Passover communion east and west and Quartodecimanism

Tagged: 

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #7074
    Simon
    Participant

    looks like cog is half right and half wrong . prior to nicea some churches kept Passover others Sundays for the bread and wine and until nicea they got on fine in full communion with each other. it appears John had a differing take from Peter and Paul but they were brothers who walked with Jesus just the same why can’t we do likewise?

  • #51140

    Simon
    Participant
    #51141

    jellybean
    Participant

    I see that the Disciples that walked with him did not got a book of rules that they have to follow. What they recieved was actually a way of living between each other that will lead them to the Kingdom of heaven and there is where the misunderstandings of the WMSCOG comes to place. Both Ideas are so similar that can be confused however the truth is that Christ left them a way to live, treat, associate and follow God. The truth is not in the WMSCOG. One example is when Christ was washing their feet and one of them wanted christ to wash him all over  when he realized that Christ came to serve because of the honor and devotion he felt at the moment. Christ explained that only the feet needed to be washed.

    Because of this I also think that the disciples actions are not necesary what Christ will do in the situation because they were not God in the flesh. The were sinners like we are and they did their best to follow Christ and have a life according to his word. When Christ left them, they barely knew or understood what just happened to them or who was Christ and it was until his resurection on the third day that they understood the transformation he went through.

    #51142

    Simon
    Participant

    not sure what that has to do with the post

    #51143

    jellybean
    Participant

    I am mostly reffering to the idea that you are exposing about John and Peter differing in the idea of what to keep. Sorry I am not the best at organizing Ideas. Mostly the way I post is including everything that I have to say about the post or the idea exposed.

    #51144

    Emily
    Participant

    Simon wrote:

    not sure what that has to do with the post

    I realize that you may have been focused mainly on the wms's historical misunderstanding and thanks for the info 🙂 

    I think that jellybean focused on the last part you said above when you said "it appears John had a differing take from Peter and Paul but they were brothers who walked with Jesus just the same why can't we do likewise?"

    The wms is very legalistic and firmly believes that there is only one way to worship God (their "gods") and that they are the only ones doing it right.  The wms would argue that we should follow Paul's example as he followed the example of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1).  But then what about John?  So one might conclude that Paul wasn't referring to legalism as the Chrisitan way of life.  

    #51145

    Simon
    Participant

    I wasn't talking about disagreeing with WMSCOG. Just WMS says Sunday keepers non feast keepers are "not real christians" and many sunday keepers nonfeast keepers say Sabbath keepers and Feast keepers are "not real Christians". What both sides sometimes (WMSCOG on a strong doctrinal level) is that it is about Jesus not dates on a calendar…

     

    I think John and Peter/Paul is a great example of

    Romans 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

    #51146

    Emily
    Participant

    You're right Simon.  That is a great example 🙂

    #51147

    emil
    Participant

    I am bumping up this thread because I did some reading on Polycarp yesterday. Polycarp is central to the issue of Quartodecimanism because he was the most prominent among the apostolic successors who wanted to retain the Jewish calendar of dates.

    He is held up as an example of how the western branch of the church suppressed the quartodecimans and finally eliminated passover at Nicaea. WMSCOG claims that this is how PO was eliminated, only to be re-established by Sahnghong. It is worth looking at history to see what really happened. It is true that Polycarp and the successors of John, disagreed with the successors of Peter and Paul on the dating of the commemoration. This is documented by Irenaeus but shows that despite the disagreement, Polycarp and Pope Anicetus remained in brotherhood and acceptance of each other's views.

    What exactly did they disagree on? It is not about the consuming of body and blood of Jesus at all. Polycarp wanted to stick to the Jewish calendar to determine when to commemorate the Lord's passion. In other words, the disagreement was in defining the date for what we now call Good Friday. Polycarp wanted it to be on the day of the Jewish passover and he celebrated the Eucharist the day after that (I guess it was for the resurrection). The Western church wanted the date to be set on a Friday such that Easter (the resurrection) would be celebrated on the Sunday after the 14 day of the lunar month after the spring equinox which would technically be the Sunday after the Passover.

