| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/25/2015 3:29:26 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:
childishness |
Posted on 02/20/2015 12:33:03 PM PST by RnMomof7
There aren't many subjects Catholic apologists like to discuss more than the eucharist. Even if their arguments about the papacy are refuted, even if the evidence they cite for the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and other doctrines isn't convincing, they still think they have a strong argument in the doctrine of the eucharist. They'll quote John 6 and the passages of scripture about the Last Supper. They'll quote centuries of church fathers referring to the eucharist as a sacrifice and referring to Jesus being present in the elements of the eucharist. They'll point out that even Protestants like Martin Luther have believed in a eucharistic presence. How, then, can evangelicals maintain that the eucharist is just symbolic, that there is no presence of Christ? Are evangelicals going to go up against 1500 years of church history?
This sort of reasoning seems to have had a lot of influence on evangelicals who have converted to Catholicism. Some converts to the Catholic Church even cite the eucharist as the primary issue, or one of the most significant issues, in convincing them to convert. But is the argument as compelling as so many Catholics think it is?
There are a lot of problems with this popular Catholic argument. The argument isn't even a defense of Catholicism. It's a defense of something like what the Catholic Church teaches. The Council of Trent made it clear just what the Catholic position is on this issue (emphasis added):
Since Christ our Redeemer said that that which he offered under the appearance of bread was truly his body, it has therefore always been held in the Church of God, and this holy Synod now declares anew, that through consecration of the bread and wine there comes about a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And this conversion is by the Holy Catholic church conveniently and properly called transubstantiation. (session 13, "Decrees Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist", chapter 4)
According to the Catholic Church, transubstantiation is the view of the eucharist always held by the Christian church. Some Catholics try to redefine this claim of the Council of Trent by saying that what Trent meant is that there was always some sort of belief in a presence in the eucharist, which was later defined more specifically as transubstantiation. While it's true that Trent doesn't claim that the word "transubstantiation" has always been used, Trent does claim that the concept has always been held by the Christian church.
There are two sentences in the quote above. The first sentence refers to a view of the eucharist always being held by the Christian church. The second sentence says that this view is transubstantiation. The way in which Trent describes the view always held by the Christian church makes it clear that transubstantiation is being described. The council refers to the whole substance of the bread and the whole substance of the wine being converted. That's transubstantiation.
Why do Catholic apologists attempt to redefine what the Council of Trent taught? Because what Trent said is false. Let's consider just some of the evidence that leads to this conclusion.
Though Catholics often cite some alleged references to their view of the eucharist in the Bible, the truth is that there's no evidence of the Catholic eucharist in scripture. John 6 is often cited as referring to eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood by means of a transubstantiated eucharist. There are a lot of problems with the Catholic view of John 6, however, such as the fact that Jesus speaks in the present tense about how He is the bread of life and how people are responsible for eating and drinking Him. Jesus doesn't refer to how these things will begin in the future, when the eucharist is instituted. Rather, He refers to them as a present reality. And John 6:35 identifies what the eating and drinking are. The passage is not about the eucharist. (See http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/john666.htm for a further discussion of the problems with the Catholic interpretation of John 6.) Likewise, the passages about the Last Supper don't prove transubstantiation. They could be interpreted as references to a physical presence of Christ in the eucharist. That's a possibility. But they can also be interpreted otherwise.
There's no evidence for the Catholic view of the eucharist in scripture, but there is some evidence against it. In Matthew 26:29, Jesus refers to the contents of the cup as "this fruit of the vine". It couldn't be wine, though, if transubstantiation had occurred. And Jesus refers to drinking the contents of the cup with His followers again in the kingdom to come. Yet, the eucharist apparently is to be practiced only until Jesus returns (1 Corinthians 11:26). If the cup in Matthew 26:29 contained transubstantiated blood, then why would Jesus refer to drinking that substance with His followers in the future, at a time when there would be no eucharist? And if the eucharist is a sacrifice as the Catholic Church defines it to be, why is there no mention of the eucharist in the book of Hebrews?
