Posted on 01/02/2012 9:00:25 PM PST by RnMomof7
T he doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed that apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing on throughout the centuries, even to today. Whilst this might be a fascinating and intriguing concept, is it truly biblical?
The great thing about the New Testament is that it clearly establishes the major doctrines of the Church. One may find vital doctrines such as the atonement, resurrection and justification by faith alone, clearly outlined with many scriptural references (one may wish to check out this page). One is left in no doubt on the pivotal doctrines of the Church, neither is one left in any doubt regarding the specific content of the Gospel message (Acts 16: 30-31; Acts 26:1-23; Romans 4: 24-25; Romans 10: 9-10; 1 Corinthians 2: 1-2; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). In the face of such clarity, it might seem amazing how so many have managed to successfully teach extraneous, non-biblical messages but this they have certainly done.
One has to say that 'apostolic succession' is conspicuous by it's absence within the New Testament. The basic idea is that Peter the Apostle was the first pope, or chief leader (based on Matthew 16:18), and that this somewhat grandiose conception of 'chief church leader' should then be passed on through the entirely biblical principle of the 'laying on of hands,' and this certainly does seem to be a New Testament principle of conferring authority. Roman Catholicism believes that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed him were accepted by the early church as overall leaders. However, there are huge problems with this belief. Here are some of them:
1. Apart from the principle of governing elders, the New Testament is pretty much silent on any required church governing schema, or office. For sure, a range of possible church offices are listed in 1 Cor. 12:28 and Eph. 4:11 and one might expect to find some Christians having the necessary gifts to fulfill certain such offices (but not all), possibly depending on the size and scope of the area of responsibility, but the only required office appears to be that of Elder. See Titus 1:5. Also, one might note that neither 1 Cor. 12:28 nor Eph. 4:11 suggest any system or principle of 'apostolic succession' - but wouldn't these have been the ideal places to mention it?? After all, both Eph. 4:11 and 1 Cor. 12:28 do refer to the office of 'apostle,' however, that does not imply, of course, that that particular office would be continually repeated throughout the church age. 'Bishops' are pretty much essential to the concept of apostolic succession, but even Bishop Lightfoot, one of the greatest New Testament scholars of all time, freely admitted that 'bishop' (the office which he himself eventually inherited within Anglicanism), was not truly a New Testament office. The word is based on 'overseer,' but biblically, it appears that it was certain of the elders who were to be overseers, but with no indications of a separate 'overseer' office. The fact that the office of 'bishop' has no New Testament authority or precedent already seriously weakens the 'apostolic succession' argument.
2. Peter might well have been, in a somewhat loose sense, overall apostolic leader in the New Testament, but if he was, it was a very, very loose sense. For example, on one occasion, Paul the Apostle quite strongly challenges and disagrees with him in public (Galatians 2:11-14). Peter's New Testament epistles are not, perhaps, major epistles, as the Pauline ones are, indeed, they are somewhat short and not high on doctrinal content. Later, he appears to disappear altogether from any New Testament consideration with scarcely a mention anywhere. Peter may well have been the overall leader for taking the gospel to the Jews (as Paul was with respect to the Gentiles), yet the epistle of James (James almost certainly being the Senior Elder at Jerusalem), does not even mention him once! Moreover, there is no evidence that Peter ever became 'bishop' of Rome as Roman Catholicism - even now - continues to (erroneously, in my opinion) teach.
Surely all of this would be utterly inconceivable if Peter had understood Jesus' comment to him in Matthew 16:18 to mean that he should adopt a grandiose and pope-like style of leadership! If he was a leader at all (which seems quite debatable), it was possibly only with regard to the work among the Jewish people.
3. In the New Testament, no 'bishop' (overseer) had jurisdiction over the bishops or presbyters of other churches (carefully check out Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to Polycarp); rather, that function was reserved for the apostles, which was obviously a foundational office of the Church (Eph. 2:20; 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28; 2 Cor. 11:28). But today the office of Apostle is obviously closed.
4. The Roman Catholic Church itself has not maintained it's own concept of apostolic succession through the laying on of hands upon holy men. In fact, 'Simony' (that is, the buying of the office of 'pope' or 'bishop' for money, or favours) was an absolute disgrace when the Church of Rome was at it's peak, which it no longer is. Unless I am misunderstanding something here, appointing a corrupt bishop or pope just once would destroy the whole structure and principle of 'apostolic succession' for all time. Frankly, I think that most studied RCs know this which could be why they tend to play down the teaching on 'apostolic succession.'
MORE AT
"Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself." Heb. 7:27
Christ, the high priest, offered sacrifice for sin. His low priests re-present that one-time sacrifice at the mass. This teaching was handed down from the very beginning. That is history. Your argument is with impartial, secular historians, not with me.
You continue to evade the fact that your interpretations conflict with those of the Fathers taught directly by the scriptural writers.
You also fail to understand what the author of Hebrews wrote
I receive my understanding from the passed-on teachings and scriptural interpretations of the Early Fathers. Do you have a better source than they?
I am happy to continue our discussion, but you really need to address the discrepancy between your personal interpretation and that taught to the Fathers.
**No seeking God in prayer on the matter mentioned at all.**
Really, no seeking God in prayer on the matter mentioned at all? Really? Read verse 24
Acts 1:[20] For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
[21] Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
[22] Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
[23] And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
[24] And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
[25] That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
[26] And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
There was no need to leave detailed instructions as the traditions had been established in the NT and followed already.
This is what comes from Sola Scriptura, the mistaken belief that ALL of salvation history is recorded in a book. All of Scripture is valuable, inerrant and infallible but it is not ALL that there is to the story. Even Scripture admits that.
Where in Scripture does it say this?
Where does Scripture say that God was displeased with the selection of Matthias and that the Apostles were too impatient to wait for Him to provide?
