Posted on 01/07/2012 6:00:19 PM PST by rzman21
You took from my comment about the CC thinking Jesus should have chosen from the Pharisees that I was suggesting me? Really? You really think the CC would think of me as someone Jesus should have chosen? That’s what you took from my comment? Wow! Just Wow!
The social divide between cosmopolitan Catholic Yankees and rural Evangelical Southerners has no impact on Rome's view of evolution. Prior to the aberration of Vatican II, most Catholics rejected the belief in macro-evolution. My traditional parish uses American catechisms from the 40's for Confirmation class that teach Creation as fact and are very negative toward macro-evolution.
Is there any other reason why Genesis 1-11 should be a parable while everything in the new testament (and in post-NT chrstian history such as the Portuguese sun dance) is literally true?
Many Catholics have rejected Our Lady of Fatima to varying degrees, including every single pope since that time. Mary said that a pope must consecrate "Russia" in union with all the bishops of world to prevent or halt the "destruction of many nations" by the "errors of Russia," among other things. There have been eight attempts by various popes to perform said consecration (including two attempts by JP2), but each attempt left out a critical portion of the request such as the invocation of "Russia" by name. Marxism, at least in its cultural formulation, continues to destroy many nations including our own.
Sungenis makes a strong case that Galileo was wrong in his dispute with Pope Urban VIII over geocentrism. I have not yet formed a conclusion on the matter but consider it to be interesting. Sungenis' arguments on geocentrism are not made less valid by his antisemitism.
How nice that a belief in the Fatima "miracles," though not actually required, are permitted. Why is it that the events of Genesis 1-11 are not afforded the same tolerance?
Where is the citation to demonstrate Church intolerance toward Creation?
Mas cerveza, I've pinged you all along to this conversation and you haven't said anything.
I was out Sunday.
The awesome power of infallible definition is used sparingly, mainly for the painful yet necessary task of purging heretics. One must accept the virgin birth and resurrection to be considered Catholic, but it has not yet been deemed necessary to cast evolutionists from the Arc of Salvation. Perhaps declaring macro-evolution to be anathema would have spared us the aberration of Vatican II.
The difference being "fishermen" are fishing for lost souls to come into Christ's Kingdom....CC's are looking for converts to Catholicism to sustain their own kingdom.
Fundamentalist Protestants see everything in black and white and don’t seem to tolerate any sort of gray.
The fact is no dogmatic definition exists regarding how to interpret the meaning of the days and years in the Book of Genesis.
Teachers have been all over the map on that for millenia, and not just in the post-scientific era.
What I see in William Webster’s “scholarship” is an attempt to spin the Church Fathers into a Protestant frameworks, which is unhistorical and dishonest.
All of the polemics from Evangelical posters always ignore the role of Tradition in the Eastern Churches, which more or less agrees with that of Rome from a relatively early date.
So to say it is something that the Roman papacy invented in the Middle Ages is quite spurious.
The facts are that the early Church canons overruled those in the Church who objected to including the disputed books in the canon.
None of the fathers, however, agreed with the Protestant designation that they are “apocryphal” like the Books of Jubilees, Enoch, or the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.
That is correct,dear friend.The following information shows Webster is either uneducated on the Church Fathers or worse,he is an evil manipulator who is in it for money.
from...http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num34.htm
William Webster's Skewed History of the Eucharist
For a different view we have this bold statement from William Webster: "For the first 1200 years of the Church's life there was no unanimity on the nature of the eucharist." (page 127)
In an admittedly unique book, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Banner of Truth, 1995), former Catholic turned Evangelical William Webster tackles the Church Fathers themselves and attempts to make a case for Evangelical Protestant Christianity from them, or at least tries to neutralize Catholic dogma by appealing to their undeveloped terminology and doctrines. But it is a losing battle since there is too much in the Fathers that Webster has to ignore. Much of what we find in his chapter on the Eucharist is a distortion of the Fathers as he tries to force them into his Evangelical "symbolical" views, ignoring everything else they said. For example, he has a long paragraph on Tertullian claiming:
"Tertullian...spoke of the bread and wine in the eucharist as symbols and figures which represent the body and blood of Christ. He specifically stated that these were not the literal body and blood of the Lord....His interpretation of John 6 similarly indicates that when he spoke of the bread and wine as figures and symbols of Christ's body and blood, that is exactly what he meant. 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...Clearly he did not teach the concept of transubstantiation." (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History by William Webster, page 119)
A couple of things in response. First, while it is true some of the Fathers (such as Tertullian, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria) employed more symbolical and allegorical interpretations of John 6:51ff, it is clear at the same time they had a literal and very realist view of the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ. This is admitted and confirmed by JND Kelly, Darwell Stone, even Philip Schaff.
