Posted on 10/27/2011 4:05:56 PM PDT by rzman21
I challenge Evangelicals to put their interpretation of the Bible and their theology up against the acid test of what the Early Church Fathers taught.
Perhaps, Evangelicalism is closer to the truth than Mormonism, but it still has a long way to go.
Purpose
This Web page is dedicated to the defense of Catholic doctrines within Patristic thought. The Catholic rule of faith consists of three coordinate and complementary authorities: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching Church. The Church Fathers used both Scripture and Tradition to explain and defend the Catholic faith. Corunum's mission is to present the outline of Catholic doctrines as they appear in the writings of the Church Fathers.
What you will Find Inside
Corunum Apologetic Web site does not contain a library of the writings of the Church Fathers. There are a host of sites on the internet which offer the Ante-Nicene Fathers(ANF) edited by Cleveland Coxe and the Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers(NPNF) edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace.(cf. ANF/NPNF ). Inside you will find testimony from the Church Fathers on various Catholic doctrines listed in chronological order.
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89
Taught by St. Peter the Apostle
Against schism:
"Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that "we are members one of another?" Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, "Woe to that man [by whom offences come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones. Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth." Clement of Rome[regn c.A.D. 91-101],To the Corinthians,46(A.D. 91),in ANF,I:17-18
Taught by St. Peter the Apostle
of course that is not an answer to my question.
it is hard for me to believe there are people living today who think they are Christians, yet believe there were no Christians between 95ad and 1500ad.
such people have no understanding that the Church is the Body of Christ on earth, that Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it, that Jesus would be with it always even to the end of the world and that it is led and protected by the Holy Spirit.
it is really sad that such people have been led astray by false teachers that arose, but Jesus said it would be so.
depends on whether you believe Jesus when HE said, This is My Body. answer your own question, was Jesus lying?
Christ-followers are united in Christ.
You introduce and promote division.
Who is your master? Christ, or Satan?
LOL! go tell that to the Greek Orthodox!! something tells me they may understand Greek a little better than you ever will, but that is just a guess.
post #112?
the Gnostics also attacked this doctrine in the late first century according to St Ignatius.
so unbelief is not original, not sure if that’s the company anyone who claims to be a Christian would want to keep.
Say what? Yet scripture says it’s Jesus alone whereby we can be saved into the body of Christ the church.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
did the Body of Christ die on the cross?
was the blood of Christ in the Body of Christ when it was shed on the cross?
#112?
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
1 Corinthians 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
How did the body of Christ save on the cross?
That was why I asked..so the apostles ate THE ACTUAL physical flesh of Christ while he was still alive and still using that flesh? Did he eat His own flesh?
i thank rzman21 for this thread.
it exposes all those that don’t hold the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith that Christians have believed for 2,000 years.
if you read the posts before this one you will see that there are those who claim to be Christian, yet don’t believe Jesus when he said of the Eucharist, “This is My Body”
they try to bring division into the Church, you don’t agree with them? their master clearly is Satan.
there are those that deny baptism is for the remission of sin as Peter preached in Acts 2:38. they try to bring division into the Church, you don’t agree with them? their master is Satan.
rzman21 and myself follow our Master in His Body on earth, The Church.
Who is your master, Christ or Satan?
LOL! i notice a pattern here, not uncommon to non-Christians. i answer their questions and they ignore mine.
when you answer all my questions to date put to you, i will resume answering yours. that’s the difference between dialogue and cross examination.
Tertullian (155/160-240/250 A.D.) spoke of the bread and wine in the eucharist as symbols or figures which represent the body and blood of Christ. He specifically stated that these were not the literal body and blood of the Lord. When Christ said, this is my body, Tertullian maintained that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that he consecrated the wine in memory of his blood (Against Marcion 3.19).
I am asking a simple question.. how , in your opinion or in RC doctrine did the body of christ save us on the cross?? If you do not know then just say so
I guess i am feeling that all of your answers and assertions come from the ECF ..I am looking for dialog
I would say that Irenaeus seems to have it right.
“Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of' the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, “from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice” as John also declares in the Apocalypse: “The incense is the prayers of the saints.” Then again, Paul exhorts us “to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” And again, “Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.” Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God “in spirit and in truth.” And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.” -Irenaeus, Fragments of the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, Fragment XXXVII
And Clement of Alexandria as well.
“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...Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” -Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1.6
Origen also seems to have it right.
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” -Origen, Commentary on Matthew, On Matthew 11:14
And even Tertullian would agree.
“For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery.” -Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.19
And perhaps a second time.
“When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. 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…Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.” -Tertullian, Against Marcion 4. 40
There are more if you would like.
:)
Tertullian’s The Resurrection of the Dead [8,2] A.D. 208-212:
The flesh, then, is washed, so that the soul may be made clean. The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded with the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. They cannot, then, be separated in their reward, when they are united in their works.
Tertullian [ca. 200/206 AD] in his treaties on Prayer [6,2], quotes John 6 in connection with a spiritual understanding of the Lord’s prayer “give us this day our daily bread.” In a spiritual sense Christ is our daily Bread, presumably because of the practice of the daily reception of the Eucharist.
Later in that same treatise [19,1] he writes;
Likewise, regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the sacrificial prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive the Body of the Lord. Does the Eucharist, then, obviate a work devoted to God, or does it bind it more to god? Will not your fast be more solemn if, in addition, you have stood at God’s altar? The body of the Lord having been received and reserved, each point is secured: both the participation in the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.
Regarding worship on the Lord’s Day Tertullian also writes; [The Crown [3,4] AD 211]:
We take anxious care lest something of our Cup of Bread should fall upon the ground.
this Tertullian?
so you are saying these Catholic Fathers were Christian and you would have worshipped with them?
that can be answered yes or no.
He says that Christ spoke in spiritual terms when referring to the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood and did not mean this literally. So we come back to the question was Christ lying when he said ‘eat this..this is MY body” ..which he was wearing at the time...
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.