****They made an idol out of their own constructs, then claimed whichever way the decision was made, it was from God,...using His name in vain.****
This is what you think the Apostles did? Wow, just wow.
Yes, unlike the Jewish High Priests, Jesus, “after offering one sacrifice for sins for ever, took his seat at God’s right hand, from that time offering no more sacrifice, but waiting until “his enemies be made his footstool”. For by virtue of that one offering he has perfected for all time every one whom he makes holy.”
No, Eucharist was NOT a sin offering - hence Eucharist, thanksgiving. It was done “in remembrance”, not “in participation”.
That pagans later drove the doctrine contrary to the clear teaching of God’s Word isn’t my fault. Nor did it happen right away.
“Justin Martyr believed the eucharist was a spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which commemorated the death of Christ by a Church which now counted Gentiles among its members.23 Irenaeus also referred to Malachi’s prophecy and characterized the eucharist as a thank-offering to God. He maintained that the real sacrifice intended within it was the prayers of true believers, which came from pure hearts wholly yielded to God and undefiled by sin.24 Similarly, Tertullian argued that the true sacrifices offered to God were not of a carnal, physical kind, but the spiritual sacrifice of a broken and a contrite heart before God.25 Origen and Clement of Alexandria stressed this same theme: that the real meaning of the eucharistic sacrifice was as a memorial or commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ which demanded the self-surrender of the soul to God. It was a sacrifice because it involved the prayers and praise of God’s people; the self-surrender of themselves to God from broken and contrite hearts; and the giving of material offerings to the poor. There is absolutely no mention of the eucharist as the literal and renewed sacrifice of Christ as a propitiatory sin-offering.”
http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html
MR Rogers- He is telling you this without Quotes. I will show you real quotes I have to pull em up. This Webster character gets it wrong. You decide not him.
To each workman, a penny. What a great link. Thanks.
Following The Truth: Jesus Is Waiting – Don’t Forget To RSVP! (Catholic or Open)
Wed Dec 21 18:06:46 2011 · 18 of 28
johngrace to All; Salvation
Early Church Fathers
Didache, The [70-100 AD] The Didache
The Eucharist... And concerning the broken bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, anRead More
The Eucharist. Now concerning the First, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.. And concerning the broken bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..Read More
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”Read More
Ignatius of Antioch [50-117 AD] Epistle to the Romans “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).Read More
Ignatius of Antioch [50-117 AD] Epistle to the Philadelphians
Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.Read More
Ignatius of Antioch [50-117 AD] Epistle to the Smyraeans “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 [A.D. 110]).Read More See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution 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; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.Read More
Justin Martyr [100-165 AD] First Apology
“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 [A.D. 151]).Read More
Justin Martyr [100-165 AD] Dialogue with Trypho (Chapters 9-47)
Justin: And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed...Read More
Justin Martyr [100-165 AD] Dialogue with Trypho (Chapters 109-142)
, 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...Read More
Irenaeus of Lyons [120-180 AD] Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus
“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.Read More
Irenaeus of Lyons [120-180 AD] Adversus Haereses (Book IV, Chapter 18)
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).Read More
But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion...Read More Irenaeus of Lyons [120-180 AD] Adversus Haereses (Book V, Chapter 2)
When Christ visited us in his grace, he did not come to what did not belong to him: also, by shedding his true blood for us, and exhibiting to us his true flesh in the Eucharist, he conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation...Read More
But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body...Read More
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).Read More
Clement of Alexandria [150-215 AD] The Paedagogus (Book I) “’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).Read More
Clement of Alexandria [150-215 AD] The Paedagogus (Book II) ...is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul...Read More
Clement of Alexandria [150-215 AD] The Stromata (Book I) Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist...Read More
Clement of Alexandria [150-215 AD] The Stromata (Book IV) “ For Salem is, by interpretation, peace; of which our Saviour is enrolled King, as Moses says, Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who gave bread and wine, furnishing consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist...Read More
Hippolytus [170-236 AD] The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus: Exegetical
“‘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.,Read More
Hippolytus [170-236 AD] Appendix
That a deacon may dispense the Eucharist to the people with permission of a bishop or presbyter.Read More
Hippolytus [170-236 AD] Refutation of All Heresies (Book VI)
And very often, taking the Cup, as if offering up the Eucharistic prayer, and prolonging to a greater length than usual the word of invocation...Read More
And this (Marcus), infusing (the aforesaid) mixture into a smaller cup, was in the habit of delivering it to a woman to offer up the Eucharistic prayer, while he himself stood by, and held (in his hand) another empty (chalice) larger than that...Read More
Tertullian [160-240 AD] De Corona (The Chaplet)
We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike...Read More
Tertullian [160-240 AD] The Prescription Against Heretics How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith. This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer.Read More
Tertullian [160-240 AD] On the Resurrection of the Flesh “[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).Read More
