as an aside..... I am not saying I agree with marksman, only that it was food for thought.... I am a Baptist, and a Reformed Baptist at that, so my views on the sacraments obviously differ greatly than that of the sacerdotal/high liturgical churches.... did the early church practice some type of celebration of the Lord's Supper, it seems they did. Of course "the early church" is ambiguous, it does not mean that all within the early church did so, or that all agreed as to what was meant by celebrating the Lord's Supper, because, obviously, some in the early church were heretical in some of their beliefs, and so the early church is not infallible, and what they did, how they did it, and what they believed is not therefore automatically true or right, because they disagreed amongst themselves and contradicted themselves, and contradictions cannot both/all be simultaneously true in the same way and in the same relationship. blessings,Ken
The Lord's Supper
- Thread starter Mighty Bear
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
(marksman;65317)
Yes Waquinas, I should have known that my lecturer was an ignoramous and didn't know what he was talking about. After all, he was only a professor and what do they know?The last time I read my bible there wasn't a "good" anything as it says no one is good not one. if there was, Jesus would not have needed to have died on Calvary as we could claim salvation on the basis of how good we were and our good works. It also says the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. According to you that's not the case with a "good" anglican.
You called your Anglican lecturer "godly", how is that not to be taken as "good"? Is a godly man not good?I never said your professor was ignorant. I did imply he was regurgitating someone else’s view of history. However, if you really felt that way about your professor, why would you quote him in support of the ignorant belief that the communion began in the 4th century invented by Rome?
Yes Waquinas, I should have known that my lecturer was an ignoramous and didn't know what he was talking about. After all, he was only a professor and what do they know?The last time I read my bible there wasn't a "good" anything as it says no one is good not one. if there was, Jesus would not have needed to have died on Calvary as we could claim salvation on the basis of how good we were and our good works. It also says the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. According to you that's not the case with a "good" anglican.
You called your Anglican lecturer "godly", how is that not to be taken as "good"? Is a godly man not good?I never said your professor was ignorant. I did imply he was regurgitating someone else’s view of history. However, if you really felt that way about your professor, why would you quote him in support of the ignorant belief that the communion began in the 4th century invented by Rome?
(epistemaniac;65364)
just a clarification... the Apostles did not write "Chapter 9. The Thanksgiving (Eucharist) ...." "It is an anonymous work not belonging to any single individual...." (wikipedia)in response to the question Maybe because all the theology that Rome now pours into the Lord's Supper, eg transubstantiation, did not exist in the early church in any codified way until much laterin church history... i any case, it certainly was not dogma, ie that which MUST be believed, as it is currently within Rome, until much later in church history."The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Savardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133) in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use. In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood". The Council of Trent (December 13, 1545) defined transubstantiation as "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation", This Council thus officially approved use of the term "transubstantiation" to express the Church's teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with the aim of safeguarding the literal truth of Christ's Presence while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine. (wikipedia)Certainly some form of celebration of the Lord's Supper has happened throughout church history, but this is not the same thing as saying that the Roman Catholic version or understanding of the Lord's Supper is that which has always taken place in church history. This is clearly not the case, if it was, it would not have taken so long for dogma to be pronounced by Rome on this issue.blessings,ken
The authoriship of the Didache has been debated from the 2nd century forward. However in the earliest debates we note that even the people saying none of the 12 actually wrote it they ALL agreed the teachings in it were in agreement with Apostolic teachings, the debates were about whether it was actually written by an apostle or several, because some wanted it included in a canon of such writings. You are correct there is no proof an Apostle wrote it, but then neither is there proof they did not. However even more important there is no proof of anyone disagreeing with the teachings in it until nearly 1500 years later.to fully understand the development of dogma one must understand that it does not occur magically over night and official statments as the one mentioned above in 1545 are usually the reult of someone attacking WHAT IS ALREADY BELIEVED. In that case the Church of England (Anglican's) was working on changing what was already believed about the Sacrament, not changing it.People make the same mistake pointing to the Church's announcement at the same council in 1546 regarding the Canon. The Church did not change it's canon in 1546, they defended the one they already had held for well over a thousand years against people that wanted to change it.