The author of Hebrews is silent about the eucharist in places where we would expect the eucharist to be mentioned, if it was viewed as the Catholic Church views it. This is acknowledged even by Catholic scholars. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990) is a Catholic commentary that some of the foremost Catholic scholars in the world contributed to. It was edited by Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Roland Murphy. Near the end of the section on the book of Hebrews, the commentary admits:
If, as it seems, the author [of Hebrews] does not speak of the eucharist either here or elsewhere, the reason may be that he did not consider it a sacrifice. (p. 941)
There's nothing wrong with viewing the eucharist as a sacrifice in the sense of thanksgiving and praise (Hebrews 13:15). Some of the church fathers referred to the eucharist in such a way. For example, Justin Martyr wrote the following in response to the followers of Judaism who claimed to be fulfilling Malachi 1:11 (emphasis added):
Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, 'And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but ye profane it.' Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth. But these filthy garments, which have been put by you on all who have become Christians by the name of Jesus, God shows shall be taken away from us, when He shall raise all men from the dead, and appoint some to be incorruptible, immortal, and free from sorrow in the everlasting and imperishable kingdom; but shall send others away to the everlasting punishment of fire. But as to you and your teachers deceiving yourselves when you interpret what the Scripture says as referring to those of your nation then in dispersion, and maintain that their prayers and sacrifices offered in every place are pure and well-pleasing, learn that you are speaking falsely, and trying by all means to cheat yourselves: for, first of all, not even now does your nation extend from the rising to the setting of the sun, but there are nations among which none of your race ever dwelt. For there is not one single race of men, whether barbarians, or Greeks, or whatever they may be called, nomads, or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers and giving of thanks are not offered through the name of the crucified Jesus. And then, as the Scriptures show, at the time when Malachi wrote this, your dispersion over all the earth, which now exists, had not taken place. (Dialogue with Trypho, 117)
These arguments of Justin Martyr are contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. According to Justin Martyr, the eucharist is a sacrifice only in the sense of being a means by which Christians offer prayers and thanksgiving to God. Justin Martyr not only says nothing of the eucharist being a sacrifice in the sense Catholics define it to be, but he even excludes the possibility of the Catholic view by saying that the eucharist is a sacrifice only in the sense of prayers and thanksgiving being offered through it. Justin Martyr seems to have had Biblical passages like Hebrews 13:15 in mind, which is a concept that evangelicals agree with. The eucharist is a sacrifice in that sense.
Some church fathers defined the eucharist as a sacrifice differently than Justin Martyr, including in ways that are similar to the Catholic view. But Justin Martyr illustrates two things. First, it's false to claim that all of the church fathers viewed the eucharist as the Catholic Church views it. Secondly, the eucharist can be referred to as a sacrifice in numerous ways. It's not enough for Catholic apologists to cite a church father referring to the eucharist as a sacrifice. What type of sacrifice did the church father believe it to be? And how convincing are that church father's arguments?
Even more than they discuss the concept that the eucharist is an atoning sacrifice, Catholics argue that there's a presence of Christ in the eucharist, and that the church fathers agreed with them on this issue. Some Catholics will even claim that every church father believed in a presence in the eucharist. They'll often cite a scholar like J.N.D. Kelly referring to the church fathers believing in a "real presence" in the eucharist. But what these Catholics often don't do is quote what Kelly goes on to say. As Kelly explains, the church fathers defined "real presence" in a number of ways, including ways that contradict transubstantiation. Some of the church fathers were closer to the consubstantiation of Lutheranism or the spiritual presence of Calvinism, for example.
See the section titled "The Church and the Host" at:
http://www.aomin.org/JRWOpening.html
Also see the historian Philip Schaff's comments in section 69 at:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm
And section 95 at:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm
I also recommend consulting Schaff's footnotes, since the notes cite additional passages from the fathers and cite other scholars confirming Schaff's conclusions.
The church fathers held a wide variety of views on subjects such as how to interpret John 6 and Christ's presence in the eucharist. For example, Clement of Alexandria wrote the following about John 6 (emphasis added):
Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood," describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. (The Instructor, 1:6)
In another passage, Clement contradicts transubstantiation. He writes the following about how Christians should conduct themselves when drinking alcohol (emphasis added):
In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, "Take, drink: this is my blood"--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word "shed for many, for the remission of sins"--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, "I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father." [Matthew 26:29] But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: "For the Son of man," He says, "came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans." (The Instructor, 2:2)
Clement, like evangelicals, cites Matthew 26:29 as evidence that Jesus drank wine. If Clement believed that wine is what was drunk at the Last Supper, he didn't believe in transubstantiation.