Tertullian [160-240 AD] Appendix (Against All Heresies) To these are added those heretics likewise who are called Ophites: for they magnify the serpent to such a degree, that they prefer him even to Christ Himself; for it was he, they say, who gave us the origin of the knowledge of good and of evil. His power and majesty (they say) Moses perceiving, set up the brazen serpent; and whoever gazed upon him obtained health. Christ Himself (they say further) in His gospel imitates Moses’ serpent’s sacred power, in saying: “And as Moses upreared the serpent in the desert, so it behoveth the Son of man to be upreared.” Him they introduce to bless their eucharistic (elements). Now the whole parade and doctrine of this error flowed from the following source. They say that from the supreme primary Aeon whom then speak of there emanated several other inferior Aeons. To all these, however, there opposed himself an Aeon who name is Ialdabaoth. He had been conceived by the permixture of a second Aeon with inferior Aeons; and afterwards, when he had been desirous of forcing his way into the higher regions, had been disabled by the permixture of the gravity of matter with himself to arrive at the higher regions; had been left in the midst, and had extended himself to his full dimensions, and thus had made the sky. Ialdabaoth, however, had descended lower, and had made him seven sons, and had shut from their view the upper regions by self-distension, in order that, since (these) angels could not know what was above, they might think him the sole God. These inferior Virtues and angels, therefore, had made man; and, because he had been originated by weaker and mediocre powers, he lay crawling, worm-like. That Aeon, however, out of which Ialdaboath had proceeded, moved to the heart with envy, had injected into man as he lay a certain spark; excited whereby, he was through prudence to grow wise, and be able to understand the things above. So, again, the Ialdaboath aforesaid, turning indignant, had emitted out of himself the Virtue and similitude of the serpent; and this had been the Virtue in paradise—that is, this had been the serpent—whom Eve had believed as if he had been God the Son. He plucked, say they, from the fruit of the tree, and thus conferred on mankind the knowledge of things good and evil. Christ, moreover, existed not in substance of flesh: salvation of the flesh is not to be hoped for at all.Read More
Tertullian [160-240 AD] On Prayer
Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar? When the Lord’s Body has been received and reserved? each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.Read More
Tertullian [160-240 AD] On Modesty
The “ring” also he is then Wont to receive for the first time, wherewith, after being interrogated, he publicly seals the agreement of faith, and thus thenceforward feeds upon the “fatness” of the Lord’s body,—the Eucharist, to wit. This will be the prodigal son, who never in days bygone was thrifty; who was from the first prodigal, because not from the first a Christian. Him withal, returning from the world to the Father’s embraces, the Pharisees mourned over, in the persons of the “publicans and sinners.”Read More
But now I write to you, if any is named a brother among you, (being) a fornicator, or an idolater” (for what so intimately joined?), “or a defrauder” (for what so near akin?), and so on, “with such to take no food even,” not to say the Eucharist: because, to wit, withal “a little leaven spoileth the flavour of the whole lump.”Read More
Tertullian [160-240 AD] Against Marcion, Book IV If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage...Read More
Origen [185-254 AD] De Principiis (Book IV)
“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).Read More
Dionysius the Great [190-265 AD] Extant Fragments ...he gave the boy a small portion of the Eucharist, telling him to steep it in water and drop it into the old man’s mouth. The boy returned bearing the portion; and as he came near, and before he had yet entered, Serapion again recovered, and said, “You have come, my child, and the presbyter was unable to come; but do quickly what you were instructed to do, and so let me depart.” The boy steeped the morsel in water, and at once dropped it into the (old man’s) mouth; and after he had swallowed a little of it, he forthwith gave up the ghost. Was he not then manifestly preserved? and did he not continue in life just until he could be absolved, and until through the wiping away of his sins he could be acknowledged s for the many good acts he had done?Read More
Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] The Seventh Council of Carthage
...the profane person administers the office of the priesthood; the sacrilegious person establishes an altar. In addition to all these things, there is also this evil, that the priests of the devil dare to celebrate the Eucharist; or else let those who stand by them say that all these things concerning heretics are false. Behold to what kind of things the Church is compelled to consent, and is constrained without baptism, without pardon of sins, to hold communion.Read More
Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Treatises Attributed to Cyprian
...since, as he hastens to the spectacle when dismissed from the Lord’s table, and still bearing within him, as often occurs, the Eucharist, that unfaithful man has carried about the holy body of Christ among the filthy bodies of harlots, and has deserved a deeper condemnation for the way by which he has gone ‘hither, than for the pleasure he has received from the exhibition.Read More
Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Epistle 9
For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion...Read More
have brought me back to His Church,—yet these, disregarding the honour which the blessed martyrs with the confessors maintain for me, despising the Lord’s law and that observance, which the same martyrs and confessors bid to be maintained, before thRead More
Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Epistle 10
Although you sent letters to me in which you ask that your wishes should be examined, and that peace should be granted to certain of the lapsed as soon as with the end of the persecution we should have begun to meet with our clergy, and to be gathereRead More
Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Epistle 11
Yet I hear that certain of the presbyters, neither mindful of the Gospel nor considering what the martyrs have written to me, nor reserving to the bishop the honour of his priesthood and of his dignity, have already begun to communicate with the lapsRead More
Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Epistle 53
And, as the Eucharist is appointed for this very purpose that it may be a safeguard to the receivers, it is needful that we may arm those whom we wish to be safe against the adversary with the protection of the Lord’s abundance...Read More
” First of all, he cannot be fitted for martyrdom who is not armed for the contest by the Church; and his spirit is deficient which the Eucharist received does not raise and stimulate...Read More
Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Epistle 69 Further, it is the Eucharist whence the baptized are anointed with the oil sanctified on the altar...Read More
Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Epistle 74 But that woman, who previously by wiles and deceitfulness of the demon was attempting many things for the deceiving of the faithful, among other things by which she had deceived many, also had frequently dared this; to pretend that with an invocation...Read More
Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Treatise 3
“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 [A.D. 251]).Read More
In a profane body and mouth the Eucharist could not remain; the draught sanctified in the blood of the Lord burst forth from the polluted stomach...Read More
Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Treatise 4
And we ask that this bread should be given to us daily, that we who are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not, by the interposition of some heinous sin, by being prevented, as withheld and not communicating, frRead More
Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Treatise 9
