Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
Have you considered that you are misinterpreting the Word of God?
Read the context. Paul is speaking about eating meat and whether it makes a difference regarding salvation...
"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
The word "sin" is not always an "offense against God". It also means "to err of understanding" or "make a mistake".
In the context, Paul is telling the Romans that those who believe "meat and drink" are important in the realm of salvation are mistaken. It is faith and obedience to God that makes the difference.
Paul elsewhere in Romans denies your interpretation:
"Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God". Rom 2:9-11
Regards
Indeed. The Orthodox Catechism states (emphasis mine):
In our understanding of God we often rely upon cataphatic notions since these are easier and more accessible to the mind. But cataphatic knowledge has its limits. The way of negation corresponds to the spiritual ascent into the Divine abyss where words fall silent, where reason fades, where all human knowledge and comprehension cease, where God is.
It is not by speculative knowledge but in the depths of prayerful silence that the soul can encounter God, Who is ‘beyond everything’"
Why don’t we look at this partial verse in the context in which it was written. Context, context, context. You guys really need the Magisterium much more than you realize.
Paul is writing about how people ought to live in their community.
Rom 14:
13
Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
14
I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; still, it is unclean for someone who thinks it unclean.
15
If your brother is being hurt by what you eat, your conduct is no longer in accord with love. Do not because of your food destroy him for whom Christ died.
16
So do not let your good be reviled.
17
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of food and drink, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy Spirit;
18
whoever serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by others.
19
Let us 4 then pursue what leads to peace and to building up one another.
20
For the sake of food, do not destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to become a stumbling block by eating;
21
it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.
22
Keep the faith (that) you have to yourself in the presence of God; blessed is the one who does not condemn himself for what he approves.
23
But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because this is not from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. 5
5 [23] Whatever is not from faith is sin: Paul does not mean that all the actions of unbelievers are sinful. He addresses himself to the question of intracommunity living. Sin in the singular is the dreadful power described in Romans 5:12-14.
Indeed there is. Apophatic approach is the approahc of the hesychast, the Cappadocian Fathers and the Desert Fathers. The backbone of our common orthodox and ctaholic faith is in apophatic knowledge of God, through prayer, Eucharist, liturgy, fasting, etc., and not through scholastics.
Of course, scholasticism has a place in the Church in bringing people to stop "figuring out" God by way of reason and logic, paradoxically, by using reason and logic. It is through cataphatic knowledge that we realize we know nothing of God's essence.
I would take exception with one part of the article.
A number of later Protestants writers believed that pride was the reason man fell as well. At the risk of sounding pompous, I personally don't believe it was pride. It could not have been pride as pride is a sin and Adam, up to this point, was sinless. I would submit Augustine was closer to the mark although I don't believe it was disobedience. Rather Adam fall was simply because He lacked the one thing that the scriptures tells us we must continuously rely upon the Father for; wisdom.
I would call your attention to the following text:
That is also why sin came into the world through Adam and not Eve. Eve was deceived. She was going by flawed information. Adam was not deceived but he simply made a poor choice (yes, choice but based upon information that he did not have). One may argued that Eve should have been wise enough to know she was being deceived but a careful examination of scripture tells us that Christians are repeated warned not to be deceived. Christ showed that he would not be deceived at Caesarea Philippi when Satan spoke through Peter right after Christ's benediction.
Wisdom come from God. Adam made a bad choice. Bad choices show a lacked wisdom. Therefore, God did not give Adam wisdom to make the right choice. Unlike Adam, our Lord Jesus (the second Adam) grew in wisdom. (As an aside, it wasn't pride that caused Satan to fall but the lack of wisdom that comes from God.)
I have studied this rather exhaustively believing myself to hold some heretical doctrine. Frankly, I've been told there isn't a whole lot of things that hasn't been thought of throughout the ages, so I have looked for holes in this argument. Additionally, I know this puts me at odds with most of the greatest theologians throughout the ages; Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants.
At the risk of sounding prideful, I believe most of the greatest theological minds of the church age are incorrect on this matter. This argument seems to be biblically based and I can't find any holes. It also appears to be a most simple solution to a very complex problem which is the reason I continue to study it. Augustine was closes when he thought Adam's fall was disobedience but he didn't go into the motive of why Adam was disobedient.
Hopefully and God willing, someday during my retirement years, I will write a book on this and straighten everyone out on this subject. For the meantime, this post will have to do.
