Proper Christian living in a multi-religious context

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think the reference in Acts 20:7 is much clearer:

On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight.

The bible for the USCCB (US conference for bishops) has this footnotes:

[quote]The first day of the week: the day ying 'this is my body'.' So the 'breaking of the bread' clearly refers back to this event.

highly tenuous indeed, for there is no mention of wine, symbolic of Christ's blood, therefore every time that the scriptures mention, 'breaking bread', are we to assume that is with reference to the Lords evening meal? what grounds is there for doing so other than the tradition of the church, you yourself have not given any reason why it should be viewed as such, not commenting at all upon what the Asiatic churches did.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
highly tenuous indeed, for there is no mention of wine, symbolic of Christ's blood, therefore every time that the scriptures mention, 'breaking bread', are we to assume that is with reference to the Lords evening meal? what grounds is there for doing so other than the tradition of the church, you yourself have not given any reason why it should be viewed as such, not commenting at all upon what the Asiatic churches did.q

The 'bread' has generally always had a higher status both in scripture and tradition. Throughout the gospel of John, there are references to Jesus as 'the bread of life'. There are exhortations to eat the new bread. There are allusions to Jesus as the manna that fed the Hebrew people in the desert. In tradition, the bread has also had a greater priority. Catholics expose the consecrated bread for adoration but not the cup. At most Masses, communicants will only receive the host. It is quite clear in Acts 20 that this is the Lord's supper. It appears to be liturgical and the words 'breaking bread' alludes to the gospels' own words, 'he broke the bread'. Can you suggest any other possible interpretation?

Originally posted by Conrau K
The 'bread' has generally always had a higher status both in scripture and tradition. Throughout the gospel of John, there are references to Jesus as 'the bread of life'. There are exhortations to eat the new bread. There are allusions to Jesus as the manna that fed the Hebrew people in the desert. In tradition, the bread has also had a greater priority. Ca ...[text shortened]... s' own words, 'he broke the bread'. Can you suggest any other possible interpretation?

yes, they were taking a communal meal, as is clearly discernible from the context. There is no mention of wine, there is no mention of it serving as a memorial, nothing, simply wilful thinking and an attempt to substantiate a tradition.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, they were taking a communal meal, as is clearly discernible from the context. There is no mention of wine, there is no mention of it serving as a memorial, nothing, simply wilful thinking and an attempt to substantiate a tradition.

simply wilful thinking and an attempt to substantiate a tradition

Sounds like the whole of Christianity Rob!!

Sorry for the interuption, carry on.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, they were taking a communal meal, as is clearly discernible from the context. There is no mention of wine, there is no mention of it serving as a memorial, nothing, simply wilful thinking and an attempt to substantiate a tradition.

I do not think there is any need for a full description of the event. The 'breaking of bread' is and always has been another way of speaking about the Lord's supper. The author and its original readers would have perfectly understood what this meant.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not think there is any need for a full description of the event. The 'breaking of bread' is and always has been another way of speaking about the Lord's supper. The author and its original readers would have perfectly understood what this meant.

there is no need to speak about details concerning the lords supper? Paul thinks otherwise, in fact he even mentions that in celebrating it, one should eat ones meal beforehand, shall i show you the reference?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]simply wilful thinking and an attempt to substantiate a tradition

Sounds like the whole of Christianity Rob!!

Sorry for the interuption, carry on.[/b]

No its ok Noobster, Conrau is perhaps one of the most learned Christian contributors and it is a joy to debate these things with him, for he has much knowledge, detailed knowledge of Catholicism, which is of interest. Its always much better to hear it from a practitioner than someone else. Christianity in its purest form is sublime, nothing comes even close to its lofty principles.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is no need to speak about details concerning the lords supper? Paul thinks otherwise, in fact he even mentions that in celebrating it, one should eat ones meal beforehand, shall i show you the reference?

Acts however is not a theological treatise but an historical narrative of the works of the apostles. There was no need to describe the liturgy in more detail. The fact that they broke the bread and the clear reference to this as the first day of the week points would have been sufficient enough for readers at the time to understand what was happening.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Acts however is not a theological treatise but an historical narrative of the works of the apostles. There was no need to describe the liturgy in more detail. The fact that they broke the bread and the clear reference to this as the first day of the week points would have been sufficient enough for readers at the time to understand what was happening.

there is no way Conrau that you can infer that the passage which you quoted 'breaking bread', has any reference to the lords evening meal, a special and truly significant occasion. the fact of the matter is, that the early Asiatic church, until the heavy handed decrees of Rome, celebrated it after the apostolic tradition, annually, on the corresponding Jewish month of Nisan the fourteenth, after it was instituted by the Christ himself. What are we to make of that Conrau? am i making it up? does it have no value?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is no way Conrau that you can infer that the passage which you quoted 'breaking bread', has any reference to the lords evening meal, a special and truly significant occasion. the fact of the matter is, that the early Asiatic church, until the heavy handed decrees of Rome, celebrated it after the apostolic tradition, annually, on the correspond ...[text shortened]... hrist himself. What are we to make of that Conrau? am i making it up? does it have no value?