Similarly, Irenaeus denies transubstantiation in his writings. He seems to have believed in consubstantiation rather than the Catholic view of the eucharist. For example (emphasis added):
For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. (Against Heresies, 4:18:5)
For this reason, when about to undergo His sufferings, that He might declare to Abraham and those with him the glad tidings of the inheritance being thrown open, Christ, after He had given thanks while holding the cup, and had drunk of it, and given it to the disciples, said to them: "Drink ye all of it: this is My blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Thus, then, He will Himself renew the inheritance of the earth, and will re-organize the mystery of the glory of His sons; as David says, "He who hath renewed the face of the earth." He promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples, thus indicating both these points: the inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in the flesh. For the new flesh which rises again is the same which also received the new cup. And He cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his disciples above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit. (Against Heresies, 5:33:1)
Irenaeus describes the eucharist as consisting of two realities, one that comes from Heaven and another that's from the earth. He refers to the eucharist as an example of drinking wine, the same substance that people will drink in Christ's future kingdom, after the eucharist has served its purpose (1 Corinthians 11:26). Irenaeus, like Clement of Alexandria, contradicts transubstantiation. Though Irenaeus does seem to have believed in a presence in the eucharist, it isn't transubstantiation.
Other examples could be cited, and other examples are cited in the article I linked to above. It's a historical fact that the church fathers held a variety of eucharistic beliefs, including some that contradict what the Catholic Church teaches. This fact is contrary to the Council of Trent's claim that transubstantiation had always been the view held by the Christian church.
It should be noted, also, that many evangelicals believe in a presence in the eucharist. Some believe in consubstantiation. Some believe in a spiritual presence. Evangelicals don't even have to hold to any specific view. Jesus and the apostles told Christians to celebrate the eucharist. A Christian can do so without knowing whether there's any presence of Christ in the eucharist or what type of presence there is. For an evangelical, this issue isn't too significant. The reliability of our rule of faith (the Bible) isn't dependent on proving that Christ is present in the eucharist in some particular way. Catholics, on the other hand, must defend the Catholic Church's allegedly infallible teaching of transubstantiation. They must also defend the Council of Trent's claim that transubstantiation is the view always held by the Christian church, as well as Trent's claim that every other view is unacceptable. Evangelicals just don't carry the same burden of proof that Catholics carry on this issue. Catholics can't say that this is unfair, since the claims of the Catholic Church itself are what create the added burden of proof for the Catholic apologist. If you don't want to have to carry such a burden, then tell your denomination to quit making such weighty claims.
In summary:
· The Council of Trent taught that transubstantiation is the view of the eucharist always held by the Christian church. Trent also taught that every other view of the eucharist is so inaccurate as to cause the advocates of those views to be anathema. Therefore, Catholics must defend transubstantiation, not just some vague concept of "real presence".
· There is no scriptural evidence of the Catholic view of the eucharist, while there is some scriptural evidence against the concept (Matthew 26:29 as compared with 1 Corinthians 11:26, silence about the eucharist in Hebrews, etc.).
· Concepts like the eucharist being a sacrifice and Christ's presence in the eucharist were widespread among the church fathers, but were defined in numerous ways, including ways that contradict Catholic teaching.
· Many evangelicals believe in some form of presence in the eucharist, and they don't even need to hold any particular view on the subject if they don't want to. Just as the Roman Catholic Church allows Catholics freedom to believe what they want to believe or to not reach any conclusion on some issues, Christ's presence in the eucharist is an issue where evangelicals have freedom. We can be silent, or allow a variety of viewpoints, where scripture is silent. Catholics don't have this option, since their denomination has made so many claims about the subject in allegedly infallible proclamations.