The Catechism actually mentions this verse and how it is (mis)interpreted in the West. When you start on a wrong foot, no matter how much you wlak you will never get it right.
I didn't post it for you to agree with it. I didn't expect you would. I posted it to put an end to mischaracterizations of Orthodox doctrine. Those of you who in the past made incorrect comments regarding Orthodox teaching of hell and original sin should refer to this source before making similar comments in the future.
This is a repost that I posted on a different thread...
Why do you suppose Scripture puts focus on Bread and Wine then?
Genesis 14.17-20, says....
After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with them, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh, (that is the King’s Valley). And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out BREAD and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said.....
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,maker of heaven and earth;and blessed be God Most High,who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”
This is the first time in the Bible that anyone is addressed by the word coen, the Hebrew word for priest. As a “priest of God Most High,” Melchizedek “brought out bread and wine.”
What is the connection between his priesthood and those two offerings?
What about this....
Jesus said “Your ancestors ate manna in the wilderness and died...I am the living BREAD that came down from heaven...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you will not have life within you”
Jesus was born in “Bethlehem” which, in Hebrew, literally means “house of Bread”
A manger was not a place where animals stayed. It was a trough where food was put to feed the animals. Mary laid Jesus in a place where food was placed
At the last supper, which was a passover meal, Jesus said...
“take this and eat it, this is my body.”
“I Am The BREAD of Life”
John 6:48
Scripture says “For indeed Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us keep this feast.” (1 Cor 5:7-8) This relates to Exodus 12:1-42. The Passover meal saved from the angel of death who was striking the first born children in Egypt. At a traditional Passover supper, the Jews ate the sacrificial lamb.
Paul is saying that this feast should continue. They don’t think that he was “re-sacrificing” Christ when he kept this feast.
We see the Eucharistic formula throughout Scripture. At table, Jesus takes . . . blesses . . . breaks . . . and gives the bread. He also took a cup of wine; after giving thanks to God, He gave it to His disciples saying, “This is My blood . . . of the [new] covenant.” Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20.
This is the same formula Jesus uses during the first Eucharistic celebration after the resurrection when He encountered two disciples on the road to Emmaus (see Luke 24:13-35).
When the Corinthians drift from the proper Eucharistic formula, Paul corrects them.(1 Corinthians 11:23-29)
“Give us this day our daily bread.”
Matthew 6:11
This is from the prayer that Jesus taught us, the “Our Father”.
It means in totality, bread as food for our bodies and spiritual bread as food for our souls.
We are to continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God.
Every day in every place a clean oblation is offered.
What, or who, is the sacrifice and what is a clean oblation?
It is an offering of praise to GOD, in the Holy Eucharist, the Body, and the Precious Blood of Christ. The Catholic Church offers the sacrifice of praise to GOD all over the world, every day in the Mass.
It has replaced the bloody animal sacrifices of the Old Testament.
That is why it is called a clean oblation.In Matthew 26:26, didn’t Jesus take bread and say, “Take and eat; this is my body”?
And did he not beseech us to say in the Lords Prayer:
“Give us this day out daily bread”, (both physical for the body, and spiritual for the soul).
Matthew 6:11
How many non-Catholic ecclesial communities offer daily sacrifice, a clean oblation, as is clearly commanded for us to do by Holy Scripture?
How many do not even offer sacrifice?
“Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened.
For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.”
1Corinthians 5:7
“Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.”
Ephesians 5:1-2
“I have received full payment, and more; I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.”
Philippians 4:18
Jesus Christ is the “food” which sustains the spiritual soul which lives forever. He is the “bread come down from heaven” as we saw in John chapter six.
Can a mere “symbol” sustain the spiritual soul to eternal life?
Since the manna was the type or symbol of the New Testament reality, that question can be answered by another basic rule of typology:
“An Old Testament type (symbol) never points to a New Testament symbol, but to a reality.”
So obviously the “food which endures to eternal life” cannot be a symbol, but a New Testament reality. It also cannot be a symbol, for another reason. It would violate yet a second basic rule of typology which we have previously discussed:
The New Testament reality is far superior to the Old Testament type.
So does this mean that Christ is sacrificed over and over again in the Eucharistic Celebration?
Again, what does Holy Scripture say?
“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;”
1Peter 3:18
“The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself.”
Hebrews 7:23-27
Christ was sacrificed only once and for all time. He is both the High Priest and the victim.
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1366
“The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: (Christ), our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper ‘on the night when he was betrayed,’ (he wanted) to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.