Let patience be strong and stedfast in the heart; and neither is the sanctified body and temple of God polluted by adultery, nor is the innocence dedicated to righteousness stained with the contagion of fraud; nor, after the Eucharist carried in it,Read More
Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Treatise 12 That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profits by it both in deeds and works...Read More
That the Eucharist is to be received with fear and honour...Read More
That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works...Read More
That the Eucharist is to be received with fear and honour...Read More
Gregory Thaumaturgus [213-275 AD] The Oration and Panegyric Addressed to Origen
Be this, then, the method of my eucharistic discourse. To God, indeed, the God of the universe, I shall not think of speaking in such terms: yet is it from Him that all the beginnings of our blessings come; and with Him consequently is it that the beginning of our thanksgivings, or praises, or laudations, ought to be made... ...a capacity with which he has not been gifted by any other one, but which he has received from Him alone, he cannot possibly find any greater matter of thanksgiving than what is implied in its possession.Read More
Nicaea I (325) [ECUMENICAL]
But, if any one should be restored to health again who has received the communion when his life was despaired of, let him remain among those who communicate in prayers only. But in general, and in the case of any dying person whatsoever asking to receive the Eucharist, let the Bishop, after examination made, give it him.Read More
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, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them. Furthermore, let not the deacons sit among the presbyters, for that is contrary to canon and order. And if, after this decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from the diaconate.Read More
Eusebius of Caesarea [265-340 AD] Church History (Book V) But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the presbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it...Read More
But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect...Read More
Eusebius of Caesarea [265-340 AD] Church History (Book VI) But as I had commanded that persons at the point of death, if they requested it, and especially if they had asked for it previously, should receive remission, that they might depart with a good hope, he gave the boy a small portion of the eucharist,Read More
Antioch in Encaeniis (341) [LOCAL] [341 AD] Antioch in Encaeniis (341) [LOCAL]
All who enter the church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but do not communicate with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason of some disorder, from the holy partaking of the Eucharist, are to be cast out of the Church, until, after they shall have made confession, and having brought forth the fruits of penance, and made earnest entreaty, they shall have obtained forgiveness; and it is unlawful to communicate with excommunicated persons, or to assemble in private houses and pray with those who do not pray in the Church; or to receive in one Church those who do not assemble with another Church. And, if any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the Canon shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.Read More
Aphrahat/Aphraates [280-367 AD] Demonstration XVII (Of Christ the Son of God)
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).Read More
Basil the Great, St [329-379 AD] De Spiritu Sancto Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of tim invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.Read More
Cyril of Jerusalem, St [315-386 AD] Catechetical Lecture 19 “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 [A.D. 350]).Read More
Cyril of Jerusalem, St [315-386 AD] Catechetical Lecture 22 “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).Read More
Ambrose of Milan, St [340-397 AD] On the Mysteries “Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).Read More
John Chrysostom, St [347-407 AD] Homily 24 on First Corinthians
But why adds he also, “which we break?” For although in the Eucharist one may see this done, yet on the cross not so, but the very contrary...Read More
John Chrysostom, St [347-407 AD] Homily 5 on Galatians Again, the Scripture is wont to give the name of the Flesh to the Mysteries of the Eucharist, and to the whole Church, calling them the Body of Christ...Read More
Miscellaneous [Unknown] Canons of the Thirteen Holy Fathers (various dates)
He speaks of the written doctrine, and the unwritten tradition of the Apostles, and says, that both have the same efficacy as to religion. The unwritten traditions which he mentions, are the signing those who hope in Christ with the Cross; praying toward the East, to denote, that we are in quest of Eden, that garden in the East from whence our first parents were ejected (as he afterwards explains it), the words of invocation at the consecration of the Bread of Eucharist, and the cup of eulogy; the benediction of the baptismal water, the chrism and of the baptized person; the trine immersion, and the renunciations made at baptism; all which the Fathers concealed from those who were not initiated.Read More
Miscellaneous [Unknown] Apostolic Constitutions (Book II) As to the deacons, after the prayer is over, let some of them attend upon the oblation of the Eucharist, ministering to the Lord’s body with fear...Read More
” Thou shalt also permit him to offer the Eucharist; but if, out of reverence to thee, and as a wise man, to preserve the honour belonging to thee, he will not offer, at least thou shalt compel him to give the blessing to the people...Read More
Jerome, St [347-420 AD] The Dialogue Against the Luciferians
Still it is one thing, he says, to admit a penitent neophyte, another to admit a man to be bishop and celebrate the Eucharist...Read More
There is a difference between shedding tears for sin, and handling the body of Christ; there is a difference between lying prostrate at the feet of the brethren, and from the high altar administering the Eucharist to the people. It is one thing to lament over the past, another to abandon sin and live the glorified life in the Church...Read More
And all this proves that you with a little leaven have corrupted the whole lump of the Church, and receive the Eucharist to-day from the hand of one whom yesterday you loathed like an idol...Read More
Since Hilary when he left the Church was only a deacon, and since the Church is to him, though to him alone, a mere worldly multitude, he can neither duly celebrate the Eucharist, for he has no bishops or priests, nor can he give baptism without the Eucharist...Read More
Jerome, St [347-420 AD] Letter 71
You ask me whether you ought to fast on the Sabbath and to receive the eucharist daily according to the custom—as currently reported—of the churches of Rome and Spain...Read More
Jerome, St [347-420 AD] Letter 82 “ If then we l may not offer gifts that are our own unless, we are at peace with our brothers; how much less can we receive the body of Christ if we cherish enmity in our hearts?..Read More
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Letter 54 (A.D. 400) 4. Some one may say, “The Eucharist ought not to be taken every day.” You ask, “On what grounds?” He answers, sacrament, he ought to choose those days upon which he lives in more special purity and self-restraint; for whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.’”