The eucharist is another issue that illustrates how anachronistic, misleading, and false many of the claims of the Catholic Church are. Some Catholics seem to ignore or minimize their denomination's errors on issues like the papacy and the Immaculate Conception, because they think that the Catholic Church is at least closer to the truth than evangelicalism on other issues, like the eucharist. But such reasoning is fallacious. For one thing, all it takes is one error to refute Catholicism. Since the Catholic Church teaches that its traditions are just as authoritative as scripture, an error on one subject also disproves what the Catholic Church has taught on other subjects. If the Immaculate Conception doctrine is contrary to the evidence, for example, that isn't just problematic for the doctrine that Mary was immaculately conceived. It's also problematic for the doctrine of papal infallibility, since Pope Pius IX allegedly was exercising that power when he declared Mary to be conceived without sin. When the Catholic Church is shown to be wrong on the eucharist, the Immaculate Conception, or some other issue, that has implications for far more than just that one doctrine.
With regard to the eucharist, consider one of the larger implications of the Catholic Church being wrong on that subject. If it's true that the church fathers held a wide variety of eucharistic beliefs, and that they also held a wide variety of beliefs on a lot of other subjects, what does that tell us about early church history? It tells us that it's unlikely that the church fathers were part of one worldwide denomination headed by a Pope. What's more likely is that the church fathers disagreed with each other so much because they belonged to churches that were governmentally independent of one another, and they interpreted the scriptures for themselves. In fact, many of the church fathers specifically said as much. The fact that there were so many differing views among the church fathers, including views that contradict what the Catholic Church teaches, suggests that they weren't Roman Catholics.
If the Catholic Church isn't reliable, what are we to conclude about the eucharist, then? What do we do if we can't trust Catholicism to tell us what to believe? We ought to go to the scriptures. And if the beliefs of the church fathers and other sources are relevant in some way, we should also consider those things. We should study the issue ourselves instead of just uncritically accepting whatever an institution like the Roman Catholic Church teaches. When we go to the scriptures, we find that a number of eucharistic views are plausible, but transubstantiation isn't one of them (Matthew 26:29). The concept that the eucharist is an atoning sacrifice is unacceptable. Trying to continually offer Christ's sacrifice as an atonement for our sins, and offering it as a further atonement of the temporal portion of sins already forgiven, is contrary to what's taught in the book of Hebrews, such as Hebrews 9:12-10:18. For example, in Hebrews 9:25-26, we see the author distinguishing between Christ's sacrifice and the offering of that sacrifice. Not only was Christ only sacrificed once, but He also offered that one sacrifice to God only once. Catholics acknowledge that there was only one sacrifice, but they argue that the one sacrifice is offered repeatedly through the eucharist. This claim of the Catholic Church is contrary to scripture. And there are a lot of other contradictions between what scripture teaches on these subjects and what the Catholic Church teaches, especially in the book of Hebrews. We can reasonably arrive at a number of different views of the eucharist, but the Catholic view isn't one of them.
|
|
Re: Temple recommend questions.
I am aware of the questions, my wife is a regular at the temple. I have never heard those questions asked of her, in fact they are asked in secret and answered in secret with only my wife and her bishop present. I don’t see how these questions have anything to do with the discussion.
If you thought I was criticizing the collection of money from member of a church you have woefully misunderstood me. The Catholic is perhaps the richest organization in the world outside of a few countries. They collect money and mostly do that in private although there are opportunities for public shows of donation in Catholicism there are even more in many Protestant churches with the passing of offering plates.
Churches are run with money there is no escaping that, in the earliest Christian church Ananias and Sapphira died because they lied about their offerings to Peter when he asked them if they had donated all. They could have said “we kept a little for our own personal use but have given all the rest to The Church”, but instead they lied. The lie was between Ananias and Sapphira and Peter.
Catholics have a Pope who speaks for God on earth, Mormons have a Prophet who speaks for God on earth. I guess if you hate one you hate the other, in my opinion they have both at various times said stupid stuff that in the day they said them did not sound so stupid, even the current Pope with his cadre of advisers comes out with some strange quotes.
I think if more churches had a tithing settlement or something like it they could get rid of a lot of dissension in their ranks.
What happened in 325 to me is a very sad time in the history of Christs Church, doctrines of the Church were decided by politics. There have been even more evil leaders of The Church than Constantine who was only a defacto leader but again, the leader of a church on earth does not make the church, but the doctrines make the church.
