Posted on 05/14/2014 10:02:57 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The original writings from the Apostles themselves (the autographs) no longer exist.
This is due partly to the perishable material (papyrus) used by the writers, and partly the fact that the Roman emperors decreed the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians (Edict of Diocletian, A.D. 303).
Before translating the Bible into Latin, St. Jerome already translated into more common languages enough books to fill a library. (Saint Jerome, Maisie Ward, Sheed & Ward; A Companion to Scripture Studies, Steinmuller.)
In the year 383, he revised the Latin New Testament text in accordance with some Greek manuscripts. Between the years 390 and 406 he translated the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew, and this completed work is known today as the "Old Latin Vulgate". The work had been requested by Pope Damasus, and Copies of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate appeared uncorrupted as late as the 11th century, with some revisions by St. Peter Damian and Lanfranc. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Place of the Bible in the Church", C.U.A.)
Pope Benedict XV wrote about St. Jerome's translation in his 1920 encyclical, Spiritus Paraclitus, "Nor was Jerome content merely to gather up this or that teacher's words; he gathered from all quarters whatever might prove of use to him in this task. From the outset he had accumulated the best possible copies of the Bible and the best commentators on it," . . . "he corrected the Latin version of the Old Testament by the Greek; he translated afresh nearly all the books of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin; . . . he discussed Biblical questions with the brethren who came to him, and answered letters on Biblical questions which poured in upon him from all sides; besides all this, he was constantly refuting men who assailed Catholic doctrine and unity."
(Excerpt) Read more at cathtruth.com ...
“The Truth is like a Lion. You don’t have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself.” -St. Augustine.
“What arrogance”
What arrogance for anyone to twist and turn scripture to arrive at warped interpretations of what Jesus told his disciples. Water ABSOLUTELY is not referring to physical birth. By your utter mangling of all scripture you show daily that you have no idea what in the world you’re talking about.
Water symbolizes your burial into Christ’s death, from which he (you) rises up by resurrection with Him, as “a new creature.”
The early Christians uniformly identified John 3:5 with baptism. Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5).
No Church Father referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism.
Justin Martyr
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Tertullian
“[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’” (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).
Hippolytus
“The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism” (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 [A.D. 217]).
The Recognitions of Clement
“But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (The Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).
Testimonies Concerning the Jews
“That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]. . . . Also in the same place: ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you’ [John 6:53]. That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works” (Testimonies Concerning the Jews 3:2:25–26 [A.D. 240]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’” (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).
Council of Carthage VII
“And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ . . . Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ” (Seventh Carthage [A.D. 256]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul. . . . When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And he says, ‘Unless a man be born again,’ and he adds the words ‘of water and of the Spirit,’ ‘he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it” (Catechetical Lectures 3:4 [A.D. 350]).
Athanasius
“[A]s we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened” (Four Discourses Against the Arians 3:26[33] [A.D. 360]).
Basil the Great
“This then is what it means to be ‘born again of water and Spirit’: Just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirit’s presence there” (The Holy Spirit 15:35 [A.D. 375]).
Ambrose of Milan
“Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and the Son. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God” (The Holy Spirit1:6[75–76] [A.D. 381]).
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11–12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism.
. . . ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’” (Abraham 2:11:79–84 [A.D. 387]).
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism are one: water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8): And if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water, for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’” (The Mysteries 4:20 [A.D. 390]).
Gregory of Nyssa
“[In] the birth by water and the Spirit, [Jesus] himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by his own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things he became the firstborn of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to his own by water and the Spirit” (Against Eunomius 2:8 [A.D. 382]).
John Chrysostom
“[N]o one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of Christ]” (The Priesthood 3:5–6 [A.D. 387]).
Gregory of Nazianz
“Such is the grace and power of baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin. And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the Spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths” (Oration on Holy Baptism 7–8 [A.D. 388]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
“Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13]. . . . [H]e that out of contempt will not be baptized shall be condemned as an unbeliever and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, ‘Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ And again, ‘He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned’” [Mark 16:16] (Apostolic Constitutions 6:3:15 [A.D. 400]).
Augustine
“It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam” (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]).
“Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,’ made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’” [Matt. 10:32] (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).
placemarker
The Nicean Council was actually in 325. The church was called Christian even then or at least the followers were called “Christians”. The Council of Nicea of which the Emperor Constantine called and directed was the beginning of legitimacy of the Christian Church and could be said to be the beginning of the Catholic Church. Catholic does not mean Christian but it does mean “Universal”. Until Constantine there were many Christian churches each one independent from all the others. Their doctrines were in some cases very different from each other. They didn't all have the scriptures we now have so they came to conclusions perhaps if they would have had the whole Bible that we now have that would be different. Anyway, what Constantine did was hear all the differing doctrines of the different churches presented by the Bishops in attendance (Bishops then were the leaders of a church in a city) and determined that one of the Greek churches made the most sense. Anything that contradicted that was disallowed. Writings supporting other doctrines were ordered destroyed. Uncooperative Bishops were ex-communicated some threatened with death sentences although I don't believe any were carried out. Over the next 50 years nearly all the bishops fell into line and the Nicean Creed became the statement all had to conform to. Other councils mostly strengthen and affirmed what was done in 325 except that it became a capital offense to preach differing views. The doctrines established at Nicea and later became the “Universal” belief in Christendom, thus the Holy Catholic (Universal) Church.
Dittto
Catholics were not the “Authors” of any scripture”.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were followers of Jesus Christ. Followers of Christ might not have not been called “Christians” when they started following Him, but they were Christians in every sense of the word. Christian/Catholic, one in the same. There was only one type of Christian/Catholic back then. There were no protestants. Sorry to disappoint you.
__________________________________________________________
I don’t know what you are referring to when you talk about Protestants being around back then, I suppose you have my words confused with someone else’s words.
By the time the word “Christian” started being used likely all the scripture we have today was written.
Followers of Christ were called “Christians” very shortly after the death of the Apostles. The need for written words of the Apostles arose because they died off and the people that had heard them in life were beginning to die off too. Nobody in the early church suspected the world to continue so long, they expected the second coming to be in their lifetimes, perhaps every generation does. Anyway since the Apostles and those that heard them in life were no longer around their words needed to be written. Memories of the sermons of the Apostles are what we have in the Gospels.
Christian and Catholic are not the same thing. Christians are followers of Christ or members of a church that Teach Christ. Catholic simply means Universal. The Church was not “Universal” at least until after 325 some will say sometimes in the 380’s that the term “Universal” was first used. Whenever it was used it started becoming universal after the first council of Nicea in 325.
In a sense, water baptism is important to salvation. Salvation encompasses both justification and sanctification. Water baptism - and this was understood by the Jews and most Gentiles of the time - marked a person as set apart to do the will of God.
Water baptism marks and publicizes the inner change, but that inner change comes from the Baptism of the Holy Spirit - which is the baptism JESUS does to us:
““I baptize with water,” John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”...And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”
And: “You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.”
Ceremonial Washings Pre-date Mikveh
In the Torah we read that before the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, God commanded the people to wash their clothing as a symbolic act of purification (Exodus 19:10).
Leviticus 8:6 records the washing of Aaron and his sons when they were ordained as priests to minister in the holy tabernacle. Again, in Leviticus 16:4, God commanded Aaron to wash himself before and after he ministered in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement.
Numbers 19 gives explicit instructions for purification after defilement by a dead body. After bathing and washing his clothes, the “unclean” person had to be sprinkled with fresh water combined with ashes from a sacrificed animal. The Israelites also used this “water of cleansing” to purify themselves and their plunder after they battled with the Midianites (Numbers 31:21-24).
The Torah also commanded ritual purification for both men and women who had been “defiled” by flows of various body fluids, or who had been healed of leprosy.
All these water rituals formed the basis for the Jewish mikveh laws. While the Hebrew word mikveh means literally “a collection or gathering together,” in this context it refers to a gathering or pool of water for the purpose of ritual cleansing. The earliest Biblical uses of the word “mikveh” occur in I Kings 7:23ff. and its Parallel passage in 11 Chronicles 4:2ff. These verses describe the huge, circular “Sea of Solomon,” constructed along with the first Temple for the priests to carry out their ceremonial washing.
