Protestants no longer the majority in U.S.

Thank you for your comments here. I have been blessed and encouraged by them.

You’re right - except that God did set up a human institution - his Church. God didn’t need to do it, God isn’t ‘required’ to do anything. But he chose 12 disciples. And the disciples became the Apostles. He gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven - and gave him the power to bind and loose. St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

Jesus chose 12 Apostles to begin the establishment of THE church (the Body of Christ)- and they, as well as the 70 other disciples did exactly that as they spread the good news of Jesus Christ throughout the world. As SR has truthfully stated, there were many local churches set up that were filled with believers in the Gospel including SEVERAL in Rome (too large of a city to possibly have only one church (single meeting place).

There is disagreement that Peter OR Paul established the churches of Rome as the epistle of Paul to the Romans doesn't mention Peter at all, nor does Paul address them as he does those churches that he DID establish (Ephesus, Galatia, Corinth). The Gospel had already been preached there and people converted and assemblies established. As for Peter being the "first" Bishop of Rome, there is also disagreement for that being true as there is NO mention of such in Scripture and Peter was martyred decades before the last book of the New Testament was written.

The "church" Jesus established is as Peter himself said, "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (I Peter 2:5) and also, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God; which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." (I Peter 1:9,10)

We are ALL members of Christ's body through faith in Jesus Christ and we are born again into the family of God by grace through faith. That is why the "gates of hell" will never prevail against us, the gospel is what penetrates those gates and snatches souls away into the family of God. God chooses ALL those that come to him in faith and conforms us to the image of Christ. As Springfield Reformer said, it is so much more than a single human institution - it is a SPIRITUAL house.

“There is disagreement that Peter OR Paul established the churches of Rome”

Do you agree that Christ gave the Keys to the kingdom of Heaven to St. Peter? Not any of the other disciples, just St. Peter?

Do you agree that Christ gave the Keys to the kingdom of Heaven to St. Peter? Not any of the other disciples, just St. Peter?

That is what the Scriptures say Jesus did. Matthew 16:19, Jesus says to Peter, "I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven; and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.". The REAL question, of course, must be what those "keys" mean and what they do. I think Barnes' Notes on the Bible, explains the passage well:

He that is in possession of it has the power of access, and has a general care of a house. Hence, in the Bible, a key is used as a symbol of superintendence an emblem of power and authority. See the Isaiah 22:22 note; Revelation 1:18; Revelation 3:7 notes. The kingdom of heaven here means, doubtless, the church on earth. See the notes at Matthew 3:2. When the Saviour says, therefore, he will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. This was done, Acts 2:14-36; 10. The "power of the keys" was given, on this occasion, to Peter alone, solely for this reason; the power of "binding and loosing" on earth was given to the other apostles with him. See Matthew 18:18. The only pre-eminence, then, that Peter had was the honor of first opening the doors of the gospel to the world.

Whatsoever thou shalt bind ... - The phrase "to bind" and "to loose" was often used by the Jews. It meant to prohibit and to permit. To bind a thing was to forbid it; to loose it, to allow it to be done. Thus, they said about gathering wood on the Sabbath day, "The school of Shammei binds it" - i. e., forbids it; "the school of Hillel looses it" - i. e., allows it. When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, he meant that whatsoever they forbade in the church should have divine authority; whatever they permitted, or commanded, should also have divine authority - that is, should be bound or loosed in heaven, or meet the approbation of God. They were to be guided infallibly in the organization of the church:

1. by the teaching of Christ, and,

2. by the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

This does not refer to persons, but to things - "whatsoever," not whosoever. It refers to rites and ceremonies in the church. Such of the Jewish customs as they should forbid were to be forbidden, and such as they thought proper to permit were to be allowed. Such rites as they should appoint in the church were to have the force of divine authority. Accordingly, they commanded the Gentile converts to "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood" Acts 15:20; and, in general, they organized the church, and directed what was to be observed and what was to be avoided. The rules laid down by them in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, in connection with the teachings of the Saviour as recorded in the evangelists, constitute the only law binding on Christians in regard to the order of the church, and the rites and ceremonies to be observed in it. http://bible.cc/matthew/16-19.htm

I agree with this interpretation. Do you?

