh, thank you for correcting me, I appreciate it. Though I said Jerome, it was Ignatius I was referring too. That’s what I like about the Bible Study Forum; it's a safe place to study and form conclusions instead of battling doctrines. :

Ignatius of Antioch [50-117 AD]
Epistle to the Romans
I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

In Ignatius’ letter to the Romans, (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html), it becomes very clear that Ignatius knows his life is short and his days are numbered. (Remember, he’s a great Martyr for the faith and he knows his end is soon) This is key IMO because the focus from Table (A place of celebration and fellowship) becomes less while the focus of Alter (A place of sacrifice) becomes greater. Ignatius sees himself as a sacrifice to God and thus identifies with the Alter as a place of sacrifice. Take into account the Judaizers he had to counter as well as the Docetists who held to Docetism (a very early heretical belief that held that Christ’s body was not material or real, but only the appearance of a body) and it’s easy to see how Ignatius formed his views. Not taking these facts into account can lead to an erroneous belief.

If we follow this pattern upstream, the picture becomes even clearer. We already know how the church at Corinth was abusing not only the agape feast, but the Eucharist as well. To counter these abuses which persisted, Ignatius calls on the Bishop’s authority to administer the Eucharist. Call it a form or regulation if you will... Carry this forward to Augustine, and we see that the Agape has all but vanished and the Eucharist has taken on a purely liturgical flavor.

Going back to the Didache (Believed to have been written directly by the Apostles), we see the Eucharist set within the framework of a Jewish meal prayer (Old Testament festivals). The purpose of the festivals, as previously outlined in this study was for fellowship not only with the community, but with God. The purpose of the sacrifice was always intended to be shared at the Table with a Table mentality. Again, I hear the echo, “The Alter grounds the Tableâ€Â. The Alter is a place for rededication and the Table is a place where God meets us in celebration.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....I plan on doing an outline on John 6 next week if the Lord allows. I am sure that you recognize the Exodus language in the words of Jesus as he affirms the anticipation of the New Covenant to the children of Israel.....

If you find the time: Before you do the outline, I highly recommend reading the book "The Lamb's Supper" by Scott Hahn.

 

[stovebolts]

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=30065[/url]
Too bad its locked. It would be nice if the Mods would re-open it.[/quote:72193]

Had the discussions been kept civil, there wouldn't have been a need to lock it down : Enough said...

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....Had the discussions been kept civil, there wouldn't have been a need to lock it down : Enough said...

This is true.

 

[stovebolts]

Thanks CC, but I don't think I'll have time to read it.

If you have read it, I would highly value your input when we start moving through the text.

 

[one_lost_coin]

One lost coin,

I see that you’ve edited your post since yesterday. Thanks you, it makes it much simpler to reply. (BTW, I think Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans is a tad out of context for this discussion)
Ahh, thank you for correcting me, I appreciate it.
Epistle to the Romans
I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.
In Ignatius’ letter to the Romans, (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html), it becomes very clear that Ignatius knows his life is short and his days are numbered. (Remember, he’s a great Martyr for the faith and he knows his end is soon) This is key IMO because the focus from Table (A place of celebration and fellowship) becomes less while the focus of Alter (A place of sacrifice) becomes greater. Ignatius sees himself as a sacrifice to God and thus identifies with the Alter as a place of sacrifice. Take into account the Judaizers he had to counter as well as the Docetists who held to Docetism (a very early heretical belief that held that Christ’s body was not material or real, but only the appearance of a body) and it’s easy to see how Ignatius formed his views. Not taking these facts into account can lead to an erroneous belief.

If we follow this pattern upstream, the picture becomes even clearer. We already know how the church at Corinth was abusing not only the agape feast, but the Eucharist as well. To counter these abuses which persisted, Ignatius calls on the Bishop’s authority to administer the Eucharist. Call it a form or regulation if you will... Carry this forward to Augustine, and we see that the Agape has all but vanished and the Eucharist has taken on a purely liturgical flavor.