Another answers, “Certainly; if the wound inflicted by sin and the violence of the soul’s distemper be such that the use of these remedies must be put off for a time, every man in this case should be, by the authority of the bishop, forbidden to approach the altar, and appointed to do penance, and should be afterwards restored to privileges by the same authority; for this would be partaking unworthily, if one should partake of it at a time when he ought to be doing penance; and it is not a matter to be left to one’s own judgment to withdraw himself from the communion of the Church, or restore himself, as he pleases. If, however, his sins are not so great as to bring him justly under sentence of excommunication, he ought not to withdraw himself from the daily use of the Lord’s body for the healing of his soul.” Perhaps a third party interposes with a more just decision of the question, reminding them that the principal thing is to remain united in the peace of Christ, and that each should be free to do what, according to his belief, he conscientiously regards as his duty. For neither of them lightly esteems the Body and Blood of the Lord; on the contrary, both are contending who shall most highly honour the sacrament fraught with blessing. There was no controversy between those two mentioned in the Gospel, Zacchaeus and the Centurion; nor did either of them think himself better than the other, though, whereas the former received the Lord joyfully into his house, the latter said, “I am not worthy that Thou shouldest come under my roof,” — both honouring the Saviour, though in ways diverse and, as it were, mutually opposed; both miserable through sin, and both obtaining the mercy they required. We may further borrow an illustration here, from the fact that the manna given to the ancient people of God tasted in each man’s mouth as he desired that it might. It is the same with this world-sabduing sacrament in the heart of each Christian. For he that dares not take it every day, and’ he who dares not omit it any day, are both alike moved by a desire to do it honour. That sacred food will not submit to be despised, as the manna could not be loathed with impunity. Hence the apostle says that it was unworthily partaken of by those who did not distinguish between this and all other meats, by yielding to it the special veneration which was due; for to the words quoted already, “eateth and drinketh judgment to himself,” he has added these, “not discerning the Lord’s body;” and this is apparent from the whole of that passage in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, if it be carefully studied.Read More
7. Let me add, that it would be a mistake to suppose that the custom prevalent in many places, of offering the sacrifice on that day after partaking of food, is to be traced to the words, “ Likewise after supper,” etc. For the Lord might give the name of supper to what they had received, in already partaking of His Body, so that it was after this that they partook of the cup: as the apostle says in another place, “When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,” giving to the receiving of the Eucharist to that extent (i.e. the eating of the bread) the name of the Lord’s Supper.Read More As to the question whether upon that day it is right to partake of food before either offering or partaking of the Eucharist, these words in the Gospel might go far to decide our minds, “As they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it;” taken in connection with the words in the preceding context, “When the even was come, He sat down with the twelve: and as they did eat, He said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me.” For it was after that that He instituted the sacrament; and it is clear that when the disciples first received the Body and Blood of the Lord, they had not been fasting.Read More
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Letter 98 (A.D. 408) 4. As to the incident mentioned in the same letter, that a girl who was left as an infant in charge of her nurse, when her parents had escaped by sudden flight, and was made by that nurse to take part in the profane rites of idolatrous worship, had afterwards in the Church expelled from her mouth, by wonderful motions, the Eucharist when it was given to her, this seems to ate to have been caused by divine interposition, in order that persons of riper years might not imagine that in this sin they do no wrong to the children, but rather might understand, by means of a bodily action of obvious]’ significance on the part of those who were unable to speak, that a miraculous warning was given to themselves as to the course which would have been becoming in persons who, after so great a crime, rushed heedlessly to those sacraments] from which they ought by all means, in proof of penitence, to have abstained. When Divine: Providence does anything of this kind by means , of infant children, we must not believe that they are acting under the guidance of knowledge and reason; just as we are not called upon to admire the wisdom of asses, because once God was, pleased to rebuke the madness of a prophet by the voice of an ass. If, therefore, a sound exactly like the human voice was uttered by an irrational animal, and this was to be ascribed to a divine miracle, not to faculties belonging to the ass, the Almighty could, in like manner, through the spirit of an infant (in which reason was not absent, but only slumbering undeveloped), make manifest by a motion of its body something to which those who had sinned against both their own souls and their children behoved to give heed. But since a child cannot return to become again a part of the author of his natural life, so as to be one with him and in him, but is a wholly distinct individual, having a body and a soul of his own,Read More
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] The City of God (Book V)
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).Read More
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Contra Faustum, Book XIX
14. And if the righteous men of old, who saw in the sacraments of their time the promise of a future revelation of faith, which even then their piety enabled them to discern in the dim light of prophecy, and by which they lived, for the just can live only by faith; if, then, these righteous men of old were ready to suffer, as many actually did suffer, all trials arid tortures for the sake of those typical sacraments which prefigured things in the future; if we praise the three children and Daniel, because they refused to be defiled by meat from the king’s table, from their regard for the sacrament of their day; if we feel the strongest admiration for the Meccabees, who refused to touch food which Christians lawfully use; how much more should a Christian in our day be ready to suffer all things for Christ’s baptism, for Christ’s Eucharist, for Christ’s sacred sign, since these are proofs of the accomplishment of what the former sacraments only pointed forward to in the future! For what is still promised to the Church, the body of Christ, is both clearly made known, and in the Saviour Himself, the Head of the body, the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, has already been accomplished. Is not the promise of eternal life by resurrection from the dead? This we see fulfilled in the flesh of Him of whom it is said, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. In former days faith was dim, for the saints and righteous men of those times all believed and hoped for the same things, and all these sacraments and ceremonies pointed to the future; but now we have the revelation of the faith to which the people were shut up under the law; and what is now promised to believers in the judgment is already accomplished in the example of Him who came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them.Read More
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] On Baptism, Against the Donatists (Book V)