Mikveh the Forerunner of Baptism
Along with the purposes already mentioned in the Torah, another use of symbolic purification by water became part of early Jewish tradition. This was immersion or baptism for Gentile converts to Judaism. Though the only Biblical requirement for entrance into the covenant was circumcision, baptism became an added requisite. No one knows exactly when or by whom the requirements were changed to include baptism, but it was before the time of Jesus. We know this, because debates on the subject of proselyte baptism are recorded between rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel, both contemporaries of Jesus. Whereas the school of Shammai stressed circumcision as the point of transition, the Hillelites considered baptism most important because it portrayed spiritual cleansing and the beginning of a new life. Ultimately the Hillelite view prevailed, as is reflected in the Talmudic writings. Maimonides, that greatly revered 12th century Jewish scholar, summed up all Talmudic tradition concerning converts to Judaism as follows.
“By three things did Israel enter into the Covenant: by circumcision, and baptism and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt, as it is written: ‘No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof’ (Exodus 12:48). Baptism was in the wilderness, just before giving of the Law, as it is written: ‘Sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes’ (Exodus 19:10). And sacrifice, as it is said: ‘And he sent young men of the children of Israel which offered burnt offerings’ (Exodus 24:5)…When a gentile is willing to enter the covenant…He must be circumcised and be baptized and bring a sacrifice…And at this time when there is no sacrifice, they must be circumcised and be baptized; and when the Temple shall be built, they are to bring a sacrifice…The gentile that is made a proselyte and the slave that is made free, behold he is like a child new born.”
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v02-n10/baptism
Protestants broke away from the Christian Church 500 years ago. Does the name Martin Luther ring a bell? They are ecclesial communities, they are not churches. There is no apostolic succession in any faith born out of the Reformation.
I suppose I ought to add for clarification, if one wants to be part of the body of Christ and be justified before God, we need the One Baptism done to us by Jesus - the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is what gives us life, and seals us as belonging to Jesus Christ.
That doesn’t mean water baptism has no value at all. As a ceremonial washing declaring to the world that you are now set apart to live as God calls you to live, it has great value - in sanctifying us (making us different from the world around us). But H2O does not give life. The Spirit does.
When Paul writes, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all”, does anyone REALLY believe he is speaking of a splash of H2O on a baby’s face?
Just ask yourself: what is the seal of our belonging to Him?
“When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.”
And what Baptism does JESUS do? There are 2, and EVERYONE will be baptized:
“But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
You can be baptized by Jesus in the Holy Spirit, or at the end of the world, you can be baptized by Jesus with unquenchable fire. Telling Jesus, “But my parents splashed some water on my face” won’t rescue you from the unquenchable fire of the second baptism, if you forgo the first!
It was on another thread today and I forgot to get the link when I saved the content.
2Cor 1:21-22 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
For which the Greek, from the Byzantine, is:
2Cor 1:21-22 ο δε βεβαιων ημας συν υμιν εις χριστον και χρισας ημας θεος ο και σφραγισαμενος ημας και δους τον αρραβωνα του πνευματος εν ταις καρδιαις ημων
The first word in bold above is “bebaion,” the idea of confirmation, frequently used in commercial settings to confirm a bargain. Which of course makes sense of the remaining terms used here, which are also elements of a secured contract.
The second word in bold above is “sphragisamenos,” being sealed is to be marked by the signature, signet ring, or other unique proof of identity, that we belong to God, and this sealing is done by God, who is the one taking action in this verse. We do not and cannot seal ourselves. We do not, by our own powers, have access to God’s “signet ring.”
The third bolded word above is “arrabona,” and indicates what we might loosely refer to as earnest money, but in Hebrew culture conveys more the idea of a pledge of covenant, a security given as a guarantee that the deal will go through, though we only receive part payment at the beginning. See ערב for the related Hebrew stem indicating “pledge.”
The minute it’s Jesus plus......
Then it’s not Jesus you are trusting to save you but the whatever you added.
So if you say *Jesus plus baptism* then it’s the baptism you are trusting for your salvation because you don’t believe that Jesus is enough.
Likewise for communion, confirmation, last rights, purgatory, whatever.
And since there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, those things can’t cleanse from sin, so trusting in those things will not save.
Pity the person who is counting on getting into heaven because they got dunked or splashed because they didn’t think what Jesus did on the cross was enough.
Without faith, it is impossible to please God.
Well, God will let them have what they want but it isn’t going to work out so well for them.