    The Catholic Church has the Eucharistic (taken from the Greek for "Thanksgiving") celebration at which the Eucharist (communion – flesh and blood of Jesus) is partaken of. I believe Protestants have their own form for this. This is rather frequent, typically once a week but could even be daily. Polycarp celebrated the Eucharist frequently like any other bishop. In fact, Irenaeus records that Polycarp celebrated the Eucharist immediately after Anicetus and he agreed to disagree on the matter of the date of the Lord's passion. Even today, I believe there are Eastern churches in communion with Rome, who have different dates for Easter.

    So it is very clear that Quartodecimanism has nothing to do with calling the partaking of the body and blood as the passover and celebrating it once a year on the day of the Jewish passover. The Eucharistic celebration of the body and blood as a frequent event was in place from apostolic times as can be seen from Acts 2:42 (daily) and 1 Cor 11:18, 26.

    The WMSCOG is wrong about what they call the PO. They are wrong to say that the PO (as they see it) was abolished in the 4th century. The passover was never celebrated their way. For Christians, it was the Lord's passion.

    #51148

    emil
    Participant

    YoMomma SoFat wrote:

     

    What about 1 Cor 5:7? Jesus was the Passover Lamb. The 14th day of Nisan is the day the PO lamb had to be sacrificed. According to John (reading several chapters is required) Jesus was sacrificed on PO which means He fulfilled the PO lamb of the OT. I'm still not understanding why Matthew, Mark, and Luke have different records than John. All the while, John's record (though just one) fits the bill more closely than Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Serious confusion.

     

    Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

    @Renita – I hope you don't mind my posting your comment from the other thread here for further discussion because it is connected with what I wrote above.

    Polycarp, who was John's disciple, was clear that Jesus was crucified at the time when the Passover lamb is sacrificed. This is what John has recorded in his Gospel account. That is why, for Polycarp, commemoration of the passover was the commemoration of Jesus' death on the cross. In other words, it is exactly what the majority of Christianity comemorates on Good Friday. Polycarp infact, is mentioned to have celebrated the Eucharist (body and blood) the day after the passover as a norm, implying that he did not celebrate it on the day of the Jewish passover.

    So when the WMSCOG or anyone else points to the quartodeciman controversy to prove that their notion of PO (body and blood) was changed to Easter, that is simply untrue.

    #51149

    Love'n Honey
    Participant

    Emil-

    That makes a LOT of sense! Easter is about the resurrection, PO is about His death. Even Paul said we proclaim His death by keeping the PO. Thanks.

    #51150

    emil
    Participant

    Renita – That's right. However, the main point I was trying to make in this thread is that the wmscog use Polycarp as their poster boy to support their idea that the RCC abolished PO in the 4th century. That is absurd because Polycarp commemorated the crucifixion on the day of the Jewish passover while he celebrated the Eucharist (a liturgy which the wmscog has taken to mean the PO) frequently but not on the day of the PO.

     

    YoMomma SoFat wrote:

     

    What about 1 Cor 5:7? Jesus was the Passover Lamb. The 14th day of Nisan is the day the PO lamb had to be sacrificed. According to John (reading several chapters is required) Jesus was sacrificed on PO which means He fulfilled the PO lamb of the OT. I'm still not understanding why Matthew, Mark, and Luke have different records than John. All the while, John's record (though just one) fits the bill more closely than Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Serious confusion.

    Firstly, neither Mark nor Luke have been recorded as eyewitnesses although the Lord's supper could arguably have been at Mark's house.

    Secondly, I believe God has allowed this ambiguity in the Gospels because the exact date was insignificant as compared to the act that was performed. The body and blood was never meant to be an annual commemoration. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was of infinitely greater importance than the day he died.

    #51151

    Love'n Honey
    Participant

    How do you know they were eyewitnesses?

    #51152

    emil
    Participant

    ^ I didn't say they were.

    #51153

    Love'n Honey
    Participant

    Emil-

    Ok, let me ask again in a different way. How would one know if they were or were not eyewitnesses??

    #51154

    emil
    Participant

    ^ The gospels.

    Mt 26:20 – "When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve."

    Mk 14:17 – "When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve."

    Lk 22:14 – "When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table."

    All the accounts speak of the twelve apostles being present. This is proof that they were eyewitnesses. Mark and Luke were not among the twelve while John and Matthew were. Mark was a disciple but Luke probably wasn't at that point in time. There is no evidence to say whether they were present or not. The implication of the texts is that only the twelve were present. It is a reasonable assumption that Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses.