28. But what kind of argument is this, that “a heretic must be considered not to have baptism, because he has not the Church?” And it must be acknowledged that “when he is baptized, he is questioned about the Church.” Just as though the same question about the Church were not put in baptism to him who within the Church renounces the world in word and not in deed. As therefore his false answer does not prevent what he receives from being baptism, so also the false reply of the other about the holy Church does not prevent what he receives from being baptism; and as the former, if he afterwards fulfill with truth what he promised in falsehood, does not receive a second baptism, but only an amended life, so also in the case of the latter, if he come afterwards to the Church about which he gave a false answer to the question put to him, thinking that he had it when he had it not, the Church herself which he did not possess is given him, but what he had received is not repeated. But I cannot tell why it should be, that while God can “sanctify the oil” in answer to the words which proceed out of the mouth of a murderer, “He yet cannot sanctify it on the altar reared by a heretic,” unless it be that He who is not hindered by the false conversion of the heart of man within the Church is hindered by the false erection of some wood without from deigning to be present in His sacraments, though no falseness on the part of men can hinder Him. If, therefore, what is said in the gospel, that “God heareth not sinners,” extends so far that the sacraments cannot be celebrated by a sinner, how then does He hear a murderer praying, either over the water of baptism, or over the oil, or over the eucharist, or over the heads of those on whom his hand is laid? All which things are nevertheless done, and are valid, even at the hands of murderers, that is, at the hands of those who hate their brethren, even within, in the Church itself. Since “no one can give what he does not possess himself,” how does a murderer give the Holy Spirit? And yet such an one even baptizeth within the Church. It is God, therefore, that gives the Holy Spirit even when a man of this kind is baptizing.Read More
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] On Baptism, Against the Donatists (Book VI)
11. Caecilius of Bilta said: “I know of one baptism in the one Church and of none outside the Church. The one will be where there is true hope and sure faith. For so it is written, ‘One faith, One hope, one baptism.’ Not among heretics, where there is no hope and a false faith; where all things are done by a lie; where one possessed of a devil exorcises; the question of the sacrament is asked by one from whose mouth and words proceeds a cancer; the faithless gives faith; the guilty gives pardon for sins and Antichrist baptizes in the name of Christ one accursed of God blesses; the dead promises life; the unpeaceful gives peace; the blasphemer calls on God; the profane administers the priesthood; the sacrilegious sets up the altar. To all this is added this further evil that the servant of the devil dares to celebrate the eucharist. If this be not so, let those who stand by them prove that all of it is false concerning heretics. See the kind of things to which the Church is compelled to assent, being forced to communicate without baptism or the remission of sins. This, brethren, we ought to shun and avoid, separating ourselves from so great a sin, and holding to the one baptism which is granted to the Church alone.”Read More
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Answer to Petilian the Donatist (Book II)
53. Or do you say, Even if I am guilty of sacrilege, I ought not to be slain by you? It is one question as to the enormity of my action, which you never prove with any truth, another as to the baptism of your blood, from whence you derive your boast. For I never killed you, nor do you prove that you are killed by any one. Nor even if you were to prove it would it in any way affect me, whoever it was that killed you, whether he did it justly in virtue of power lawfully given by the Lord, or committed the crime of murder, like the chaff of the Lord’s harvest, through some evil desire; just as you are in no way concerned with him who in recent times, with an intolerable tyranny, attended even by a company of soldiers, not because he feared any one, but that he might be feared by all, oppressed widows, destroyed pupils, betrayed the patrimonies of other men, annulled the marriages of other men, contrived the sale of the property of the innocent, divided the price of the property when sold with its mourning owners. I should seem to be saying all this out of the invention of my own head, if it were not sufficiently obvious of whom I speak without the mention of his name. And if all this is undoubtedly true, then just as you are not concerned with this, so neither are we concerned with anything you say, even though it were true. But if that colleague of yours, being really a just and innocent man, is maligned by a lying tale, then should we also learn in no way to give credit to reports, which have been spread abroad of innocent men, as though they had delivered up the sacred books, or murdered any of their fellow-men. To this we may add, that I refer to a man who lived with you, whose birthday you were wont to celebrate with such large assemblies, with whom you joined in the kiss of peace in the sacraments, in whose hands you placed the Eucharist, to whom in turn you extended your hands to receive it from his ministering, whose ears, when they were deaf amid the groanings of all Africa, you durst not offend by free speech; for paying to whom, even indirectly, a most witty compliment, by saying that in the Count he had a god for his companion, some one of your party was extolled to the skies. But you reproach us with the deeds of men with whom we never lived, whose faces we never saw, in whose lifetime we were either boys, or perhaps as yet not even born. What is the meaning, then, of your great unfairness and perversity, that you should wish to impose on us the burdens of those whom we never knew, whilst you will not bear the burdens of your friends? The divine Scriptures exclaim: “When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him.” If he whom you saw did not pollute you, why do you reproach me with one whom I could not have seen? Or do you say, I did not consent with him, because his deeds were displeasing to me? But, at any rate, you went up to the altar of God with him. Come now, if you would defend yourself, make a distinction between your two positions, and say that it is one thing to consent together for sin, as the two elders consented together when they laid a plot against the chastity of Susannah, and another thing to receive the sacrament of the Lord in company with a thief, as the apostles received even that first supper in company with Judas. I am all in favor of your defense. But why do you not consider how much more easily, in the course of your defense, you have acquitted all the nations and boundaries of the earth, throughout which the inheritance of Christ is dispersed? For if it was possible for you to see a thief, and to share the sacraments with the thief whom you saw, and yet not to share his sin, how much less was it possible for the remotest nations of the earth to have anything in common with the sins of African traditors and persecutors, supposing your charges and assertions to be true, even though they held the sacraments in common with them? Or do you say, I saw in him the bishop, I did not see in him the thief? Say what you will. I allow this defense also, and in this the world is acquitted of the charges which you brought against it. For if it was permitted you to ignore the character of a man whom you knew, why is the whole world not allowed to be ignorant of those it never knew, unless, indeed, the Donatists are allowed to be ignorant of what they do not wish to know, while the nations of the earth may not be ignorant of what they cannot know?Read More
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (Book IV)