“I agree with this interpretation. Do you?”

What is it that makes Barnes’ notes authoritative?

“I agree with this interpretation. Do you?”

What is it that makes Barnes’ notes authoritative?

Nothing makes Barnes' notes "authoritative". That wasn't my point. It's simply that I agree with the explanation for the passage and I asked if you did as well. I see no contradiction with this interpretation and other Scriptures. No traps set if that is what you may be worrying about - no need for paranoia.

I know that the Catholic Church takes this a step further by stating that the Popes have all been "successors" of Peter and inherit his exclusive authority endowed by Christ. I don't agree with that, but I have no problem at all with the principle role of Peter at the start of the New Testament church.

“Nothing makes Barnes’ notes “authoritative”. That wasn’t my point.”

And this is mine. Eusebius says that St. Peter was the first pope of the Catholic church, and gives a list of the popes all the way from St. Peter to his day. This was in the early part of the 4th century. It is the earliest historical source that we do have with this particular list, and the list is actually older than the oldest complete manuscript copies of the bible we possess.

If you are to take Barnes’ and his notes, why would you reject historical evidence from Eusebius demonstrating that the Catholic position, is in fact correct?

And this is mine. Eusebius says that St. Peter was the first pope of the Catholic church, and gives a list of the popes all the way from St. Peter to his day. This was in the early part of the 4th century. It is the earliest historical source that we do have with this particular list, and the list is actually older than the oldest complete manuscript copies of the bible we possess. If you are to take Barnes’ and his notes, why would you reject historical evidence from Eusebius demonstrating that the Catholic position, is in fact correct?

Again, I am not taking Barnes' opinion as "authoritative" but as an interpretation of the Matthew 16 passage WRT Peter's primacy. By the same token, Eusebius (c. AD 263 – 339) is also a fallible man and his words do not carry authority either, but simply express his own ideas on a subject that was NOT settled then nor is it today. From http://triablogue.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20nonexistent%20early%20papacy we read about Origen (184/185 – 253/254) and his views about Peter's primacy:

But if you suppose that God builds the entire Church upon Peter and on him alone, what would you say about John, the son of thunder, or any particular apostle? In other words, are we so bold as to say that it is against Peter in particular that the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other apostles and the perfect? Does not the above saying “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” hold in regard to all, and in the case of each of them? And likewise with regard to the words “Upon this rock I will build my Church”? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? For in the passage before us, the words “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” and what follows do appear to be addressed to Peter individually; but in the Gospel of John, the Saviour, having given the Holy Spirit to the disciples by breathing on them, says “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” and what follows. For all the imitators of Christ are surnamed “rocks” from him, the spiritual rock which follows those who are being saved; … but from the very fact that they are members of Christ, they are called Christians by a name derived from him. And those called after the rock are called Peter. (In Matt. 12:10-11; ANF translation, extensively revised by E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority 1952, pp. 45-46).

This is the earliest extant detailed commentary on Matthew 16:18f. and interestingly sees the event describe as a lesson about the life to be lived by every Christian, and not information about office or hierarchy or authority in the church.

The Brown, Donfried, and Reumann work concludes by saying, “it has become clear to us that an investigation of the historical career does not necessarily settle the question of Peter’s importance for the subsequent church” (168).

Origen is the first commentator from the Eastern church (Alexandria) on the importance of Peter. According to this passage, Peter’s importance as an apostle is not denied, but it is very much put on par with that of the smallest of believers.

There is no acknowledgement here of any “primacy”. This speaks also to the issue that Christ founded a visible church and specifically, what this “visible church” is – very much reminiscent of Calvin and the WCF, “The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.”

Here Origen’s understanding deals with the ontological aspects of what is visible, and that is, “every imitator of Christ is a rock”, a reflection of Peter’s own statement, “you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house”.

