JFJ Forums

[ more quotes on the early church’s understanding of the True Presence in the Eucharist …]

Irenaeus:
- [Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:
- "So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ." "Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely Named Gnosis". Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D.
- "For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis". Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.
(cont …)

[ more quotes on the early church’s understanding of the True Presence in the Eucharist …]

Clement of Alexandria:
- "The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. 'Eat My Flesh,' He says, 'and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!", -"The Instructor of the Children" [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,
Cyprian of Carthage:
"So too the sacred meaning of the Pasch [Passover] lies essentially in the fact, laid down in Exodus, that the lamb - slain as a type of Christ - should be eaten in one single home. God says the words: 'In one house shall it be eaten, ye shall not cast its flesh outside.' The flesh of Christ and the Lord's sacred body cannot be cast outside, nor have believers any other home but the one Church.", -"The Unity of the Catholic Church". Ch.8, circa 249-258 A.D.,
Cyril of Jerusalem:
- "Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, (we become partaker of the divine nature.) [2 Peter 1:4]  -"Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]
(cont …)

(… concluded)

St. Jerome:
"After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood." -"Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew" [4,26,26] 398 A.D.

St. Augustine:
"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]

And this is only a small sampling!  When you say “This is based on my own reading of the early church fathers on this matter”, are these the readings you are talking about?  If not, perhaps you could provide references to “spiritual only” writings.  And you have the audacity to say this is “historical revisionism”! (now this is the point where you respond with “the teachings of the fathers are not infallible….”, “they departed from scripture…”, “this was not unanimous consent…”, “you only list X fathers who held this view…”)

To All -
Chafer has "graciously" provided a link for all to understand the teachings of the Catholic Church though I'm not sure what this has to do with the canon of scripture.

If your desire is to reinforce misconceptions you may have about the Catholic Church, then feel free to follow links such as these or even some of the other links to Jack Chick, James White, etc. provided by others.

However, the Catholic Church is very clear and open with it's teachings and has nothing to hide.  Read for yourself and draw your own conclusions.  Here is a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Feel free to read what it has to say about salvation, justification, inspiration of scripture, salvation by grace through faith, ...  You can even delve into the more disputed teachings such as purgatory, honor to Mary, indulgences, etc.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

YOu know wk, when we first met you said something to the effect that I (Ripley's) don't call you a heretic and the RCC all kinds of things. And I don't, for the reasons I gave back then.

But, in effect, what you are saying to ME is VERY CLOSE to the same thing others say to you.

"Separated brethren" is offensive to me. What wall, wk? There is no separation in the body UNLESS one has unrepentently committed some kind of sin and is "separated" in order to bring restoration, after they repent, in order that they don't "leaven the whole lump"...

Is this how you view us? In need of repentence? What other explanation is there for this separation?

WK first jesus in scripture clearly support the OT hebrew of being part of the cannon.  he quote the prophets writtings and the book of moses etc....


so by scripture we see what jesus calls Cannon.


The NT is 27 books they were consider scripture as they were being wirtten because people knew they would true.



so Basic The First cannon which is the hebrew old OT and the new NT which is greek was already consider The cannon.


The second Cannon is what is in debated some groups of jews and others may hold to these as inspire but that not the case to prove that even if all the church fathers agree it inspore still does not mean it as.


people do not decide what in and Out God does and has  saved what he wants in his word all these years.


Plus I already show you The hebrew OT is held higher then LXX


even Jan said very clear the LXX is more of wrttings from jewish people then being consider scripture I Believe correct me if I am wrong.


the LXX was not designed to have the purpose of the Hebrew text, as it would be primarily used publicly in the synagogues, while the latter would be used for more scholarly purposes. (Geisler, Norman L. Introduction to the Bible. Moody Press., Chicago. 1973., p. 308)


so it pretty clear in  synagogues they keep The hebrew text as inspire but

only use the LXX for different things not consider it is inspire to apart of the hebrew text.

ws you are aware not even the church fathers can agree on which of those books were inspire are you aware of that?


Your placing your trust in the church fathers and sects while Jesus clearly says what is scripture in the NT.


all scripture is God breath that is refering to the old OT which Jesus never talks about those  second cannon or anything that is not inspire.

He also forgets Jesus himself already says in scripture what Cannon he goes by The hebrew text not LXX.

This is in the NT which jesus says the prophets writtings and law books


The LXX was only use for scholars purpose and have in jewish worship places they also held The hebrew text higher then the LXX not on the same level.

This to me shows that some did not see them as inspire.


WK only defense for his case is the church fathers taught them as inspire and different jewishing groups also.


well this is not a good case because there are also jews and church fathers that did not see them as inspire.


Infact many church fathers were not even all into agreement on which is inspire.

Ripley’s – Why are you so offended that I acknowledge that Christians are not in full communion with one another?  This is what is meant by “separated brethren”.  Check out the posts around this forum.  Is this your idea of a unified faith?  If we are so unified, why do many Fundamentalists feel they need to “save” Catholics?

The reality is we are not unified.  If we are not unified, then we are separated.  “Separated brethren” acknowledges differences in our understanding and practice of our faith without judging a person apostate.  This is far more charitable than the position many Fundamentalists have towards Catholics.

Jesus prayed to the Father that we would all be one so that the world would know who sent him.  I don’t believe this unity exists today.  I’m sorry if you are offended but I’m just acknowledging reality.

wk~



So? "More charitible" is not TRUE CHARITY/LOVE. WE are not called to be "more charitible"...we are called to have FULL AGAPE LOVE for eachother.

Are your kids the same? No? Which one do you consider yours, or not yours? Do you love and really appreciate/delight that they are different? Do you see strengths and weakness in them? And still LOVE who they are? How about when they argue over silly things? How about if they never got together as family with you? Too much "difference" and "bad history" to get over and love each other for who they are: YOUR KIDS/FAMILY? Would that make you happy as their father?

I am offended because just because we don't understand perfectly the unclear things in the Bible, if we are within reasonable explanations, it is acceptable. And we *are 100% His* regardless of petty arguements, or differents points of view.

I am offended because even though we don't all practice our faith the exact same way, it is acceptable. One child washes your car for you, another cooks a meal, and the third sits with you and talks. Who loves you more? They are all showing their love for you and shouldn't be jealous over eachother's display of affection/devotion, and try to prove to eachother that THEY are doing the thing needed for you to love them. The truth is you loved them already, they didn't HAVE to do anything. But it sure is nice, and you appreciate them EQUALLY.

God Himself says we are NOT the same, He does not INTEND for us to be the same, He does not MAKE us the same, He does not GIFT us the same, nor REQUIRE we be the same. In fact, He desires we be DIFFERENT, but shows us that while different, we are ONE BODY/UNITED/UNIFIED. (The scriptures I already cited.)

-to be cont-