But now it plainly appears in what way Cyprian proclaims the grace of God against such as these, when he is arguing about the Lord’s Prayer. For he says: “We say, ‘May Thy name be made holy,’ not that we wish for God that He may be made holy by our prayers, but that we beseech of Him that His name may be made holy in us. But by whom is God made holy, since He Himself makes holy? But, because He says, ‘Be ye holy, because I also am holy,’ we ask and entreat this, that we who were made holy in baptism may continue in that which we have begun to be.” And in another place in the same epistle he says: “We add also, and say, ‘Thy will be done in heaven, and in earth,’ not in order that God may do what He wills, but that we may be able to do what God wills. For who resists God that He may not do what He wills? But, since we are hindered by the devil from obeying God with our thought and deed in all things, we pray and ask that God’s will may be done in us. And that it may be done in us, we have need of God’s will, that is, of His help and protection; since no one is strong in his own strength, but he is safe by the indulgence and mercy of God.” In another place also: “Moreover, we ask that the will of God may be done both in heaven and in earth, each of which things pertains to the fulfilment of our safety and salvation. For since we possess the body from the earth, and the spirit from heaven, we are ourselves earth and heaven; and in both, that is, both in body and in spirit, we pray that God’s will be done. For between the flesh and the spirit there is a struggle, and there is a daily strife as they disagree one with the other; so that we cannot do the very things that we would, in that the spirit seeks heavenly and divine things, while the flesh lusts after earthly and temporal things. And, therefore, we ask that, by the help and assistance of God, agreement may be made between these two natures; so that while the will of God is done both in the spirit and in the flesh, the soul which is newborn by Him may be preserved. And this the Apostle Paul openly and manifestly declares by his words. ‘The flesh,’ says he, ‘lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.’” And a little after he says: “And it may be thus understood, most beloved brethren, that since the Lord commands and teaches us even to love our enemies, and to pray even for those who persecute us, we should ask even for those who are still earth, and have not yet begun to be heavenly, that even in respect of these God’s will may be done, which Christ accomplished in preserving and renewing humanity.” And again, in another place he says: “But we ask that this bread should be given to us daily, that we who are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not, by the interposition of some more heinous sin,—by being prevented, as those abstaining and not communicating, from partaking of the heavenly bread,—be separated from Christ’s body.” And a little afterwards, in the same treatise he says: “But when we ask that we may not come into temptation, we are reminded of our infirmity and weakness, while we so ask as that no one should insolently vaunt himself; that none should proudly and arrogantly assume anything to himself; that none should take to himself the glory either of confession or of suffering as his own, when the Lord Himself teaching humility said, ‘Watch and pray, that ye come not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak;’ so that while a humble and submissive confession comes first, and all is attributed to God, whatever is sought for suppliantly, with fear and honour of God, may be granted by His own loving-kindness.” Moreover, in his treatise addressed to Quirinus, in respect to which work Pelagius wishes himself to appear as his imitator, he says in the Third Book “that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own.” And subjoining the divine testimonies to this proposition, he added among others that apostolic word with which especially the mouths of such as these must be closed: “For what hast thou, which thou hast not received? But if thou hast received it, why boastest thou as if thou hadst not received it?” Also in the epistle concerning Patience he says: “For we have this virtue in common with God. From Him patience begins; from Him its glory and its dignity take their rise. The origin and greatness of patience proceed from God as its Author.”Read More
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] On the Predestination of the Saints (Book II)
Because he says, among other things, are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not by the interposition of some heinous sin be separated from Christ’s body by being withheld from communicating and prevented from paRead More
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Sermon 7 on the New Testament
For shall we receive the Eucharist when we shall have come to Christ Himself, and begun to reign with Him for ever? So then the Eucharist is our daily bread; but let us in such wise receive it, that we be not refreshed in our bodies...Read More
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Sermon 8 on the New Testament
” Again, this is a very good sense of, “Give us this day our daily bread,” thy Eucharist, our daily food...Read More Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Tractate 6 (John 1:32-33)
“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 [A.D. 411]).Read More
Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Homily 3 on the First Epistle of John
receive with us what the faithful know they receive, Benediction, the Eucharist, and whatever there is in Holy Sacraments: the communion of the very altar they receive with us, and are not of us...Read More
Sozomen [375-447 AD] Ecclesiastical History (Book III) Therefore we received and embraced your pastor, and, having held communion with you through him, we dispatch this address and our eucharistic prayers that you may know how we are united by the bond of love to him and you...Read More
Theodoret of Cyr [393-457 AD] Dialogue 3)
“They do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which of His goodness the Father raised...Read More
Leo the Great, Pope [395-461 AD] Sermon 91 The Truth of the Incarnation is proved both by the Eucharistic Feast and by the Divine institution of almsgiving...Read More
Leo the Great, Pope [395-461 AD] Letter 9 The repetition of the Holy Eucharist on the great festivals is not undesirable...Read More
Leo the Great, Pope [395-461 AD] Letter 59 They are to be rejected who deny the truth of Christ’s flesh, a truth repeated by every recipient at the Holy Eucharist...Read More
Constantinople/”Trullo”/Quinisext (692) [692 AD]
Constantinople/”Trullo”/Quinisext (692) [LOCAL]
No one may give the Eucharist to the bodies of the dead; for it is written “Take and eat.” But the bodies of the dead can neither...Read More
Councils [600 AD] Nicaea II (787) [ECUMENICAL] On the rite of consecrating churches with reliques see Cardinal Bona. (De Rebus Lit., Lib. I., cap. xix.) The Antimensia are consecrated at the same time as the church; a full account of the ceremony is found in the Euchologion (Goar’s ed., p. 648). A piece of cloth is placed on the altar and blessed, and then subsequently, as need requires, pieces are cut off from it and sent to the various oratories, etc. The main outline of the ceremony of consecration is as follows. J. M. NEALE. (Int. Hist. East. Ch. p. 187. ) Relics being pounded up with fragrant gum, oil is poured over them by the bishop, and, distilling out to the corporals, is supposed to convey to them the mysterious virtues of the relics themselves. The holy Eucharist must then be celebrated on them for seven days, after which they are sent forth as they are wanted.Read More
Council of Constance (1414) Certain people, in some parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that the Christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine...Read More
Christ's one-time sacrifice at the cross was a sin offering but the bread and wine sacrifice of the mass is based on the food offering of Melchisedek, linked to Christ's sacrifice by invoking the words of the Last Supper. The mass commemorates Christ's sin offering and provides the means of fulfilling the Christian sabbath. Transubstantiation provides the means for obeying Christ's command to physically consume His flesh and blood. If the mass itself is not described as a sin offering, that is probably because the Last Supper and the food offering of Melchisedek were not described that way.