It is hard to have it both ways, either belief in the Lord Jesus Christ saves us by His Grace or it doesn't. Because someone belongs to a church that some don't approve of is no measure of their belief in The Savior. The whole point of Protestantism is that you are saved by Grace alone. If some churches have ordinances, rules and laws that we don't accept it does not mean that the faith of their members in The Lord Jesus Christ is not real or accepted. Either Graces saves or it doesn't.
If Grace saves then I know plenty of Roman Catholics and Mormons that are saved.
ON the Mormon side....no.
Those who follow the Mormon faith also believe that they can attain heaven through works (Doctrine and Covenants 58:42–43; 2 Nephi 9:23–24; Alma 34:30–35; Articles of Faith, p.92). While they claim faith in Christ, they also rely on following the commandments of the Mormon Church (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p 188; Mormon Doctrine, p. 670) and practicing good works (2 Nephi 25:23; Alma 11:37) in order to achieve salvation. The Bible is very clear on this point, stating that good works can never earn the way to heaven (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8–9; Titus 3:5) and that faith in Jesus Christ alone is the only way to salvation (John 10:9; 11:25; 14:6; Acts 4:12). Salvation by grace is incompatible with salvation by human works (Romans 11:6). Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Mormons-Christians.html#ixzz3SZu3WbKO
Are there saved Roman Catholics? Very possibly. However, those counting on Mary to help with their salvation, who appeal to Mary for their salvation, and who pray to Mary would be in doubt.
Not to interfere in your conversation....but why??/it abbreviates protestant...Catholics are often referred to as RC's and we know what it means.......just asking!
I've noted a small number of catholics on this board use the term "prot" as a means to diminish, put down, insult, etc, posters who are not catholic. There's also an attitude of condescension displayed by a few catholics on this board (you're not one of those btw) who claim their denomination is superior to all others. I don't see denominations as being superior. Christianity is superior to all other religions to be sure.
I know for many who've grown up catholic, methodist, baptist, lutheran, etc, all think their respective denomination is the right one. But they're not. Not one denomination is mentioned in the Word. Only Christianity is talked about.
I think if we could get our minds focused on Christ we'd all be a lot better off.
>btw...the term “prot” is a bit condescending.<
I know for many who’ve grown up catholic, methodist, baptist, lutheran, etc, all think their respective denomination is the right one.
I agree the term “prot” is a bit condescending. Using the terms catholic, methodist, baptist, and lutheran without capitalizing them is also condescending. To not capitalize them shows a lack of respect for followers of those denominations.
Also, while it is the belief of the Catholic Church and some Lutheran denominations that theirs is the right one, Baptists, Methodists, and other Lutheran denominations are more ecumenical. They and many other denominations partner together as Church Women United.
Mary DID have a choice. She had free will. I know that’s hard for you Calvinists to accept, but she could have said NO! The angel Gabriel didn’t say, “Mary, you’re already pregnant!” Reread the story again, and ponder it until you get what a singular act it is. Mary’s YES is 180 degrees opposite of Eve’s NO.
The Jesus of scripture most assuredly saves. Just because someone says Jesus doesn't mean it's the Jesus of scripture. God the Son. The Jesus of scripture didn't break the law of the Old Testament under which He was born by literally eating blood. The God of scripture doesn't give up what belongs only to Him to some "queen of heaven" or so called "saints". Jesus is not the brother of Satan as the Mormons believe in nor is He just one of many gods to be joined by many more.
Mormons do not believe they are in any way saved by works. They do believe however that works are a display of faith. Without works faith is dead.
You said:
The Jesus of scripture most assuredly saves. Just because someone says Jesus doesn’t mean it’s the Jesus of scripture. God the Son.
__________________________________________________________
The Mormons and Catholics are talking and worshiping this Jesus.
I don’t have a problem with their “brother of Satan” theology. Where did Satan come from? If Christ is The Son of Man then we are His Brothers.
Getting a doctrine wrong does not a sinner make nor condemn a person to Hell. Believing that the Host is the body of Jesus may be stupid to believe but it does not condemn. There is much we see dimly now but when He comes again it will be clear, this is simply one of the dim things.