Both of these together support the notion that there was nothing special about the “ontologicalness” of being Peter. In terms of being “first”, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, Peter had the privilege of being the first one to preach the Gospel, “first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles” (Acts 10), but in the context of historical “tradition”, Origen contradicts the notion that the early third-century church in the East thought that there was anything particularly special about him, or where he happened to be located.

As to the commonly cited claim that there is an undisputed list of Popes going back to Peter, such a claim is not provable and there is much to contradict that it even can be true. From http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy/:

The Catholic historian Paul Johnson goes a bit further than Brown, in his 1976 work “History of Christianity”:

By the third century, lists of bishops, each of whom had consecrated his successor, and which went back to the original founding of the see by one or the other of the apostles, had been collected or manufactured by most of the great cities of the empire and were reproduced by Eusebius…– “A History of Christianity,” pgs 53 ff.)

Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.

Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop.

In Egypt, Orthodoxy was not established until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus.

Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list; “When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria.

Going back again in time, it is interesting to note the development of certain “enhancements” to the stories of succession. Of course Irenaeus passes along the whopper suggesting that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome. He says, “Since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches (helpfully provided above by Johnson), we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome …” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2).

Peter and Paul neither “founded” nor “set up” the church at Rome. Paul of course wrote to the Romans in 56 or 58 ad that he had never been there, although the church was existing, thriving, and was attested as early as the Edict of Claudius as early as 49 ad (see Acts 18:2-3), having traveled there from Jerusalem, maybe as early as Acts 2, via the Puteoli-Rome trade routes.

Peter is said to have died in 64 ad, under Nero. There were many legends that Peter arrived at Rome during the reign of Claudius (41-54), and was “bishop” of Rome for 25 years. But Acts 15 places him in Jerusalem and Paul’s letters place him in Corinth and Galatia (not as a leader, but as a missionary) well into the 50’s, long after the church had been “founded” in Rome. Cullman, after a thorough investigation of the historical sources, says that he “became the leader of the Jewish Christian mission; that in this capacity, at a time which cannot be more closely determined but probably occurred at the end of his life, he came to Rome and there, after a very short work, died as a martyr under Nero.” (Cullman, “Peter,” pg. 152) Cullman refuses to discuss the notion that Peter lived in Rome for 25 years, noting that it is so obviously fictitious that it did not merit any serious discussion.

I bring these links up only to demonstrate that there is not a unified consensus to back up your statement, but I understand why some people feel compelled to believe it is the truth. I once was a Roman Catholic and am now an Evangelical Christian. I did not just swallow what was told to me but I diligently sought out the truth of the Gospel and to know the true God. God has not disappointed me and He has rewarded my faith.

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)

I can't believe it is this late! I'm hitting the sack. If you are still up, I hope you have a good night.

Boatbums makes an excellent point. Not even Origen comes up with the modern Roman apologist’s denominationally self-serving rendering of the “keys.” Why? Because nothing in the text actually limits the scope of grant to just Peter, only that he is first in time. I write contracts. Making the grant exclusive would require a specific denial of the grant to the others. But because there is no such exclusion, Matthew 18:18 can restate the substance of the grant to all the disciples, without introducing a contradiction into the Biblical text. God-breathed words indeed.

So here’s your quandary. A Protestant, to find truth, to know infallibly whether he is disobeying Scripture by rejecting modern Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction, must first decide the matter for himself, in direct disobedience to Rome’s prohibition against fallible, private judgment. And this against a backdrop where not even patristic evidence is uniformly supportive of the modern Roman position on the matter.

In the law there is a principle that where the law provides no clear direction, there cannot be a violation. The Scriptures provide no intrinsic evidence that the Church was ever to have a single human leader ruling all Christian churches from a single city for the entire duration of the church age. The only way to find that in the text is to have it etched on your own lens. It’s not on the page.