Tertullian (while not technically a Church Father, since he later became a Montanist) affirms that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ (granted he did not use the term "transubstantiation" since as I have explained it took time for the terminology to develop), and is a sacrifice of benefit even for departed Christians:
"The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God." (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)
"Likewise, in 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...THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE..." (Prayer 19:1)
"The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations... WE OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD on their birthday anniversaries.... We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground..." (The Crown 3:3-4)
For more see my article on Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria which details the more "symbolical" and "allegorical" language of these Fathers and demonstrates they did not deny the literal and realist understanding of the Eucharist. So even while using the terms "symbol" and "figure" and "type" in referring to the Eucharist at points the Church Fathers did not adopt the purely "symbolical" or "figurative" interpretation that Webster and the rest of the Evangelical critics hold. The Council of Trent even uses the word "symbol" when referring to the Eucharist, and there is no problem here. The error is to stop there and not affirm that the "symbol" is in a real sense what it symbolizes (the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood).
Webster includes a number of carefully selected citations from the Fathers (in appendix 8 on Real Presence we have excerpts from the Didache, Justin, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine; in appendix 9 on Sacrifice we have the Didache, Justin, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Augustine), and tries to force many of the Fathers into his "symbolical" and "figurative" views in his chapter on the Eucharist. What Webster seems to do is search through the Fathers for passages that contain the words "memorial" and "symbol" and "figure" while ignoring their most explicit passages on the Real Presence and sacrifice, and disregards the rest of what they wrote and believed. This is not proper "historiography" (to use one of his favorite terms). It is obvious that one should interpret the more obscure and symbolical phrases in light of the more explicit.
Again, for the full story see This is My Body: Eucharist in the Early Fathers
Webster also distorts the teaching of St. Augustine by suggesting "the theological giant who provided the most comprehensive and influential defense of the symbolic interpretation of the Lord's Supper was Augustine...These views of Augustine are obviously in direct opposition to those of the Council of Trent" (page 120-121). To see how wrong Webster is go to St. Augustine on the Eucharist
"From the beginning of the Church the Fathers generally expressed their belief in the Real Presence in the eucharist, in that they identified the elements with the body and blood of Christ, and also referred to the eucharist as a sacrifice, but there was considerable difference of opinion among the Fathers on the precise nature of these things, reflected in the fact that the ancient Church produced no official dogma of the Lord's Supper." (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History by William Webster, page 117)
Here Webster concedes that the Fathers generally believed in the Real Presence, they identified the elements with the body and blood of Christ, and referred to the Eucharist as a sacrifice. So far so good. And there is no problem with the statement that the "precise nature" of the Eucharist was not explicitly defined, since this is true of a lot of beliefs in the early Church, such as the Holy Trinity. When controversies arise, then official dogma needs to be formally and explicitly defined to separate the orthodox from the heretics. For the Eucharist, this was not necessary until the later 9th and 11th century controversies, resulting in the adoption of the term "transubstantiation" at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, and finally in response to the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent.
"As time passed clearer descriptions of the eucharist as the transformation of the elements into the literal body and blood of Christ emerged in the writings of the Fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom and Ambrose." (Webster, page 120)
Thank you, Bill. Here Webster concedes that the "transformation" or "conversion" view was clearly present in such great Fathers of the fourth century Church. Thanks for the admission. What he does not mention is these same Fathers who were quite explicit in their belief on the Eucharist, also employed at the same time such terms as "symbol" and "figure" and "type" which clearly shows we should interpret the more "symbolical" language in light of the more explicit passages.
For example, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 AD) used the words "figure" and "antitype" in his Catechetical Lectures concerning the Eucharist:
"Let us, then, with full confidence, partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. For in the figure of bread His Body is given to you, and in the figure of wine His Blood is given to you, so that by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, you might become united in body and blood with Him. For thus we become Christ-bearers, His Body and Blood being distributed through our members. And thus it is that we become, according to the blessed Peter, sharers of the divine nature [2 Pet 1:4]." (Catechetical Lectures 22 [Mystagogic 4], 3; also 23 [Mystagogic 5], 20 for the word "antitype")
Along with these we find such explicit statements as:
"For just as 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 [Mystagogic 1], 7)
"Once in Cana of Galilee He changed the water into wine, a thing related to blood; and is His changing of wine into Blood not credible? When invited to an ordinary marriage, with a miracle He performed that glorious deed. And is it not much more to be confessed that He has betowed His Body and His Blood upon the wedding guests?" (22 [Mystagogic 4], 2)
"Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the 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." (22 [Mystagogic 4], 6)
"Having learned these things, and being 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..." (22 [Mystagogic 4], 9)
"Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual songs, we call upon the benevolent God to send out the Holy Spirit upon the gifts which have been laid out: that He may make the bread the Body of Christ, and the wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches, that is sanctified and changed." (23 [Mystagogic 5], 7)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem continues with similar statements and calls the Eucharist and Mass in most explicit language a "propitiatory sacrifice" since Christ is offered as the "propitiatory victim" both for living saints and for departed souls, that Christian priests should "offer this sacrifice for all who are in need," that it is of very great benefit for the souls who have fallen asleep "while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out," we not only offer our prayers for departed Christians, but in the Eucharist we "offer up Christ who has been sacrificed for our sins; and we thereby propitiate the benevolent God for them as well as for ourselves." (23 [Mystagogic 5], 8, 9, 10). With such beautiful Catholic language reminicient of the later Council of Trent, who would dare say this fourth century Saint and Father held to a purely "symbolical" or "figurative" Eucharist? As a side note: Webster, White, Svendsen, et al believe St. Cyril of Jerusalem firmly taught Sola Scriptura. If so, how do they explain the above?