As far as this “many gods theme” that gets paraded around here. I would ask this as a Christian. If Christ is The Son of God and will or has inherited all that His Father has does that not make Him God? If man accepts Christ and Christ says man will inherit all He has, what is it that man will not inherit? Godhood? I just don’t see the problem with this theology. I think the problem is semantics. Some words and ideas sound bad but when you think about it to the rest of the universe of souls that don’t follow Christ, His followers in Heaven will be as gods. They will never be God but angels they will not be, they will be like Him.
Um....No they are not. Nor is the Jesus the Muslims talk about the Jesus of scripture.
>>I don’t have a problem with their “brother of Satan” theology.<<
Satan is not God. Jesus is. Ergo, Jesus is NOT Satan's brother.
>>If Christ is The Son of God and will or has inherited all that His Father has does that not make Him God?<<
I don't know what Jesus you are talking about. The Jesus of scripture and the Jesus I serve is God, has always been God. I can tell from what you say that the Jesus you speak of is NOT the Jesus Christ of scripture.
I don't refer to Catholics with terms that I know are seen as pejorative. However, capitalization or not of the word "catholic" serves a purpose when used as an adjective. Lower case "c" catholic would refer to the universal church without denominational distinctions, while upper case "c" Catholic refers primarily to the Roman Catholic Church, a particular part of the church universal. The general term "catholic" was in general use meaning universal before the Church of Rome began using the term to refer to herself.
A good example of that would be in the Apostles' Creed which refers to the "holy, catholic church" - lower case c. It is not a statement of belief in the Roman Catholic Church which is why many Protestants have no problem affirming it.
Man, we know you by your fruits, mostly a scolding and self-righteous approach to anyone not accepting your dogma. You are not one who behaves like a Christian.
In this particular case (Post 464), catholic was referring to those who’ve grown up Catholic, just as methodist, baptist, and lutheran were referring to those who grew up Methodist, Baptist, and Lutheran, respectively.
It's not my "dogma". It's what scripture says. Defend your statement with scripture or it's simply opinion.
The fruits are how you treat others. In your case it is how you treat others who don’t read the Scripture the same as you. You assume only you are reading it correctly. Matthew 7:16
Another Catholic critic who can copy from CARM and not know that the original source has the ECF's taken badly out of context. What a shocker!
3.Augustine says . . ."
Augustine left us 40 years' worth of writing and you think his views on the Eucharist can be extracted from one snippet? Here I'll quote from two prominent church historianas:
There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to [contrary views], but a balanced verdict must agree that he accepted the current realism. Thus, preaching on 'the sacrament of the Lord's table' to newly baptized persons, he remarked [Serm 227], 'That bread which you see on the altar, sanctified by the Word of God, is Christ's body. That cup, or rather the contents of that cup, sanctified by the Word of God, is Christ's blood. By these elements the Lord Christ willed to convey His body and blood, which He shed for us.'
'You know,' he said in another sermon [Serm 9:14], 'what you are eating and what you are drinking, or rather, whom you are eating and whom you are drinking.' Commenting on the Psalmist's bidding that we should adore the footstool of His feet, he pointed out [Enarr in Ps 98:9] that this must be the earth. But since to adore the earth would be blasphemous, he concluded that the word must mysteriously signify the flesh which Christ took from the earth and which He gave to us to eat. Thus it was the Eucharistic body which demanded adoration. Again, he explained [Enarr in Ps 33:1:10] the sentence, 'He was carried in his hands' (LXX of 1 Sam 21:13), which in the original describes David's attempt to allay Achish's suspicions, as referring to the sacrament: 'Christ was carried in his hands when he offered his very body and said "This is my body"'.
One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he shared the realism held by almost all his contemporaries and predecessors. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 446-47.
And Protestant historian Philip Schaff concurs. Speaking of Augustine, he writes:
"Yet this great church teacher at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper. He says of the martyrs: 'They have drunk the blood of Christ and have shed their own blood for Christ.' He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements." Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p. 500.
2.Clement of Alexandria
Clement (much like Origen, fellow Alexandrian) employed an allegorical style of Biblical interpretation which complicates understanding his views on the Eucharist. But Clement compares Jesus's providing to us His flesh and blood to a mother nourishing her child:
Calling her children about her,[the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word...The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. "Eat my flesh," He says, "and drink my blood." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. He delivers over His flesh, and pours out His blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3).