In court, I would here argue that your charge of Protestant disobedience to Scripture fails for lack of evidence. No possible mandate of Scripture can be cited to show that holding Scripture preeminent in matters of faith and practice is an act of disobedience, nothing that could bind the conscience of an ordinary reader. I read the Ten Commandments, and I know if I am guilty of murder or not. I read the Sermon on the Mount, and I know whether I have committed secrets sins of the heart or not. But I read Matthew 16 or 18 or 23 and I cannot find “Vatican” or “Pope” or “Infallible” or “Universal Jurisdiction” anywhere. Such ideas must be imported by the personal biases of the reader.

And while I do find that Christ will build His church, I do not see that word “church” anywhere limited to a single temporal, corporeal association of humans, but as boatbums so aptly pointed out, I see Peter himself describing the church in terms of pure spiritual affinity:

1Pet 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Just as Jesus said, the Father seeks those who will worship Him is spirit and in truth, not in place, posture, or pedigree. And that is the entire Roman argument in a nutshell: Pedigree.

But even that pedigree is in doubt. Have you considered the problem of Pope Honorius, who was condemned as a heretic by the 6th ecumenical council, after speaking heretically in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome concerning a matter of Christian faith and morals? As the modern parameters of Ex Cathedra infallibility would not be detailed until some centuries later, it is impossible to defend him as having spoken his heresy outside those boundaries, as they did not yet exist. He clearly misled the church in his official pastoral capacity. How is this any different than any of the other common attempts to claim infallible organizations, such as Mormons and JWs do, only to have them later trying to bury their false prophecies?

Again, you have to realize what a huge epistemological problem this creates for any would-be convert. Papal infallibility operates as a "No True Scotsman" fallacy of logic. Hindsight can always be used to recalibrate papal statements to fall into or out of Ex Cathedra when later generations need to preserve the idea, if not the reality, of papal infallibility. From this it becomes impossible to know infallible truth even for advocates of Rome, let alone poor souls outside the camp trying to choose between them and so many other claimants to infallibility. For if Honorius and his error can be set aside by some convenient sophistry, the doctrine of infallibility can never be falsified. And if there is no test case that can show it to be false, there is no way to prove it is true, either. Logic 101.

The Biblical model is so much simpler. Remember the wheats and the tares? What did the Lord of the harvest say to the reaper? Let them come up together. They can only safely be separated at the time of harvest. Until then, Christ alone is competent to nurture His own fields, to build His church, rewarding faithful gatherings, no matter how small, with the power of his presence, and removing the candlestick of any church, whether in Rome or the Ukraine or Queens, NY, if they have lost their first love, and fail to repent.

Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart:

1Cor 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: [27] But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; [28] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: [29] That no flesh should glory in his presence. [30] But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: [31] That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Peace,

SR

Let’s be clear here - Origen disputes Primacy. He does not dispute Apostolic Succession. These are two very different issues. There are plenty of attestations from other Church fathers that do assert the Primacy of the See of St. Peter. Origen advances that of Alexandria, which isn’t an option now, nor defended by anyone at present. Present day it’s Rome and what is left of Constantinople. I say what is left - because it isn’t Constantinople that is running the show, it’s more complicated then this.

I really don’t want to get into issues over Primacy, because Apostolic succession is the main point. Despite what you say that Eusebius’ account is ‘just one man’s opinion’, this is false. Again, Eusebius is the best history we have of this particular period in Church history. Toss him away and you’re tossing something we cannot replace. Sure, he could be wrong, but the evidence is quite strong in favour of the Roman position of an unbroken succession. The Orthodox do not dispute this either, merely asserting that the issue isn’t Rome, but that they too have an unbroken succession through the same bishops.

Also - we should use the originals of Origen rather than that particular site, since we do have them and they are available...

I really don’t want to get into issues over Primacy, because Apostolic succession is the main point. Despite what you say that Eusebius’ account is ‘just one man’s opinion’, this is false. Again, Eusebius is the best history we have of this particular period in Church history. Toss him away and you’re tossing something we cannot replace. Sure, he could be wrong, but the evidence is quite strong in favour of the Roman position of an unbroken succession. The Orthodox do not dispute this either, merely asserting that the issue isn’t Rome, but that they too have an unbroken succession through the same bishops.