Going back to the Didache (Believed to have been written directly by the Apostles), we see the Eucharist set within the framework of a Jewish meal prayer (Old Testament festivals). The purpose of the festivals, as previously outlined in this study was for fellowship not only with the community, but with God. The purpose of the sacrifice was always intended to be shared at the Table with a Table mentality. Again, I hear the echo, “The Alter grounds the Tableâ€Â. The Alter is a place for rededication and the Table is a place where God meets us in celebration.

The first quote from the letter to the Smyrna seems perfectly in play as evidence that the Church in the time of the Apostles had one belief which is the context it was brought up "...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". The point can't be laid out more clearly except when Jesus makes it in John 6.

The quote from the letter to the romans "...I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ,..." by it he meant exactly what it says. One thing Ignatius wasn't was enigmatic, he was a very to the point writer.

The rest of what you shared on the background of the letter with what was happening in Ignatius life was quit well done but the text means what it says and you are very correct too. It is possible for both to be right. The things you shared about Ignatius, the altar, Jewish feasts which were fullfilled by Jesus Christ were all quit nice no one is trying to take those from you as a matter of fact we share them. I can even add to them if you like. We are trying to build on them though because there is much more depth and one crucial element missing. The one the Church has always believed from the day it was concieved to today as witnessed to by the Church Fathers and the truth of it opens up the reception of life.

Jesus is the Passover Lamb and a key part of that feast after the slaying of the lamb the blood had been marked, bread had been baked was to eat it.

Jesus is the Lamb he is really present and all are called to eat Him whether it sounds absurd or not. It sounded so outrageous in John 6 that many walked away.

Well its payday the weekend is arriving so I will walk away too. Hope everyone has a great weekend guess I will catch you all when the John 6 study comes out.

 

[stovebolts]

Hi one_lost_coin,

Nice post. Thanks for your reply. As you may be finding out, we share much in common and only disagree on one area which to me, is a non issue from a salvific postion.

The quote from the letter to the romans "...I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ,..." by it he meant exactly what it says. One thing Ignatius wasn't was enigmatic, he was a very to the point writer.

I agree. Keep in mind scripture states, Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html

Do ye therefore arm yourselves with gentleness and recover yourselves in faith which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love which is the blood of Jesus Christ.

For me, all of a sudden Ignatius makes more sense as he struggles with his fate, knowing he is going to be killed for his faith.

 

[stovebolts]

Hello one_lost_coin

I wanted to come back to my last post for some clarification as I did post it in haste (We traveled to the thumb for a wedding) and all weekend I wondered if the way I posted would come across the wrong way. (Arrogance or a cheap shot) If it came across as such, my apology for such a post made in haste. BTW, hope you had a great weekend and you still have a couple of nickels to rub together :

Friday as I was reading the letters that Ignatius has written, I was honestly moved by his words as he struggled with the reality of his faith and the reality of his earthy fate. Ignatius was truly a great martyr for the Christian faith and I hold him in high regard. Actually, if I were to put myself in his shoes, I don’t know that the outpouring of my soul might not have looked similar of distress.

A couple things caught my eye when I was reading the letters from Ignatius and I would like to pass these by.

When Ignatius writes to the Romans, the letter is a very close, emotional and painful letter which describes a man coming to terms with an impending, violent death that is soon ahead of him. Within that context, he states,

“Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God. If any man hath Him within himself, let him understand what I desire, and let him have fellow-feeling with me, for he knoweth the things whichstraiten me.â€Â

Here, we know that passion describes the suffering that Christ went though. Within the same letter, Ignatius also states,

“I have no delight in the food of corruption or in the delights of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who was of the seed of David; and for a draught I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.â€Â

This “Bread of God†and “Bloodâ€Â, I believe refer back to what Ignatius said to the Trallians whom he considered ‘babes’ in Christ and thus, made it a point to be very clear with his words as not to feed meat to babes he states,

“Do ye therefore arm yourselves with gentleness and recover yourselves in faith which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love which is the blood of Jesus Christ.â€Â

First, in the letter to the Romans, he starts off by saying, “I have no delight in the food of corruptionâ€Â. This indicates to me that he is not speaking of a physical food, but rather a spiritual food. Combine this with what he wrote to the Trallians, and we find that what he is seeking is gentleness to recover his faith in Christ.