After warning us that the Fathers need to be examined with "great caution" since "it is very easy to take a preconceived theology of the eucharist and read it back into their comments and teachings" (page 117-118) Webster seems to contradict himself a few pages later when he suggests
"There is the literal view of transubstantiation which could be that expressed by Chrysostom; the Lutheran view of consubstantiation, which could be that taught by Irenaeus or Justin Martyr; the spiritual view of Calvin, which is closely aligned with Augustine; and the strictly symbolic view of Zwingli, which is similar to that expressed by Eusebius." (Webster, page 122)
I would say none of this is correct. It is true the Fathers did not use the term "transubstantiation" but they were also unaware of "consubstantiation" or other such terms. And none of them held a strictly "symbolic" or "spiritual" (whatever that word may mean) view. We can agree it is wrong to read the later Eucharistic controversies of the 9th, 11th, or 16th centuries back into the Fathers, however to assume the Fathers held opposing views (the literal vs. the symbolic) is not consistent with the evidence. The terminology was indeed more fluid and less refined since there was no defined dogma on the Eucharist but at the same time there was no real controversy on the doctrine during the patristic age. Webster is trying to pit the Fathers against one another by suggesting they were as confused on the nature of the Eucharist as modern Protestant sects. This is clearly anachronistic.
Jaroslav Pelikan, the Lutheran scholar who later converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, writes in The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine series:
"...the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist...did not become the subject of controversy until the ninth century. The definitive and precise formulation of the crucial doctrinal issues concerning the Eucharist had to await that controversy and others that followed even later. This does not mean at all, however, that the church did not yet have a doctrine of the Eucharist; it does mean that the statements of its doctrine must not be sought in polemical and dogmatic treatises devoted to sacramental theology. It means also that the effort to cross-examine the fathers of the second or third century about where they stood in the controversies of the ninth or sixteenth century is both silly and futile." (Jaroslav Pelikan, volume 1, page 166-7)
For a short balanced treatment of the Fathers on the Eucharist, I would suggest the classic non-Catholic work Early Christian Doctrines by JND Kelly (chapter 8 for the ante-Nicene, and chapter 16 for the post-Nicene Fathers), which Webster does refer to in his endnotes, although Kelly contradicts Webster at a number of points. For an exhaustive study, the older two-volume work A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist by the Anglo-Catholic scholar Darwell Stone is available through inter-library loan. A third important work by a Jesuit scholar is titled Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation (1960) by Francis Clark which shows in great detail the errors and misunderstandings of Protestants concerning the Eucharist in the sixteenth century and the consistency of the Catholic belief by the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
You have high expectations if you think this “book” is going to be read here by many, and i have another thread(s) to attend to, and not going to get into refuting what i think is amounts to the typical polemic here, suffice to say that,
Catholics make a fallible decision to trust in Rome
And engage in fallible interpretation of Rome
And cannot be sure about multitudes of potentially infallible decrees.
And must give assent of faith on relative few teachings, while most of what they believe is not infallible, and can allow some disagreement.
Thus they have a purportedly infallible supreme authority, the sacred magisterium, which effectively only rules her own church, but the hearers t make fallible judgments as to its meaning, as well as on other teachings, and on the Bible in which they can and do differ.
Evangelicals (those who in practice basically hold to SS or the supremacy of Scripture after the historical “tradition”) have an infallible authority, the Scripture, which they interpret, if not assuredly infallibly.
And while lacking a centralized authority, they uphold the local magisterium, but as subject to Scripture as supreme.
They (denominationally) overall hold to common core truths (apostle’s creed, etc.), while largely allowing limited variation in other matters, yet overall manifest a remarkable informal spiritual unity, manifest in manifold ways. And testify to greater commitment and unity in moral views and certain core teachings than their Catholic counterparts.