I don't dispute the idea of "Apostolic Succession" either, as long as it is understood to mean a succession of doctrine and not some automatic accreditation of persons. This link gives a good explanation for that process:

So far, so good? Protestants and Catholics agree to this point. The next step is that the Apostles passed on their faith to others. Easy enough. The Apostles commissioned others to be leaders and authorities in the church. They handed over the faith to followers, like Timothy, who were approved in both their life and teaching. This created a succession of faith and teaching. They would often call this “laying on of hands.” With this “system” in place, the church maintained a safeguard against rogue expressions of the Christian faith. This is why Paul warned about commissioning people too hastily (1 Tim. 5:22).

Again, to this point both Protestants and Catholics agree. We need to pass on the faith. We need to commission others that have been approved. There needs to be accountability. However, the departure comes when we begin to define not only what this succession of authority is, but what it does. Again, we agree that it is the duty of the church to pass on the faith once for all handed to the saints (Jude 3). We agree that the church is the “pillar of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). We also agree that all in this succession are saints and a part of the church. However, Catholics believe that in order for this succession to be valid, it has to be seen as primarily a succession in person. Protestants, on the other hand, believe that the primary issue involved it is a succession in teaching, doctrine, and practice. Therefore, Roman Catholics focus on the one to whom the succession is given, while Protestants focus on the teaching and doctrine itself, believing that the person who receives the succession is instrumental, not integral.

Therefore, in essence, for the Roman Catholic, the persons in succession define the Gospel and make up the institutional church which presides over the Gospel. Hence, Catholics have the Pope and the magisterium of bishops (as represented by the fellows in the graph that follow the apostles). For the Protestant, on the other hand, it is the other way around. Only to the degree that the person is in succession with right teaching are they in apostolic succession. A hasty “laying on of hands” is possible, and can damage both the doctrine and reputation of the church.

This is why Protestants are continually going back to the source – the Bible – for final authority (sola Scriptura) and why Roman Catholics are continually going to the institution for final authority.

But there is one more way in which the chasm is further widened between Roman Catholics and Protestants with regard to the issue of apostolic succession. For the Roman Catholic, in order for this institution to have ultimate authority, it must possess the gift of infallibility. For the Protestant, the person upon whom the hands are laid (along with the institution, which is made up of a bunch of fellas upon whom hands have been laid) is fallible. Only the Apostles’ teaching is not. For the Protestant, apostolic succession is a safeguard to the Gospel, but it must be continually tested by the Scriptures.

“This is why Protestants are continually going back to the source – the Bible – for final authority (sola Scriptura) and why Roman Catholics are continually going to the institution for final authority.”

Nonsense. Protestants accept plenty of doctrine from the Catholic church and the priests and bishops therein. Nicaea, Chalcedon, First and Second Constantinople. No bible there and all are fully accepted by the protestant church.

Also, Protestants refuse to use the first bible ever printed. So they don’t really use the bible at all.

“Nonsense. Protestants accept plenty of doctrine from the Catholic church and the priests and bishops therein.”

Your statement is fraught with fatal ambiguity. We “accept” as binding only those doctrines which can be confirmed from Scripture. All that means is that two readers of the Scripture, one Catholic, and one Protestant, can arrive at the same conclusions regarding the text. The Bible teaches the Trinity. It does not teach transubstantiation, not as Aquinas formulated it and not as Trent anathematized the rejection of it.

Therefore, all such “acceptances” need to be specifically qualified. Was it there in the Bible, from the moment it was penned? Or was it invented at a later time and anachronistically read back into the text without actual justification in the text? We do not “accept” the latter, though in non-controversial matters that do no harm to Biblical truth we are willing to consider any reasonable insights. But extra-Biblical speculations are not binding on the conscience of the Christian, and are to be rejected by the Christian when they clearly run counter to the sense of the Biblical text.

You see, part of the problem is something you cited way back at the beginning. People in these debates often bring in preconceived notions of what the other side believes, and these are often convenient oversimplifications, mere foils to be attacked. It’s human nature to oversimplify. It’s even a good thing in many cases.