When we look at the passion of Christ, Jesus himself was gentle and submitted to the Fathers will even as the nails were hammered into his hands and feet and his clothes were divided below him. That perfect submission is a great picture of what perfect faith looks like and I believe that Ignatius, not being perfect struggled with the idea of revolt like any human would as I'm sure he would have been reminded of the words of Jesus on the cross, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do"

When we speak of the blood of Christ, we know that it was through love (God) that our sins are forgiven. Scripture states,
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.

Keeping in mind that the cross functioned as the Alter, I believe when Ignatius speaks of the blood of Christ, he is speaking of being perfectly united with Christ through love and we know that it was God’s perfect love for us which led to Christ’s passion. If you read the letter to the Romans in it’s entirely, Ignatius wants his own suffering to come quickly (which I believes points to the suffering he is enduring) and he does not want his fellow brothers to postpone his suffering and further, but rather, he would have the ones whom wish to kill him be enticed to do so quickly.

So then, I do not conclude that Ignatius desires the physical ‘flesh’ or ‘blood’ of Christ, but rather he is seeking and desiring that which is perfect, which is the gentleness and love o f Christ in his time of distress. I also believe this is a spiritual desire, and not a physical desire.

Thank you for reading this. I would appreciate your comment.

 

[one_lost_coin]

In the mass this Sunday I heard the Priest refer to the Eucharist as our "Spiritual Food" he in no way meant to deny that it was the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord only to describe the same thing in another way and bring out more of what is in our presence.

This is very common. One only needs to just simply read Ignatius and listen to find he was Catholic and believed the same that is common to all Catholics. So Ignatius likes to use the symbols in a variety of ways who doesn't. I have done so myself just today. Irony is using the same word intentionally in two different ways at the same time it so common it has its own word for its instance of useage.

Put 2 and 2 together He insist the Eucharist needs a Bishop to be valid, he does say that he desires the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ. He doesn't back deny it rather emphasises it to a community that held a lesser understanding of it. He's a huge fan of Apostolic Succession and has a profound understanding of recieving and passing on the Full Deposit of Faith as an Oral as well as Written.

As an aside the altar is also seen as a symbol for the empty tomb, the heart as well as a number of other things in addition to the Cross which you have already pointed out. None of those uses makes any of the others false and neither does anything Ignatius say ever deny his Catholic faith (he is also the one who coined the term Catholic so I am playing off that both ways ) and belief that it is Jesus really present.

There just isn't any one denying it is Jesus Body in the Early Church. All that could be said is they were wrong and that is very unlikely although not an uncommon opinion.

Justin Martyr [100-165 AD]
First Apology
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

 

[stovebolts]

Thanks for your reply lost coin.

To agree with you, yes, Catholic does mean universal and I do recall Ignatius referring to the church as the one universal church. Thank you for clarifying that. However, also keep in mind that there was one universal church at the time as there is today. When we partake of the Lord's Supper, that Church meets at the Table of Christ where Jesus is host. Can I get an Amen?

As far as Ignatius referring to the bread and wine as Christ's literal flesh and blood, I don't read that into any of his writing, especially after going through all of his letters.

As far as the Eucharist needing a Bishop, Yes, he does state that but again, this is in response to the abuses taking place among the churches as we have mentioned earlier in reference to the church at Corinth. By placing a Bishop in charge of allowing and administering the Eucharist, it helps to keep the Eucharist from becoming corrupt as it had become in Corinth. Now then, I think that this is of the utmost importance because it's not that the Bishop holds any special authority over the Eucharist in it's administration, but rather the Bishop's role was to ensure that it was administered in accordance with Apostolic teaching where all men are to be treated equally, especially when partaking of the Bread and Wine.

