Deborah_ said:
And why do you define a universal church as one that has "the same teaching throughout the world"? Such a church does not exist. The Catholic church on its own is not universal because so many Christians are outside it.
All of us, Catholic and Protestant, would agree that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are Jesus' body and blood. The devil is in the detail: in what sense are they His body and blood? And without going inside the minds of the apostolic Fathers, how sure can we be of what they meant?
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs" is a quote from the Sermon on the Mount; it does not (in original context) refer specifically to the Eucharist but to any holy thing. I would agree that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are holy and should not be given to unbelievers, without having to believe in Transubstantiation.
Irenaeus (also from the second century) writes about the Eucharist and describes it as Christ's body and blood, but he also says, "He (i.e. Christ) has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies." This doesn't sound like transubstantiation to me.
This is why I use the word 'debate' in my article. Even if a full belief in transubstantiation was present within the Church early on, it doesn't seem to have been held universally. And the same goes for many other distinctive Catholic doctrines.
I and scripture (and logic) define a universal church as ONE and having the same teaching throughout the world because this book I call the infallible word of God says that he wants us all to be one as thou the Father is in Him. Not separate in our beliefs like YOU believe.
He wants us to be ONE in Him so that the world may believe that He was sent by God; not divided in our beliefs which causes man to turn away from His word because of our division and we become 30,000 denominations instead of ONE Church with ONE belief.
We should recognize the glory which God gave to Jesus that he may give it to us so that we may be made perfect in ONE so that the world may know that God sent Him. Not imperfect which is what happens when we all interpret scripture differently. Then we are no longer ONE.
For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into ONE and has broken down the dividing wall or the hostility between us. If we have hostility between us we are not ONE. He wants to create in himself ONE new humanity in place of the two which brings us peace. This would reconcile both groups to God in ONE bodythrough the cross, thus putting to death that hostility; not MULTIPLE beliefs like you preach.
He wants all of us have access in ONE Spirit to the Father so that we are members of the ONE household of God which was
built upon the foundation of the apostles with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. We can not be built upon the foundation of the apostles if we all believe something different because
the apostles didn't believe OR preach something different. They were ONE in their beliefs and teaching. In Him the whole structure is joined together as ONE and grows into a (singular) holy temple in the Lord in whom you also are
built together spirituallyinto a dwelling place for God. Not built together separately as YOU believe.
Scripture tells us to make every effort to maintain the UNITY of the Spirit because there is ONE body and ONE Spirit and we were called to the ONE hope of His calling, ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONE God and Father of all.
He wanted some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers so that the saints would be equipped for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ until all of us come to the UNITY of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God; not separate knowledge or seperate faith as YOU believe.
Scripture says we must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. YOU seem to believe separate doctrines are OK. I have proven Scripture disagrees with you!!
For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations? For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human?
What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters have a
common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each. For we are God’s servants,
working together; you are God’s field, God’s building. YOU seem to believe it is OK that Christians don't have a common purpose and it is OK that we are not ONE. Scripture disagrees with you.
You are completely and utterly wrong when you say, "
All of us, Catholic and Protestant, would agree that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are Jesus' body and blood." That belief or lack of belief is one of the biggest divisions in Christianity.
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs" is ALSO written in the Didache in reference to the Eucharist. Here is more context: No one should eat or drink this Eucharistic thanksgiving, unless they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord. As the Lord has said, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs.” This is what the early Christians practiced and believed. They believed it was his body and blood.
Like a good Protestant you only partially quoted Irenaeus to fit what YOU believe. Here is what he wrote right after that quote you provided: When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharistt of the blood and the body of Christis made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him? ......and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ;
It is funny that you partially quoted Irenaeus Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 2 which in it he says OPPOSITE of what you seem to believe. However, I am not really sure what you believe since you said, "I would agree that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are holy and should not be given to unbelievers, without having to believe in Transubstantiation."
If it's Holy then it is his body and blood like Jesus said it was, like Paul said it was and like the early Christians practiced during their gatherings and the Early Church Fathers said it was. (Transubstantiation)
If it's not Holy then it is only bread and wine (a symbol).
(Transubstantiation: the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining.)
When you say transubstantiation "doesn't seem to have been held universally. And the same goes for many other distinctive Catholic doctrines" is biblically and historically accurate. (See we can agree on something)
There were divisions even when the Apostles were alive and they continue 2000 years later. Anyone that taught anything other than what the Apostles preached were heretics and called anti-Christ. That still holds true today. But as we can CLEARLY see the bread and wine becoming his body and blood has been practiced and preached for 2000 years. It is biblical, historical and traditional.
So are you not even going to acknowledge that you were completely wrong about Catholic priest not being able to be married?? Are you going to answer my questions: You don't believe what the Catholic Church writes (doctrines) but you believe what YOU write? Interesting!! So who is right in what they write??
- that might save us both a lot of work)