But here it is doing harm to the cause of understanding. Sola Scriptura is like a campaign slogan. It is a Reformation sound bite, designed to quickly convey a major difference with the competition, but NOT intended to convey the entire, full-orbed sense of the Protestant approach to divine revelation. Protestants do not exclude the idea that we can learn from the patristics, or from secular historians, or science. We do not exclude the prerogative of Christ to set up teachers with a special gift for illuminating and communicating His word to His people.

But we do set the Scripture first in line in deciding what that truth is. You mentioned earlier the analogy to the US Constitution and how precedent law has developed from it. I agree the analogy is instructive, but not for the reasons you suggest. I have studied more than my fair share of federal case law, and I can tell you with confidence that in a number of areas, the authorial intent of the writers of our Constitution has been utterly lost to the whims of modernity, and that loss has occurred due to giving more weight to recent precedent than to the plain sense of the original text.

The Commerce Clause is a good case in point. The Founders never intended it to become a blank check by which to insert federal control over nearly every private transaction. Being mere mortals, they never imagined how cleverly our political class would, over a long period of time, use precedent law to exploit the gray areas and enhance their own authority until they could basically rewrite the clear Constitutional doctrines into whatever muddle they desired.

Do you agree with Roe v Wade? You no doubt want it overturned, as do I. But its existence is an argument AGAINST precedent as binding over against the plain sense of the Constitutional text, which invests in mere mortals no such power to destroy innocent human life.

This is why the Reformers and all good Christians who came before them navigate to the north star of Scripture. In a galaxy of fluctuating and fallible human opinion, it remains ever true, ever constant. And it was so from the first moments after the ink began drying, even during those earliest days when it had not all been collected into one place for universal distribution. The patristic writers relied upon it so heavily that nearly the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings.

And who were these early Christians feeding so intensely on God’s word. A single assembly in Rome? No, it was happening all over, wherever God was making Christians, the apostolic message was close at hand. There are even physical fragments of the Gospels that date to within the first generation of believers. Those believers were a people of the Book from day one.

The assertion that all things Christian issued from a particular First Century Roman assembly, identifiable by modern Roman dogma, including claims of infallibility and universal jurisdiction, is ahistorical nonsense, a bizarre reversal of history, reading uniquely modern Roman dogma back into a primordial period where it cannot be shown to exist at all. These First Century believers in Jesus were the Proto-Christians, the universal stem cell from which all other believers are spiritually descended, and they had and used their Proto-Bible as the preeminent source of divine truth, just as all their modern descendants do.

Any thoughts on Honorius yet?

BTW, I have another question for you. Which of these two statements is true, in your fallible opinion?:

*******************************
1) From Vatican I, Session 3, Canons 2.4:

“If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema.” Available at http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6.

2) From Vatican II, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, Proclaimed by his Holiness Pope Paul VI, on October 28, 1965, Section 3:

“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

“Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.” Available at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

*********************

While I can’t be infallibly certain, I’m pretty sure the Islamists don’t follow the Christian canon. So are they anathema, or are they “esteemed?” Can you be both? What then would “anathema” really mean? And do the writers really mean to say the Allah of pagan origin is the same God as the Christian God? The Distant and Unknowable Kismet versus the Father Who proclaims of Jesus, “This is My Son?” The same God? Really?

Well, while you’re pondering that, you might also wish to consider these two statements. Which of these is true?:

***************************
1) From Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 2.5:

“Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.” Available at http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6.

2) From Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen, Gentium, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI, on November 21, 1964

15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

Available at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

**************************************************************

So what are we then, who deny Perpetual Petrine Supremacy? Anathema? Or “United with Christ?” I think even Aquinas’ Aristotle might have trouble with that, being a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Peace,

SR

Great link! Very interesting and helpful analysis.

BTW, forgot to ping you to #234. Check it out.

Peace,

SR

“Your statement is fraught with fatal ambiguity. We “accept” as binding only those doctrines which can be confirmed from Scripture.”

Where does Scripture confirm Ephesus, Nicaea and First and Second Constantinople?

