Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Wikipedia:

quote:

---

The Eucharist /ˈjuːkərɪst/, also called Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper, and other names, is a sacrament accepted by almost all Christians. It is reenacted in accordance with Jesus' instruction at the Last Supper, as recorded in several books of the New Testament, that his followers do in remembrance of him as when he gave his disciples bread, saying, "This is my body", and gave them wine saying, "This is my blood."[2][3]

---

The Greek word εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), meaning 'thanksgiving' or 'gratitude', is the noun form of a verb found in New Testament accounts of the Last Supper. The earliest account:

quote:

---

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’
- 1 Corinthians 11.23-24 NRSV

---

According to Wikipedia, 'Eucharist' (Thanksgiving) was a term in use among Christians by the late first or early second century. Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, and Justin Martyr all described the rite this way. Today the term remains in common use among Christians, especially those in older traditions: Copts, Greek Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics, Lutherans and Presbyterians. Protestant denominations of more recent origin more often refer to the rite as 'Communion', 'Lord's Supper', or 'Breaking Bread'.--It's telling that a word that has done such long and distinguished service 'means nothing' to a person who presumes to tell others about Christian history.No need to explain, Faith. We get the picture. You are not interested in history, or much else. You are here to recite the myths, dogmas and prejudices of your little tribe. 'Eucharist' is not a term your shamans use, so you don't recognise it. You are too lazy to use a search engine. You are proud of this.Congratulations. You've won the triple crown of illiteracy: science, history and now your own professed 'faith'. Edited by Archer Opteryx, : punctuation, detail

Upon reading this astonishing pean to a form of willfull ignorance and self-love I have never witnessed outside of the throes of latter-stage drug addiction or severe mental illness, along with perhaps the greatest takedown I have ever seen in this forum in the reply by Archer, I have but one word to describe any further desire on my part to reply to your astonishing lack of knowledge or even curiosity in your own professed beliefs and ignorant and psychologically questionable delusions concerning reality:NEVERMORETo quote the great RAZD - enjoy!Edited by anglagard, : Make title more appropriate

Does this really shock anyone? This is Faith we're talking about. For all my love of the woman she is, after all, the intellectual equivalent of brain dead. Though, to be honest, a devout christian not being familiar with the word eucharist is quite hard for my poor brain to comprehend. Surprise, maybe, but no shock here. She has got to be a blonde.

O wow, all I've read is your post on this, how far back does this nonsense go? It's not that I'm UNFAMILIAR with the word "Eucharist" or don't know what it means, it's that I don't ASSOCIATE IT WITH SCRIPTURE, it's not a word I USE, I associate it with Catholicism, so when Archer used it as he did it simply rang no bells whatever with respect to scripture. Same with most of his other odd characterizations. I admit I didn't stop to ponder it, it's just weird and I had no interest in pursuing it.Sigh.ABE: "Brain dead." Hm. That may be the last straw.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's because you don't associate with scripture at all. You associate with the perverted misrepresentation of scripture that you've been spoon-fed. At the very least, it should have rung the Greek bell.

