Replies

I'm appalled, but not surprised, at the ignorance of Catholics about their own religion.

I used to be one, though by birth, not by choice. I, too, was ignorant of Catholicism and got all huffy when someone questioned it.

These false doctrines weren't believed even by Catholics for several centuries, but were added at long intervals and then made dogma. If any of you Catholics believe that these dogmas like infallibility and transubstantiation go back to the beginning you had better check your history. They came along much later.

I'm appalled, but not surprised, at the ignorance of Catholics about their own religion.

LOL. Then by all means, enlighten me. Provide the documented text supporting your position. As I've studied Catholic theology quite extensively, there's always a chance I may have missed something.

Where does the Church claim what you're claiming?

These false doctrines weren't believed even by Catholics for several centuries, but were added at long intervals and then made dogma. If any of you Catholics believe that these dogmas like infallibility and transubstantiation go back to the beginning you had better check your history. They came along much later.

Infallibility and transubstantion, among many other doctrines, were not formally declared to be doctrines until it became necessary to do so, due to some challenge or other. That's how some beliefs that had been around since the Apostles were not explicitly declared to be doctrines until many centuries later, at which point they were not invented but declared to be doctrinal.

I'm surprised you didn't know that.

These false doctrines weren't believed even by Catholics for several centuries, but were added at long intervals and then made dogma. If any of you Catholics believe that these dogmas like infallibility and transubstantiation go back to the beginning you had better check your history. They came along much later.

Once again, you really should study the history of Christianity.

Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.):

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1)."

Justin Martyr (151 A.D.):

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66).

Hippolytus (217 A.D.)

"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs).

Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)

"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16).

Council of Nicaea I (325 A.D.)

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18).

Cyril of Jerusalem (350 A.D.)

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7).

And, of course, St. Augustine (411 A.D.):

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227).

I've given you evidence for the Catholic position. Where is the evidence for yours?