(Council of Trent (1562): DS 1740; cf. 1 Cor 11:23; Heb 7:24,27.)”
We must remember that GOD is outside of time. Time is a measure of change for the things He has created. Since He never changes, He Himself is outside of time.
Consequently, everything from creation, and before, and for all eternity is now with GOD, including the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. It is a continuous, never ending sacrifice.
How can something that never ends be repeated?
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.”
And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
Exodus 3:14
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
John 8:58
“And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—”Rise, take up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.”
Matthew 9:1-8
These classic verses graphically show the connection between healing of the body and healing of the soul. Jesus first cleansed the paralytic’s soul, and then He cleansed his body. Pay especial attention to the last line. To whom was authority given? Notice that the very last word in the verses is plural.
In summery
1. The body needs physical food in order to survive or else it will die.
2. The spiritual soul needs spiritual food in order to avoid spiritual death, the separation from GOD.
3. Spiritual food cannot be a symbolic gesture, simply because a mere symbol could not possibly feed the spiritual soul. Spiritual food is as much a reality as is physical food. It is the anti type of its Old Testament type of the manna in the desert. Recall that an O.T. type never points to a N.T. symbol.
4. Scripture tells us that there will be offered sacrifice every day in every place, a clean oblation.
How can symbolism of a sacrifice be a sacrifice in itself?
5. The bread come down from heaven, Jesus Christ, is that clean oblation, His sacrifice on the cross.
6. Jesus Christ was sacrificed once on the cross for all eternity.
7. Jesus Christ is both the High Priest and the victim, the Paschal Lamb of sacrifice.
8. Since He is High Priest forever (Heb 7:17), He is also the sacrificial Lamb forever (Rev 5:13-14).
9. Since GOD is outside of time, everything is now with Him. That one sacrifice at Calvary, which is always now for GOD, is made present for us during the Eucharistic celebration of the Mass.
10. The Mass is a re-presentation of that one sacrifice. We are re-presented at Calvary.
Here is another fact..
Every single Early Church Father(Not a single exception!) believed that Jesus is truly present-Body ,Blood, Soul and Divinity in Eucharist
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
I like to use Saint Athanasius because anyone who swears by Solo Scripture has to give credibility to Saint Anthanasis since he was the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today
ST. ATHANASIUS
St. Athanasius was born in Alexandria ca. 295 A.D. He was ordained a deacon in 319 A.D. He accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea, where he served as his secretary. Eventually he succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria. He is most known for defending Nicene doctrine against Arian disputes.,
“’The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:’ You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.”,
-”Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D
There are literally many thousands of writings like this from the first century on...
If you study the lives of the Martyrs,Saints, Church fathers, you will find one very distinct thing they ALL have in common... It is in the Eucharist that gives them life in Christ by dying to self so that Christ will abide in them.
Here is more Writings
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood...” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world...” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
“For the blood of the grape—that is, the Word—desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both—of the water and of the Word—is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
Here is some modern writings from two people who are close to our generation
Mary recognized her absolute nothingness without God that God may be absolutely everything to her. With Mary we humbly adore Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament by acknowledging our absolute dependency on Him. “He must increase, but I must decrease.” The Eucharist is the living Source of all light, life and love. Here Jesus says: “I am the Vine, you are the branches: he that abides in Me, and I in him, will bear much fruit, for without Me you can do nothing.” Every holy hour deepens our union with Him and bears much fruit. “So I gaze on You in the sanctuary to see Your strength and Your glory, for Your love is better than life.”
“The time you spend with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is the best time you will spend on earth. Each moment that you spend with Jesus will deepen your union with Him and make your soul everlastingly more glorious and beautiful in Heaven, and will help bring about everlasting peace on earth,”
- Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta
“We should never again use the expression, ‘When Jesus was on earth’ or think of Him as being only in heaven, Jesus is still on earth.”
“While all the sacraments confer grace, the Eucharist contains the author of grace, Jesus Christ Himself.”
- Fr. John Hardon, S.J.
“My heart feels as if it were being drawn by a superior force each morning just before uniting with Him in the Blessed Sacrament. I have such a thirst and hunger before receiving Him that it’s a wonder I don’t die of anxiety. I was hardly able to reach the Divine Prisoner in order to celebrate Mass. When Mass ended I remained with Jesus to render Him thanks. My thirst and hunger do not diminish after I have received Him in the Blessed Sacrament, but rather, increase steadily. Oh, how sweet was the conversation I held with Paradise this morning. The Heart of Jesus and my own, if you will pardon my expression, fused. They were no longer two hearts beating but only one. My heart disappeared as if it were a drop in the ocean,”
- Blessed Padre Pio
Time to get work done.... I wish you all a Blessed Day!