Again, you are very confused about the question under discussion. I sought to clarify it for you in two questions: when should the Lord's supper be celebrated and when should the community come together for worship. The latter question has always been subject to controversy, whether on the Sabbath or on the day of the resurrection. The scriptural evidence clearly indicates that the first day had a special status (in Acts 20, they meet on the first day). The second question was never a controversy. I am not aware of any group that celebrated the Lord's supper only once a year. I see no evidence of that in the Scriptures.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, you are very confused about the question under discussion. I sought to clarify it for you in two questions: when should the Lord's supper be celebrated and when should the community come together for worship. The latter question has always been subject to controversy, whether on the Sabbath or on the day of the resurrection. The scriptural evidence c ...[text shortened]... at celebrated the Lord's supper only once a year. I see no evidence of that in the Scriptures.

Some scholars recognized that these “Fourteenthers” were following the original apostolic pattern. One historian said: “As regards the day for observing the Pascha [the Lord’s Evening Meal], the usage of the Quartodeciman churches of Asia was continuous with that of the Jerusalem church. In the 2nd century these churches at their Pascha on the 14th of Nisan commemorated the redemption effected by the death of Christ.”—Studia Patristica, Volume V, 1962, page 8.

While many in Asia Minor followed the apostolic practice, Sunday was set aside for observance in Rome. About the year 155 C.E., Polycarp of Smyrna, a representative of the Asian congregations, visited Rome to discuss this and other problems. Unhappily, no agreement was reached on this matter. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in a letter: “Neither could Anicetus [of Rome] persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord and the other apostles with whom he consorted; nor yet did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, for he said that he ought to hold to the custom of the elders before him.” (Eusebius, Book 5, chapter 24) Note that Polycarp reportedly based his stand on the authority of the apostles, whereas Anicetus appealed to the custom of previous elders in Rome.

has a historical approach no value? you shall notice the two contrasting modes of practice, the eastern church following the apostolic tradition, celebrating the lords evening meal, on the corresponding Jewish month of Nisan fouteenth, and the church of Rome, going on its own authority.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Some scholars recognized that these “Fourteenthers” were following the original apostolic pattern. One historian said: “As regards the day for observing the Pascha [the Lord’s Evening Meal], the usage of the Quartodeciman churches of Asia was continuous with that of the Jerusalem church. In the 2nd century these churches at their Pascha on the 14th o ...[text shortened]... rresponding Jewish month of Nisan fouteenth, and the church of Rome, going on its own authority.

Robbie,

You are not reading my posts. You have now introduced another issue. St. Polycarp did not dispute the issue of Sunday observance nor did he restrict the celebration of the Lord's supper to any particular day. What he disputed was the time when Easter should be commemorated. This is an issue today unresolved and members of the Orthodox churches still celebrate at a different time to the Western churches -- both Catholic and Protestant.

Again, we were discussing the time when the Lord's supper should be celebrated. You have not provided any scriptural evidence that it was ever restricted to one day of the year. This is a question separate from when the church should meet for worship (which was clearly a Sunday) and when Easter should be commemorated (which has never been resolved.)

You can in fact read Eusebius' account of this issue in full. I have located the relevant page:

Chapter 23. The Question then agitated concerning the Passover.

1. A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.

2. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.

3. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.
Chapter 24. The Disagreement in Asia.

1. But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:

2. We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.

3. He fell asleep at Ephesus.

4. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna.

5. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?

6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.

7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man.' Acts 5:29

8. He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows:

"I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus."

9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.

10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.

11. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:

12. For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night.

13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to thefast confirms the agreement in the faith.

14. He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert:

Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which you now rule. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from theparishes in which it was observed; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it.

15. But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the presbyters before you who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it.

16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.

17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.

18. Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.
Chapter 25. How All came to an Agreement respecting the Passover.

1. Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words:

2. "Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep thesacred day. "

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm

The dispute with St. Polycarp was not about whether the Lord's supper should be celebrated on a Sunday but whether it should be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the Passover as well. It is quite clear that St. Polycarp celebrated the Lord's supper at other times because Eusebius writes that at this council, he celebrated the Eucharist with St Ignatius of Antioch.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Robbie,

You are not reading my posts. You have now introduced another issue. St. Polycarp did not dispute the issue of Sunday observance nor did he restrict the celebration of the Lord's supper to any particular day. What he disputed was the time when Easter should be commemorated. This is an issue today unresolved and members of the Orthodox churches s es that at this council, he celebrated the Eucharist with St Ignatius of Antioch.

no Conrau, i have read your posts, and on the contrary, it is not I who have introduced discussions about Sunday observance nor of Easter but you my friend! i have never deviated from talking of the Lords evening meal, in fact i was rather confused as to why you should mention these other details in this context. i have all along simply been referring to the memorial of Christ death, the lords evening meal. i have provided both scriptural reasons and historical ones, if you please. Eusebius makes mention of the fact, that it was celebrated on Nissan fourteenth, as per the apostolic tradition after the manner of the passover, an annual event.

i quote, although i dont know why, for you are perfectly aware of what it says,

1. A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition(apostolic), held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb (Jewish month, Nisan fourteenth), should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover. . . . . For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord,

yes he may indeed have celebrated it at other times, however, from the above, it is clear that the Asiatic churches, learning from the apostles, who learned from the Christ, celebrated it annually, on the corresponding Jewish month of Nisan fourteenth. Does no one read my posts, even when they say something decent?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no Conrau, i have read your posts, and on the contrary, it is not I who have introduced discussions about Sunday observance nor of Easter but you my friend! i have never deviated from talking of the Lords evening meal, in fact i was rather confused as to why you should mention these other details in this context. i have all along simply been referr ...[text shortened]... ish month of Nisan fourteenth. Does no one read my posts, even when they say something decent?

no Conrau, i have read your posts, and on the contrary, it is not I who have introduced discussions about Sunday observance nor of Easter but you my friend! i have never deviated from talking of the Lords evening meal, in fact i was rather confused as to why you should mention these other details in this context. i have all along simply been referring to the memorial of Christ death, the lords evening meal. i have provided both scriptural reasons and historical ones, if you please. Eusebius makes mention of the fact, that it was celebrated on Nissan fourteenth, as per the apostolic tradition after the manner of the passover, an annual event.

Then you have misunderstood the writings you have quoted. Eusebius is not talking about the celebration of the Lord's supper but about the celebration of Easter. You have misunderstood what is meant by 'feast'. A feast in its strict sense is not a meal. It comes from the Latin 'festus' meaning 'holiday' or 'celebration'. The feast of the passover is not the same as the Lord's supper but is the commemoration of the event. There are many other feast days, such as the feast of the nativity (Christmas day) or the feast of the epiphany (on the following Sunday). An explanation of this is on the Catholic encyclopedia:

The first was mainly concerned with the lawfulness of celebrating Easter on a weekday. We read in Eusebius (Church History V.23): "A question of no small importance arose at that time [i.e. the time of Pope Victor, about A.D. 190]. The dioceses of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should always be observed as the feast of the life-giving pasch [epi tes tou soteriou Pascha heortes], contending that the fast ought to end on that day, whatever day of the week it might happen to be. However it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this point, as they observed the practice, which from Apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the Resurrection of our Saviour. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all with one consent through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the Resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other day but the Sunday and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on that day only." These words of the Father of Church History, followed by some extracts which he makes from the controversial letters of the time, tell us almost all that we know concerning the paschal controversy in its first stage. A letter of St. Irenæus is among the extracts just referred to, and this shows that the diversity of practice regarding Easter had existed at least from the time of Pope Sixtus (c. 120). Further, Irenaeus states that St. Polycarp, who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, came to Rome c. 150 about this very question, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodeciman observance. Nevertheless he was not debarred from communion with the Roman Church, and St. Irenæus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189-99) with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessors. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the Holy Day of the Jews, the fourteenth of Nisan, which might occur on any day of the week. Those who kept Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans or terountes (observants); but even in the time of Pope Victor this usage hardly extended beyond the churches of Asia Minor. After the pope's strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away. Origen in the "Philosophumena" (VIII, xviii) seems to regard them as a mere handful of wrong-headed nonconformists.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

was rather confused as to why you should mention these other details in this context. i have all along simply been referring wrong-headed nonconformists.[/quote]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm[/b]

what does this say? i shall put it in bold so that there is no mistaking it.

1. A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover

Paul clearly states that Christ 'is our passover', that it should be construed as Easter is a nonsense. i do not accept the testimony, it is rubbish!