    #51155

    Love'n Honey
    Participant

    Emil-

    Oh! That makes plenty of sense. Grammar, saves lives! Better to presume than to assume.

    #51156

    Love'n Honey
    Participant

    Emil-

    I change my mind. It doesn't make sense. You said: This is proof that they were eyewitnesses. Then you said: Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses. Those statements contradict. How do you know John and Matthew were the 12 but Mark and Luke were not? What is the difference between the Disciples, Apostles, and the 12? And why would Matthew refer to himself in the 3rd person? Is that common? Please explain.

    #51157

    emil
    Participant

    @Renita – Sorry for the confusion. I did not say that Mark and Luke were eyewitnesses. In fact, I said there is no record of them being eyewitnesses. This is in no way an attempt to discredit their writing though. The writing itself was inspired by God. Moreover, it is a common belief that the supper was at the house of Mark, who was a disciple but not one of the twelve.

    The eyewitnesses were the twelve apostles. The names of the twelve include John and Matthew. See Mt 10:2-4, Mk 3:16-19 and Lk 6:14-16. So John and Matthew were among the twleve eyewitnesses. Hope it is clear now.

    The practice of using 3rd person narration is common to most books of the bible. It is only in the epistles (letters) that the 1st person is normally used. Consider how John never refers to himself in first person but writes "the disciple whom Jesus loved" a couple of times.

    #51158

    Love'n Honey
    Participant

    Emil-

    Oh! Ok. That's my fault. I took your second sentence in reference to the nonexistent-underlined 1st subject (all of those who wrote the records) of your 1st sentence. Though I was supposed to reference the 2nd subject (the 12).

    Ok.. So, Matthew and John were definitely there with Jesus making them eye witnesses. But their accounts are still different as far as which day (the 13th or the 14th of Nisan) Jesus ate with the 12. I'll go re-read to see if I missed something.

    #51159

    ChurchDestroyer101
    Participant

    emil wrote:

    I am bumping up this thread because I did some reading on Polycarp yesterday. Polycarp is central to the issue of Quartodecimanism because he was the most prominent among the apostolic successors who wanted to retain the Jewish calendar of dates.

    He is held up as an example of how the western branch of the church suppressed the quartodecimans and finally eliminated passover at Nicaea. WMSCOG claims that this is how PO was eliminated, only to be re-established by Sahnghong. It is worth looking at history to see what really happened. It is true that Polycarp and the successors of John, disagreed with the successors of Peter and Paul on the dating of the commemoration. This is documented by Irenaeus but shows that despite the disagreement, Polycarp and Pope Anicetus remained in brotherhood and acceptance of each other's views.

    What exactly did they disagree on? It is not about the consuming of body and blood of Jesus at all. Polycarp wanted to stick to the Jewish calendar to determine when to commemorate the Lord's passion. In other words, the disagreement was in defining the date for what we now call Good Friday. Polycarp wanted it to be on the day of the Jewish passover and he celebrated the Eucharist the day after that (I guess it was for the resurrection). The Western church wanted the date to be set on a Friday such that Easter (the resurrection) would be celebrated on the Sunday after the 14 day of the lunar month after the spring equinox which would technically be the Sunday after the Passover.

    The Catholic Church has the Eucharistic (taken from the Greek for "Thanksgiving") celebration at which the Eucharist (communion – flesh and blood of Jesus) is partaken of. I believe Protestants have their own form for this. This is rather frequent, typically once a week but could even be daily. Polycarp celebrated the Eucharist frequently like any other bishop. In fact, Irenaeus records that Polycarp celebrated the Eucharist immediately after Anicetus and he agreed to disagree on the matter of the date of the Lord's passion. Even today, I believe there are Eastern churches in communion with Rome, who have different dates for Easter.

    So it is very clear that Quartodecimanism has nothing to do with calling the partaking of the body and blood as the passover and celebrating it once a year on the day of the Jewish passover. The Eucharistic celebration of the body and blood as a frequent event was in place from apostolic times as can be seen from Acts 2:42 (daily) and 1 Cor 11:18, 26.

    The WMSCOG is wrong about what they call the PO. They are wrong to say that the PO (as they see it) was abolished in the 4th century. The passover was never celebrated their way. For Christians, it was the Lord's passion.

    so, they were arguing about where they should place the lord's death on the cross and what calendar they should use?

Viewing 20 replies - 1 through 20 (of 55 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.