And with Clement (like Tertullian), care needs to be taken to understand words like "symbol" and "figure" in their 3rd century sense, not the 16th century (and later) sense used by Protestants. (More on that below).
4.Eusebius (263-339) . .
In Proof of the Gospel, Book I, Eusebius states the Eucharist is a true, propitiatory sacrifice which has replaced the Hebrew sacrifices of old:
While then the better, the great and worthy and divine sacrifice was not yet available for men, it was necessary for |57 them by the offering of animals to pay a ransom for their own life, and this was fitly a life that represented their own nature. Thus did the holy men of old, anticipating by the Holy Spirit that a holy victim, dear to God and great, would one day come for men, as the offering for the sins of the world, believing that as prophets they must perform in symbol his sacrifice, and shew forth in type what was yet to be. But when that which was perfect was come, in accordance with the predictions of the prophets, the former sacrifices ceased at once because of the better and true Sacrifice.
* * *
Since then according to the witness of the prophets the great and precious ransom has been found for Jews and Greeks alike, the propitiation for the whole world, the life given for the life of all men, the pure offering for every stain and sin, the Lamb of God, the holy sheep dear to God, the Lamb that was foretold, by Whose inspired and mystic teaching all we Gentiles have procured the forgive ness of our former sins, and such Jews as hope in Him |58 are freed from the curse of Moses, daily celebrating His memorial, the remembrance of His Body and Blood, and are admitted to a greater sacrifice than that of the ancient law, we do not reckon it right to fall back upon the first beggarly elements, which are symbols and likenesses but do not contain the truth itself.
* * *
So, then, we sacrifice and offer incense: On the one hand when we celebrate the Memorial of His great Sacrifice according to the Mysteries He delivered to us, and bring to God the Eucharist for our salvation with holy hymns and prayers; while on the other we consecrate ourselves to Him alone and to the Word His High Priest, devoted to Him in body and soul.
The Eucharist, according to Eusebius, is presented "for our salvation." The salvific effect of the sacrament isn't something I hear being expressed by Protestants. Eusebius is quite Catholic in outlook.
6. Tertullian
Tertullian, like Irenaeus before him, makes the Real Presence in the Eucharist an argument against the Gnotic view that the Christ did not come in the flesh:
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.)
As noted, in construing words like "figure," Protestants tend to anachronistically employ a more modernist meaning. On this point I again cite to Kelly:
Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms 'body' and 'blood' may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [E.g. C. Marc. 3,19; 4,40] to the bread as 'a figure' (figura) of Christ's body, and once speaks [Ibid I,14: cf. Hippolytus, apost. trad. 32,3] of 'the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.' Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in modern fashion. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized. Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian's vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of 'to make present.'
* * *
"In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of -figura-, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are NOW Christ's body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine." Early Christian Doctrines, page 212)
So if you're wrong on your "all inclusive" statement regarding the ECFs on the Eucharist....why should we believe anything else you say.
Well, here you're the one who's wrong. Does your "why should we believe anything else you say?" position apply to yourself as well? I eagerly await your answer . . .
Another Catholic critic who can copy from CARM and not know that the original source has the ECF's taken badly out of context. What a shocker!
That's the point with the ECFs....they've been picked over like fruit in a grocery store.
They contradict themselves on a host of issues.
Indeed, you are a case in point of a highly selective picker.
They contradict themselves on a host of issues.
But not on the Eucharist. When a Patristics scholar like Kelly (who without question is one of the foremost 20th century experts) can say of Augustine that "he shared the realism held by almost all his contemporaries and predecessors," then your attempts to make the historical record appear otherwise is rightly called out as dishonest.
So, I ask again, why should we take anything else you claim as credible?
If ANYONE goes by the fabricated lies of Mormonism; they are being duped.
People were given a chance to FLEE the destruction that rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah; but they CHOSE to stay.
If anyone appears to be a Christian; because of the things they DO; instead of what they BELIEVE; they are in big danger!
Szonian heard the warnings and got out; while his wife is STILL trapped!
We are praying for her all the time!
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
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.