Of course it's a lost cause saying anything in my own defense here, as I survey the astonishing false charges that have been trumped up against me so far. It's almost funny.But concerning the Eucharist, as I said it is not a term I use, it's foreign to me although of course I know what it means. I don't read the scriptures in Greek, and I don't belong to a church that uses the Greek term to refer to Communion or the Lord's Supper. And Archer's list of incidents in scripture that he wanted me to account for was worded in such a way that it suggested nothing I had any interest in pursuing, and I hardly recognized the scriptural references he apparently had in mind. Before I go on let me say that I never said anything to imply that people aren't true Christians on the basis of sin, from which they can repent and be forgiven, but I was talking about the RC institution, the papacy and the leadership, not Catholic individuals, and the institution is nonChristian first on the basis of their false doctrines, but also their horrific sins which are the "fruit" by which scripture tells us we shall know them, fruit which is the test of the false teachers, fruit that shows the evil of their doctrines.ABE: Just to list some of this fruit, besides the false doctrines I've also partially listed elsewhere, I'm thinking of the frauds and lies such as their forgeries designed to maneuver them into worldly power (The Donation of Constantine for one, but many many others), their tolerance and even support of sexual sins of all sorts that follow on their doctrine of compulsory celibacy, which includes the keeping of mistresses by the Popes and the molestation of children by priests, which is just the tip of the iceberg, and then their stealing from even the poorest of their flock to support their incredibly lavish wealth, hardly a testimony to the character of Christ, Who had no place to lay His head; and the icing on this poisonous cake, the institutionalized murders by the Inquisition, tens of millions in the Middle Ages, but which also extends to the modern Inquisition of the Holocaust which Hitler modeled on the RCC, and the priest-inspired massacre in Rwanda and much much more. Anything left out of the Ten Commandments here? /ABEBeyond that I don't have the motivation to try to answer every weird accusation thrown at me. The rest of Archer's cryptically worded list just makes me tired.But since it's become an excuse to have me denounced to the Inquisition, let me expand on my view of the connotations of the term Eucharist:What it evokes is the holding up of the monstrance by the RC priest to be adored by the people, the monstrance being a fancy holder for the round wafer that is treated in Catholicism as the actual body of Christ. Then the people are given the wafer but not the cup of wine, the doctrine for which escapes me now but is a violation of Christ's commandment that we both eat the bread and drink the wine in memory of His sacrifice for us. Speaking of "altering the [Lord's Supper] beyond recognition..."So the term evokes a blasphemous unscriptural doctrine for starters.Then there is the history of the Inquisitional tortures and murders of the Bible believers on the basis of their refusal to accept the RC doctrine of transubstantiation of the Eucharist (again, the miraculous transformation of the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ, and His actual real presence therein). This was the main reason given for the torture and murder of the dissenting Christians down the centuries.Sorry, correct Greek and all notwithstanding, I just don't respond to the word as representing anything Christian at all. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : Just keep having to correct bits of wording, typos etc.Edited by Faith, : change punctuation

Hi all! Have been following this discussion with interest. Faith may not be interested in looking up these interesting assertions, but I have a little time to spare for a few. The word "Eucharist" does not exist in scripture. The word "εὐχαριστία" is originally a word unrelated to The Lord's Supper and means thankfulness, gratitude or the giving of thanks (aka the prayer granpa prays at thanksgiving). In its original meaning it has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper and is used many times as a term of mindset for believers (2 Cor. 9-11, Acts 24:3, Eph. 5:4, Phil 4:6)"The Eucharist" is one of the sacraments of the Catholic church (Source). You're referring to Paul's frustration with the Corinthian Church over the Lord's supper. If you had read a little bit before those verses you quoted we get painted for us the picture of the situation. The church was in division, certain members hogging all of the wine, denying specific people and not including them in the lord's supper, basically the antithesis of the Lord's supper which is meant to bring everyone together in unity. As this is a letter from the apostle Paul in response to a letter the Corinthian church had sent previously, and one of several letters from Paul to the Corinthians, we can assume there was a point where the church was conducting the Lord's supper in unity, including everyone. This does not represent some "golden age of the church," merely human people taking something good and unifying, and making it selfish, the natural tenancy of humans. Paul's frustration with the "circumcision party" (Galatians 2:12) was with Jewish Christians who were legalistically attempting to make circumcision a requirement for salvation and entrance into the christian community. This trend is not representative of early Christianity as a whole, merely a specific group or way of thinking that emerged with the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Body of Christianity. This is another great example of selfish humanity trying to be exclusive, when in reality the gift of salvation is given freely to all, not relying upon specific acts or deeds to make man "good enough." Christ was good enough. (Ephesians 2:8-9). so again, this does not represent some sort of "christian golden age," this is a great example of humanity falling short into selfishness, as we still do. Pointing out the mistakes of the early church helps rather than hinders Faith's case for "true Christianity." True Christianity is messy and broken. There is an ideal, there is a goal in thought and theology, but we're broken. mankind has not lived up to the ideal, and yet "true christianity" is when the church relied more upon Christ than buildings, rules, sacraments, and politics. James is writing to Jews who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ in name and words but not actually in deed. They are religious but do not actually practice what they preach. (James 1:22). Therefore James is attempting to communicate that it doesn't really matter what you say you believe, if it does not appear in your life, it's basically meaningless. It doesnt matter if you say you are religious, if you believe in a God who byppassed your mistakes, and you do nothing to live that out, and extend that to others, your religion, and faith, means nothing:

quote:

---

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. - James 1:26

---

As this issue is unique to the Jews James is writing to, we can again infer that this is not a Christianity-wide issue, merely specific people who have become hypocrites in their religiosity, much like many of us who fall into hypocrisy even today. This again helps rather than hinders Faiths case for "true christianity" in that James specifically speaks to the hypocritical religious attitude of early christians, which has been and still can be the attitude of Christians across the board.Hopefully a little clarity has helped illustrate that the "Golden Age" of Christianity was not really a golden age in the sense that everything was perfect. However it was a Golden Age in that originally, with the establishing of Churches by Paul and many of Apostles, The church was much more about unity, love, community, and encouragement than it has been over the centuries. While the doctrine of the early church was also much more representative of the teachings and revelations of Jesus given to the apostles, as new believers joined the church we can begin to already see deviations as close as 60 years after the death of Christ (the teaching that Christ did not actually come in a physical body, Docetism).There has never been a "Golden Age," only broken humans, messing up, all the while still being loved by Christ.Hope this helps! - RaphEdited by Raphael, : Added friendly wordstudy Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.

Not brain dead, M'lady. Intellectually brain dead. There is a difference.Someone who is brain dead says: Someone who is intellectually brain dead says: See the difference?The brain dead person really doesn't have much to say about anything while the intellectually brain dead person says silly things that defy critical thinking based on known reality relying, instead, on blind faith in old myths that make them feel warm and fuzzy in the head.You have a strong vocal elevator, Faith, it just doesn't go all the way up to the top.Edited by AZPaul3, : title

This post is well thought out. It is a shame that you don't post here more often. I suppose real life intrudes. I think this is rather the point. I think calling this selfish is something of a stretch, but calling it 'human' really captures the essence. If they missed the point, we should not be surprised even if they were well-meaning when they did so.The point is that the supposed Golden Age of the church included a lot of missteps. In the Bible we are reading about churches that Paul took personal responsibility for. But being only human, he did not get to every single group of people who claimed to be following Christ.

Hi, Raphael.I've quoted the last two paragraphs of your post in their entirety (emphases mine). Which is it?

We have now reached the finale of The Faith Martyrdom Show, folks, in which our heroine--having gathered her own firewood, lashed herself to her own post, and torched the lot with her own match--blames the audience for her suffering.Enjoy the marshmallows, Questarians, and don't forget to pick up your free T-shirt on the way out.

You have a great ability to ignore the whole point of a post and make a federal case out of a tongue-in-cheek remark, but I can't give you any special praise for this as there are others here who are at least as good at it, maybe even better.

I see. You'll smear a little mud on the face of your Golden Age to camouflage the glow, but your Dark Age must remain dark.---People in Raph's Golden Age make a hash of the Eucharist/Communion to the point that the meal isn't even Christian--and Raph says they're OK, just 'messy'.People in Raph's Dark Age keep the Christian symbolism intact--and Raph says they're heretics because they built a cathedral around the dinner table.Here's an idea, Raph. How would it be if the acceptance you show to ancient Corinthians and modern members of your own tribe were extended to everybody?No neat sectarian myths. Just messy, fallible human beings all around, doing the best that they can. Every day, every century.Would it upset your Jesus so very much if you tried it?

That's what it evokes for you. But it's not what it means. But Catholics are not adoring the monstrance. They are adoring Christ whom they believe to be in it, according to their literal interpretation of Matthew 26, Luke 22, 1 Corinthians 11, etc. You may think that they're wrong in this interpretation, but they think that they're adoring Jesus just as you would if he turned up in person. Well, they think that he does. But this is not true. It used to be true, and the Reformers were quite right to hold it against them, but it isn't true now, so you shouldn't say so. Well, no it wasn't.This is just Protestant rewriting of history, straight out of Fox's Book of Martyrs. When the main doctrinal difference between the Protestants and the Catholics was their attitude towards the Eucharist / Lord's Supper / Communion or whatever you want to call it and the question of transubstantiation, Protestant propagandists blithely rewrote history so as to claim that this was the point on which all or most "heretics" had been persecuted. But as a plain matter of historical fact, it wasn't.See my previous posts about the Cathars, to take just one example. They weren't good Protestants. They believed that Satan made the world and that the Book of Genesis was a forgery by the devil. They were in fact much further away from you than the Catholics are. But propagandists with an ax to grind found it useful to maintain that they were burned for being good Protestants.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But Faith thinks that everything the Reformers said was true and that everything the Catholics said was a lie.Anything you come up with to show that what the Reformers said wasn't true, is just going to be called a lie by the Catholics.