And they overall manifest a common opposition to groups which deviate from their core essentials, as well as traditions of Rome, and which deviation of the former is linked to the sola ecclesia position they share with the latter.
Yet on the more negative are multitudes who in practice deviate from the historical understanding of SS, and misuse or ignore Scripture, speaking perverse things.
More can be said as regards the strengths and weakness, and reliances, but i cannot do so now.
Just this fav:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
St. AUGUSTINE
“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]).
This was not shown. What author would ignore this blaring red light verses. Just Amazing. Then declare opposite. Falsehood.
Well. What does not click is that Augustine was a bishop who was in the Church Traditions. This solo scripture idea is foreign to Augustine. The Gutenberg press was not invented yet until a thousand years later. Hardly anyone had their own copy. There was no neatly made bible book like today. All the church had at the time was scrolls(perishable hides) which only priests and Bishops had in the church. Scrolls were hard to copy. The layman believer heard scripture not read. The Priest would go by memory or read scripture to them. When Augustine is writing about canonical scripture. He is really showing how the church presents it. Which is in the Mass service. This is how he is writing about scripture. His writings are sent to equals(priests or Bishops or only after bishop reads to the people). His main purpose is scripture by the Church without always saying it in these writings. But to isolate then say gotcha is just plain baiting which is wrong from this "scholar"(W.W.). You also have to know the times and technology. There was no neat Bible Books made yet.
When you quote Augustine and add your own interpretations of his writings, you are engaging in the same kind of exercise as I do and as theologians like William Webster. I, personally, think he does a good job laying out his points and his choice of quotes from men like Augustine are not incorrect - you just don't seem to appreciate how he sees it. I don't believe it would be wrong to assert that Augustine held to the sufficiency and authority of Holy Scripture and, in his time, so did the Church.
From http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible:
The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.
Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after, but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.
It is true that the Catholic Church accepted the Apocryphal books at earlier councils at Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), and Florence (A.D. 1442). However, these were not universal Church councils and the earlier councils were influenced heavily by Augustine, who was no Biblical expert, compared to the scholar Jerome, who rejected the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon. Furthermore, it is doubtful that these local church council's decisions were binding on the Church at large since they were local councils. Sometimes these local councils made errors and had to be corrected by a universal church council.
(Also, the earlier councils did not agree completely with each other either.)
As to the ECFs views concerning "real presence", let's not forget the very real battles they were waging against the Gnostics. Remember, they were the ones who rejected the truth of Jesus having flesh and blood. When you read some of the ECFs writings on the subject, don't forget that context.
The same could be said for James, 2,3 John, Hebrews, and Revelation, so what’s your point?
Some rejected Esther, so should you throw Esther out of your Bible because of that?
No Church council upheld the private opinions of these Church fathers the Qunisext Council definitively settled the issue of the scriptural canon as far as the Eastern Church was concerned.
Some early writers thought that sins couldn’t be forgiven after baptism either.
And these same fathers were hardly consistent with the disputed Old Testament books either, considering that many cited them as scripture when it suited them.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/deutero.htm
Will you start treating Revelation and Hebrews as apocryphal considering that many of these same writers thought they were apocryphal? I doubt it.
The Church overruled them on a universal level. Certain local theologians had their opinions on a local level, but it is a stretch to say that the “Catholic Church” ever defined against the disputed books. It takes a council to do that.
Perhaps Webster is a Gnostic.
And some held sexual relations even in marriage necessarily involved sinful lust: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2827010/posts?page=400#400
You don't seem to understand that the gnostic's being fought against were those who denied The Eucharistic Real Presence and things like the Divinity of Christ
Just take a look at what Saint Irenaues writes,dear sister..
"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely
Named Gnosis". Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D. "For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis". Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.
FWIW, I'm not impressed with William Webster at all- It's pretty easy to prove him wrong by even using other protestants such as J.N.D Kelly who were far more knowledgeable than Webster on the Church Fathers
Here is some of what Kelly wrote..
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence
Renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).
"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).
“”The truth of the early Fathers has been marred by this fake, phony,and fraud revisionist lies. “”
The good thing is that Webster is pretty sloppy and can be easily proven wrong when one reads broader writings of the Church Fathers that Webster uses to try and make his points
“”Hardly anyone had their own copy. There was no neatly made bible book like today. All the church had at the time was scrolls(perishable hides) which only priests and Bishops had in the church. Scrolls were hard to copy. “”
Correct,and when you understand the process and the translations of the copyist, solo scripture becomes a real mess
Here is a good understand of this.
CHRISTIAN TRANSMISSION OF GREEK JEWISH SCRIPTURES:
A METHODOLOGICAL PROBE
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/journals/kraftpub/Transmission%20of%20Gk-Jewish%20Scriptures
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.