Something that I have been curious about: If the RCC/EO are separated because of political, not theological differences, why not use the same catechism? AND, why would an RCC remain an RCC but study with admiration the doctrines of the EO (and vise versa?)? Since they are the same (?) why not just attend an EO church if you think that they have superior understanding? It is not as though there is a geographic (East/West) impossibility. Just curious.
I pray you a good day.
Agreed. The height of human wisdom is knowing we are ignorant about God and His essence. John the Apostle, who lived with Christ for three years, said that no one can see God. Paul also said we see as in a dim mirror. Our experiential knowledge of God is quite limited because we cannot comprehend the concept of infinity.
Regards
So then it is as simple as that -- no bells, no altars, no candles, no vestments, no altar boys, no incense, no liturgies, no genuflections, no incantations, no golden chalices, no tabernacles -- just "giving thanks" over bread and wine.
So then the bread and wine [crackers and grape juice] administered at communion in Baptist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, and other Churches "over which thanks have been given" must, by virtue of the opinion of these fathers, also be the "body and blood of Christ".
So then if these other church leaders began to teach that the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Christ, they would be accurate and you would have no problem with that, right???
He did claim he was remorseful, declared his Faith in Jesus and was Baptized. It was when he was in prison and shortly before he was murdered by another inmate. We can't possibly know someones heart.
Is it correct to believe you base this opinion strictly on his prior acts, or that his crimes were so heinous he is unredeemable?
How about adding pardon?
Every single Early Church Father(Not a single exception!) believed that Jesus is truly present-Body ,Blood, Soul and Divinity in Eucharist Orthodox: Receive Him under the forms of bread and wine; I think they believe it is repugnant to eat "real" human flesh and drink "real" human blood.
Presbyterian: Partake of the visible elements, then, inwardly receive spiritually, and feed on Christ crucified. Transubstantiation is repugnant not only to Scripture but to common sense and reason.
Eucharist Miracle of Betania, Venezula (Actual Video)
http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/08/video-eucharist-miracle-of-betania.html
Eucharist Miracle at Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
Excerpt:
Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.
During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.
The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.
The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.
Various ecclesiastical investigation (”Recognitions”) were conducted since 1574.
In 1970-’71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:
The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.
The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
There are many more...
Eucharistic miracles of the World
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html
Christ didn’t talk in terms of being full or frequency he said to do it in memory of him; how often do you care to recall Christ?
Are you saying that the bread and wine are not changed (transubstantiation) at every Mass???
Even the point at infinity is precise. It is also known as the ideal point or the Omega point.
See also Real Projective Line
Again, eternity is time without end.
There is no eternity past. There was a beginning of time and a beginning of space. Real space and time are created as the universe expands.
Moreover there are very likely additional dimensions of space and time – their number and types being not fully knowable to us mortals whose vision and minds have been limited to three of space and one of time.
The Catholic Church long abandoned its insistence on a geocentric universe – it needs to embrace geometric physics as well if it wishes to speak in terms of space and time.
To project our physical, sensory or mental limitations (such as space and time) onto God is to anthropomorphize Him into a small “god” the mortal mind can comprehend.
An amoeba has a better chance of describing a human in its terms than we have of describing God in human terms.
As Dr. Eckleburg said:
Then we can receive God’s revelations to us for what they are – partial visions of His glory, never a full picture – we could not “handle it.”
Again, there was a beginning of “all that there is.” Moreover, there is a reason for it.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. - John 1:1-3
Moreover, God has not yet revealed to us whether His new heaven and new earth (Revelation) will be a fixed or expanding space/time - or whether it is something else we cannot yet understand.
God’s Name is I AM – and Alpha and Omega.
Praise God!!!
The backbone of our common orthodox and catholic faith is in apophatic knowledge of God, through prayer, Eucharist, liturgy, fasting, etc., and not through scholastics.Yes.
We are dead to this life and alive with Christ in God.
That is the message of Romans 8. What treasure, what fellowship, what blessed assurance!
Note also the tense used by Jesus in His prayer for us (emphasis mine:)
To God be the glory!
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.