just a clarification... the Apostles did not write "Chapter 9. The Thanksgiving (Eucharist) ...." "It is an anonymous work not belonging to any single individual...." (wikipedia)in response to the question Maybe because all the theology that Rome now pours into the Lord's Supper, eg transubstantiation, did not exist in the early church in any codified way until much laterin church history... i any case, it certainly was not dogma, ie that which MUST be believed, as it is currently within Rome, until much later in church history."The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Savardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133) in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use. In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood". The Council of Trent (December 13, 1545) defined transubstantiation as "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation", This Council thus officially approved use of the term "transubstantiation" to express the Church's teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with the aim of safeguarding the literal truth of Christ's Presence while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine. (wikipedia)Certainly some form of celebration of the Lord's Supper has happened throughout church history, but this is not the same thing as saying that the Roman Catholic version or understanding of the Lord's Supper is that which has always taken place in church history. This is clearly not the case, if it was, it would not have taken so long for dogma to be pronounced by Rome on this issue.blessings,ken
The authoriship of the Didache has been debated from the 2nd century forward. However in the earliest debates we note that even the people saying none of the 12 actually wrote it they ALL agreed the teachings in it were in agreement with Apostolic teachings, the debates were about whether it was actually written by an apostle or several, because some wanted it included in a canon of such writings. You are correct there is no proof an Apostle wrote it, but then neither is there proof they did not. However even more important there is no proof of anyone disagreeing with the teachings in it until nearly 1500 years later.to fully understand the development of dogma one must understand that it does not occur magically over night and official statments as the one mentioned above in 1545 are usually the reult of someone attacking WHAT IS ALREADY BELIEVED. In that case the Church of England (Anglican's) was working on changing what was already believed about the Sacrament, not changing it.People make the same mistake pointing to the Church's announcement at the same council in 1546 regarding the Canon. The Church did not change it's canon in 1546, they defended the one they already had held for well over a thousand years against people that wanted to change it.
(epistemaniac;65365)
as an aside..... I am not saying I agree with marksman, only that it was food for thought.... I am a Baptist, and a Reformed Baptist at that, so my views on the sacraments obviously differ greatly than that of the sacerdotal/high liturgical churches.... did the early church practice some type of celebration of the Lord's Supper, it seems they did. Of course "the early church" is ambiguous, it does not mean that all within the early church did so, or that all agreed as to what was meant by celebrating the Lord's Supper, because, obviously, some in the early church were heretical in some of their beliefs, and so the early church is not infallible, and what they did, how they did it, and what they believed is not therefore automatically true or right, because they disagreed amongst themselves and contradicted themselves, and contradictions cannot both/all be simultaneously true in the same way and in the same relationship. blessings,Ken
thank you ken,The point being made to Marksman is that regardless of any disagreements on hundreds of issues, it is impossible to study Church history and claim the practice of a Communion originates nearly 400 years after we first see references to it in Christian writings.
as an aside..... I am not saying I agree with marksman, only that it was food for thought.... I am a Baptist, and a Reformed Baptist at that, so my views on the sacraments obviously differ greatly than that of the sacerdotal/high liturgical churches.... did the early church practice some type of celebration of the Lord's Supper, it seems they did. Of course "the early church" is ambiguous, it does not mean that all within the early church did so, or that all agreed as to what was meant by celebrating the Lord's Supper, because, obviously, some in the early church were heretical in some of their beliefs, and so the early church is not infallible, and what they did, how they did it, and what they believed is not therefore automatically true or right, because they disagreed amongst themselves and contradicted themselves, and contradictions cannot both/all be simultaneously true in the same way and in the same relationship. blessings,Ken
thank you ken,The point being made to Marksman is that regardless of any disagreements on hundreds of issues, it is impossible to study Church history and claim the practice of a Communion originates nearly 400 years after we first see references to it in Christian writings.
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
That such statements are an ignorant repeating of someone else's view of history and in no way relates to the truth.
I never said your professor was ignorant.
If what I said was ignorant because I quoted someone else, by extension the original quote was ignorant as you are saying that my Anglican professor is ignorant.
I never said your professor was ignorant.
If what I said was ignorant because I quoted someone else, by extension the original quote was ignorant as you are saying that my Anglican professor is ignorant.
well you can read, but are you blind?BTW that statement you quoted came after you claimed I called your godly lecturer ignorant. You basically forced me to point out what should be obvious to someone who has studied for 30 years on these matters. If you would rather be snide and not talk about the thread or issue, others would probably prefer we not continue this here.
Similar threads