Your point was about the Reformation, was it not? And your contention that Martin Luther was the instigator of it. That is provably false FROM history, both the secular as well as the religious side. The Bible most certainly does teach the absolute authority of the divinely-inspired Scriptures and that point has been shown numerous times on these threads. For those who understand the actually meaning of the term, it is easily seen. As for sola fide, we also know from Scripture as well as the writings of early church leaders that it has always been understood that we are saved by the grace of God through faith and not by our works. That really is what faith alone means - we do not earn or merit our salvation by what we do. It is given as a gift through faith because of the grace and mercy of Almighty God. Believing in the "real presence" and what is called "transubstantiation" today are NOT one and the same thing. It has been understood that the bread and wine are taken as a remembrance of Christ's body and blood and to do so is a sign of faith.
Christians before Luther always used all of the books of the full canon as became circulated into commom use (a process).
They did not consider the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books as divinely-inspired and equal to the universally recognized sacred writings of the old and new testaments. Even Jerome says that in his introductions to those books. He said they were "helpful" in edifying the church but were not to be used for doctrine. Luther's translation of the Bible HAD those books as well - in the same kind of segregated section as Jerome and other had them. He DID NOT REMOVE ANY BOOKS FROM HIS BIBLE (do you think you can stop using this canard now?).
The Reformation did not begin long before Martin Luther. There have always been small pockets of heresies in the Church that did not catch on - most having to do with distortions of Christ’s nature or the nature of the trinity, and the Holy Spirit did not allow their growth.
Sure it did. You just haven't read the right literature yet.
Martin Luther was the first to come up with sola scriptura, especially since the bible wasn’t even written down until at least the end first century - so how could they use sola scriptura?
Another false idea. Read some of the early church fathers on how they considered God's word when they had to defend a doctrine against heresy. If what they said could not be proven by Scripture, many stated outright, no one should believe what they said. Only the Bible IS God-breathed, whatever mere humans come up with - no matter how spiritual they may or may not be - cannot be equal to it. Perhaps you need to read some links on what sola scriptura is not. I have those if you are interested.
To know history is to cease to protest.
To know God's word is to cease to be fooled by anyone who would pervert the gospel - no matter who they are.
Picking apart what Rome did or not do and when was not the issue to be refuted.
It's painful, I imagine, to read about the sordid history of an organization with which one has invested so much time, money and trust. You needed to hear about the other side of the Reformation - why it was needed and the reasons God was behind it. My faith is in Christ and not in "my" church. A church cannot guarantee your salvation - only Jesus can do that and he gives eternal life to all those who would believe in Him.
Well, I do not protest against the right of Catholics to have Mass wherever they want to have it. Can I expect you to stop calling me a Protestant now?
Placeholder
The Church had its sordid moments, but so did the reformation; look at Cromwell’s murderous rampage.
Just because the Church contained fallible men does not cause the doctrine of the real presence to be wrong. The reformation contained equally evil men. The point is - the prayers and the breaking of the bread told of in scripture were not ever meant to be symbolic and the reformers (deformers) wrongly distorted this into a symbolic supper.
Which side had more corruption is not relevant, because all men are corrupt. Catholics do not claim to be saints on earth, we are on a pilgrim journey, including the “elders” (priest/presbyters).
This is about the fatal man made changes taught in the 16th century that hollowed out true worship as explained in the bible; not a laundry list exposing fallen men.
They're Catholic when they need to be and not when they need to be.
So are you saying that EO are not Catholic after all?
When you stop believing in Protestant doctrines, I’ll stop calling you what you are now.
I am saying that all Christians believed that the breaking of the bread was not symbolic until the 16th century, because those are the instructions found in the New Testament - see John 6.
“what is not in scripture is the heresy of Rome”
What was removed from scripture, the correct way to worship God, (i.e., the literal body and blood of the eucharist as found in John 6) is the heresy of those who walked away from Jesus direct words. John 61-67
Mary worship is a false accusation about Catholics made up by non Catholics. Catholics love Mary as a mother -we worship the Trinity. Our love for Mary os not worship. Mary is NOT a Goddess and no Catholic considers her to be one, ever.
Non Catholics have no busienss telling Catholics what we believe when they have distorted version of it. Mary worship does not happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.