Christ is not re-sacrificed at the mass any more than He was pre-sacrificed a the Last Supper. Bread and wine is offered as it was by Melchisedek. The transubstantiated, sacrificial flesh and blood of Christ is re-presented at the mass, retaining the accidents of bread and wine, as it was first presented by Christ at the Last Supper.
All the Fathers whom you quoted received the Eucharist from ordained priests according to the Tradition of the Catholic and historic Eastern Churches. By definition, a priest is a man that offers sacrifice. Does not unanimity among the Fathers demonstrate the proper interpretation of scripture regarding priests?
That pagans later drove the doctrine contrary to the clear teaching of God’s Word isn’t my fault. Nor did it happen right away.
There were certainly many heretics recorded throughout history. All the important developments of scriptural canon and doctrinal definition are documented. Can you identify a council, pope, or particular event that caused permanent divergence from the doctrinal purity of the Early Church? If not, then shouldn't one conclude that Church doctrine has retained its original purity?
So where does he say that she doesn’t obey him? :)
Why would He say that, she heard and obeyed His Will - that’s why she was blessed, not because she gave birth and nursed Him .
So those who are blessed are those who hear and obey His Word/His Will. That’s how His kingdom works because He has a different will/destiny for everyone for His Kingdom and no one is higher than the other. Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism. Acts 10:34.
In the world that’s how we do things or think but not in HIS kingdom because it is not us doing it but He is doing it within us and ALL FOR HIS GLORY, never ours. That’s why lifting Mary up is a worldly concept and not from God; therefore, not Biblical.
“Why would He say that, she heard and obeyed His Will - that’s why she was blessed, not because she gave birth and nursed Him.”
Ah, so when the Catholic church teaches that she was without blemish, they are affirming this then.
“no one is higher than the other.”
That’s not what he’s saying. Christ even says later on, “the seat to my right and to my left” are not mine to give. He does not say that everyone is going to be equal in heaven.
“Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism. Acts 10:34.”
Yes, indeed, Peter says this, when he realizes that God isn’t going to spare someone because they have status here. Everyone must submit to him, no exceptions.
“In the world that’s how we do things or think but not in HIS kingdom because it is not us doing it but He is doing it within us and ALL FOR HIS GLORY, never ours.”
Which is why the Catholic church teaches that he chose Mary to be his mother for the same reason. She was not chosen to elevate herself, but to bring Christ into the world.
“That’s why lifting Mary up is a worldly concept and not from God; therefore, not Biblical.”
So when the Angel calls her ‘most blessed are you among woman”, he was a liar? Christ elevated Mary.
I did not wish to offend you by implying you were lying, so I tried to be as careful as I could in my wording.
I will write this, there is nothing you have written that indicates in anyway you ever were properly instructed in the Catholic faith. Again the conclusion is either you were never a Catholic, or the instruction you received was so poor it made a mockery of the very term “catechism.” I suppose it is possible that you had zero instruction.
Now if I state plainly I suspect it is the first, the implication you are lying is out in the open for all to see. Even when evidence points to that being a valid conclusion I hate to leave it as the only one. After all there are other possibilities. Therefore; I add two other possible reasons for the jaw dropping ignorance you show about Catholic teaching to reflect a more benign cause.
What ever the cause of your ignorance the fact remains. Catholicism does not teach that Truth is found in man. That you have stated it does show a serious want of grasping the subject.
The Church Fathers (who by the way even Calvinists look to for bolstering their theology) are not regarded as being infallible though what they write may reflect infallible teachings. So they did write many true things which show that the early church practices and teachings contradict the claims of many Protestant sects. Their writings are firmly grounded in Scripture and their interpretation of Scripture is very valuable.
The Church Fathers are offered as proof that the innovations of the Reformation are just that innovations and that the Church, East and West was united in their beliefs about the Eucharist, the offices of the Church, the perpetual Virginity of Mary and other beliefs rejected by most Protestant sects. The Church Fathers defended these beliefs by appeal to Scripture.
What you have failed to grasp is that we believe that the Church as a whole dispensing its office (which includes but is not limited to the Papacy) can not speak in error on matters of faith and morals because of the charism given to the Church by the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus Himself.
Just as sinful men wrote an infallible and inerrant Scripture because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
That I trust Scripture to be True does not mean I believe Truth comes from man but that the writers of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit revealed those Truths given to them.
Face it, you do look to men for truth and use these guys as proof to ‘try’ and prove others wrong. Stop doing it if you want to keep with - ‘you don’t look to men for Truth’ and that includes the pope. “I’m ALL yours, Mary”? Whose ‘truth’ is that? Man’s and from your ‘infallible’ one. Another non biblical ‘man’s truth’.
I have explained the facts, that you do not grasp them is not my problem.
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.