Your thoughts?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Thanks for your reply lost coin.

To agree with you, yes, Catholic does mean universal and I do recall Ignatius referring to the church as the one universal church. Thank you for clarifying that. However, also keep in mind that there was one universal church at the time as there is today. When we partake of the Lord's Supper, that Church meets at the Table of Christ where Jesus is host. Can I get an Amen?....

I'll grant that a "conditional" Amen.

The Human Body is made of spirit and a corporeal body. So is the Body of Christ. In the spiritual sense of the Church, I give you an "amen" for your post; we are one in spirit. But corporeal aspect? The Body of Christ (the Church) is torn asunder, ripped from limb to limb. It no longer has the coherrant functionality of a healthy body thanks to sectarianism and denominationalism. Arms and legs are not moving in harmony; they even attack each other. Can you picture a human being beating himself up, like in that bathroom scene from "Liar, Liar" with Jim Carrey? That is the Body of Christ today. Oh, if only you would all come back home to Rome; what a mighty force for change 2 billion Christans would be if our efforts went outwards instead of being aimed at each other.

Sorry. I know I am off topic here, but I had to throw that in, since you mentioned it.

 

[one_lost_coin]

Steve,

While I appreciate your opinion I do disagree. Fact is I am specifically a Maronite Catholic which is of the Church at Antioch, believe it or not it is still alive and kicking. Most people seem to think the RC is all that makes up the Catholic Church but it also consists of many Eastern Catholic Church's all united in the faith with Rome who is preeminant and where the Chair of Peter presides, although the Church at Antioch was founded by Peter and Paul the feast of which was celebrated last month. What you think CC with your "Come back to Rome" "Can I get a comeback to Antioch anyone"? Maybe just comeback to the Catholic Church.

Ignatius is our homeboy He was the Bishop of Antioch. We believe the same now as they did back then. If my parish had a time machine we could step out and worship right with them yes we even maintain Syriac as our liturgical language and the institution is done in the language of Jesus spoke which is quit beautiful to hear so if you get a chance and live in a community that has a Maronite congregation it is worth hearing the liturgy at least once.

We understand the words of Ignatius within the Church's Tradition of which he spoke from. He believes just like we believe just like Justin Martyr believes which I quoted above. Nothings changed we aren't very progressive that way.

Reflect back on the feeding of the multitudes who did Jesus assign giving out the food? The Apostles the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and are so in an unbroken line of the laying on of hands as if the Apostles reached through time and layed hands on my Bishop themselves. Think back on the Last Supper. In addition to everything else the Last Supper is it is also seen as Jesus teaching His Apostles the Divine Liturgy. Think about the road to Emmaus their eyes were opened and they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread He who was really there with them Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. This is the teaching we have recieved in the Church at Antioch who have recieved this full deposit of the Faith all the way from the Church Fathers who recieved it from the Apostles who recieved it from Jesus. I can believe no other. Where the Bishop is there is the Church-St. Ignatius.
.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I have often thought: If I knew nothing about Jesus and lived in His time, and if I saw this barefooted bearded man from a backwater town wandering around, would I look at Him and say, "That is God"? Probably not. I mean, really now, some hick from the sticks, the Almighty Creator of the universe. Pulleeeezz.

But He was God. So am I surprised that people see what looks like a wafer and scoff when I say it only looks like a wafer, but that it is actually the flesh and blood Jesus under the appearence of a wafer? No, I am not surprised:

John 6:60: "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

I can, that's who.

 

[stovebolts]

I have often thought: If I knew nothing about Jesus and lived in His time, and if I saw this barefooted bearded man from a backwater town wandering around, would I look at Him and say, "That is God"? Probably not. I mean, really now, some hick from the sticks, the Almighty Creator of the universe. Pulleeeezz.

You mean Jesus wasn’t a blonde haired European? :-D

All kidding aside, as mature Christians, I don’t believe our differences in this matter are any secret. However, I would also state that out of 8 pages of what I consider some pretty good conversations and much biblical study on the matter, we [being the majority] (Catholics / Protestants) are only in disagreement on one item. That item is called transubstantiation, which is a doctrine, based on biblical understanding which leans heavily upon church tradition.

What I find sad, is out of 8 pages of Study, it appears that the only topic that interest Catholics is transubstantiation when there is so much more within the Lords Supper that we (Catholics and Protestants) can unite for mutual edification. (Read Fr. Eugene LaVerdiere) You may disagree, but from where I sit, it (The focus of the Eucharist ) looks very close to idolatry from what I hear from most (not all) catholics, especially when I hear a priest state that if a portion of the Eucharist falls to the ground, the priest is to lick it up. If a portion falls on carpet, which cannot be fully licked up by the priest, it is to be cut out and burned. (http://www.pigizois.net/arxodariki/In_English.htm) . I say idolatry for the main reason that the Eucharist has taken the form of a noun, and not that of an adjective or verb.

Terry, you state that the Church is in a sad state of affairs while maintaining that we all must join back with Rome for true unity. I think one_lost_coin, or the Coptics would agree with that statement about as much as you would agree to join the Baptist or Methodist church. Some things just aint a gonna happen. Not ironic however, I find several churches working in harmony in the New Testament and within the broader context of Romans 14, I believe there is a huge lesson and reminder for all who profess to be Christian.

Romans 14:17-19 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

It is not my desire to push this single issue to the point where it causes deeper division when there are so many area’s that we are united when it comes to the Lord’s Supper.

God bless.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....What I find sad, is out of 8 pages of Study, it appears that the only topic that interest Catholics is transubstantiation when there is so much more within the Lords Supper that we (Catholics and Protestants) can unite for mutual edification.....

Fair enough. There is much about it that we share in common, this is true. Im sorry if I veered off the focal point of the discussion.

......Terry, you state that the Church is in a sad state of affairs while maintaining that we all must join back with Rome for true unity. I think one_lost_coin, or the Coptics would agree with that statement about as much as you would agree to join the Baptist or Methodist church. Some things just aint a gonna happen....

Matthew 19:26 - "...With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

 

[one_lost_coin]

Oh I was only kidding with CC all Catholics know that the Catholic Church consists of the one true Church in different locations all in unity with each other and with the Chair of Peter in Rome. There is one Catholic faith. The Maronite Church has never been out of communion with Rome. Actually how the Church spread is a rather interesting topic but off subject.

It was an inside joke I never meant to give the impression that there is any power struggle or anything else other than one Catholic faith shared by both all of the Catholic Church and that that faith does acknowledge the role that our Lord gave to Peter. I attend Mass in the Latin church anytime I am away from my parish and any Roman Catholic can attend the Divine Liturgy at any Maronite Church. We are truly unified.

There is all kinds of Ecumenical dialogue going on and alot of progress being made. CC is right and the Church does see hope in Jesus toward that unity but the Church does recognize that unity is a work of the Holy Spirit so we know it is assured even though we can't see the path it will take there is great hope. Maybe I will start my first thread with all the positive things that are happening toward reconciliation at the Vatican.

 

[stovebolts]

Well, I wouldn't say that all Catholics are in full communion with Rome... That being said, my apologies for not knowing anything about the Maronites.

Now then, I believe we can move forward with our study? Or do we have any loose ends that need to be clarified before we proceed?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Well, I wouldn't say that all Catholics are in full communion with Rome... That being said, my apologies for not knowing anything about the Maronites.

Now then, I believe we can move forward with our study? Or do we have any loose ends that need to be clarified before we proceed?

Lead on, McDuff