“The Bible teaches the Trinity. It does not teach transubstantiation, not as Aquinas formulated it and not as Trent anathematized the rejection of it.”

Scripture does say that unless you eat of the blood and body of Christ that you have no life in you. Why don’t protestants require the eucharist to be performed at every service, if Christ did in fact teach this to be true?

“But extra-Biblical speculations are not binding on the conscience of the Christian, and are to be rejected by the Christian when they clearly run counter to the sense of the Biblical text.”

Again, you do not know your own history. Look up the first four ecumenical councils. Protestants accept them to be true. You cite Trent yet ignore the first four? Why?

“People in these debates often bring in preconceived notions of what the other side believes”

Exactly so. You have beliefs as to what the Catholic church teaches that are not so.

“But we do set the Scripture first in line in deciding what that truth is.”

Then why don’t you use the Vulgate if you sincerely believe in scripture over tradition?

“the authorial intent of the writers of our Constitution has been utterly lost to the whims of modernity, and that loss has occurred due to giving more weight to recent precedent than to the plain sense of the original text.”

And that is why I am arguing Protestants should use the Vulgate, the text that has been in existance from the fourth century over the text that they do use dating from the fifteenth.

“Do you agree with Roe v Wade? You no doubt want it overturned, as do I. But its existence is an argument AGAINST precedent as binding over against the plain sense of the Constitutional text, which invests in mere mortals no such power to destroy innocent human life.”

I believe as Dr. King believed, that Christians have the moral duty to defy bad laws. This includes Roe.

“This is why the Reformers and all good Christians who came before them navigate to the north star of Scripture.”

Ok. No, my concern is this. Suppose you ran across someone who considered themselves a strict constitutionalist, but the text of the constitution that they used lacked the 2nd and 10th amendments.

Would you consider such a person a ‘strict constitutionalist’? Why or why not?

“The assertion that all things Christian issued”

I did not advance said argument. Please stop casting about strawmen.

“These First Century believers in Jesus were the Proto-Christians, the universal stem cell from which all other believers are spiritually descended, and they had and used their Proto-Bible as the preeminent source of divine truth, just as all their modern descendants do.”

This is 100 percent myth. :) Show me a proto-bible! Where’s the evidence?

“So what are we then, who deny Perpetual Petrine Supremacy? Anathema? Or “United with Christ?” I think even Aquinas’ Aristotle might have trouble with that, being a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction.”

Again, I am not going to discuss Petrine Primacy with you before we’ve come to an understanding on Apostolic succession. It’s simply a pointless discussion. It’s like teaching someone calculus when they do not understand algebra.

Where does Scripture confirm Ephesus, Nicaea and First and Second Constantinople?

Circular. It’s like you didn’t read my last post. What Protestants do accept from those councils as binding they accept only because it can be backed up by Scripture. But whatever the councils produced that is not backed up by Scripture, while it may be edifying and informative, it isn’t binding.

Scripture does say that unless you eat of the blood and body of Christ that you have no life in you. Why don’t protestants require the eucharist to be performed at every service, if Christ did in fact teach this to be true?

If your understanding of John 6 is essentially materialistic and governed by the clever pseudo-Aristotelian scheme Aquinas invented to explain away the non-transformation of the wafer, then you are doing exactly what I spoke of before, anachronistically superimposing a doctrine on the text that as to its specifics was unheard of until about the 9th Century.

As to Protestant practice, you doubtless know the drill, but I will remind you that nothing in the text necessitates a materialistic interpretation (nor does it specify the periodicy), and there are clear signals in the text that the materialistic mindset of those to whom Jesus was speaking was interfering with the spiritual interpretation Jesus gave to His own words:

Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? [62] What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

So here’s the deal. We can go round and round on this until the Kingdom comes, and you aren’t going to be able to show a single Scriptural justification for why Trent should anathematize those who accept all the words of John but reject Aquinas’ use of substance and accidence in describing an event that never provably occurs. Not even old Aristotle would approve of Aquinas’ invention, as Aquinas perfectly inverts the original Greek sense of substance and accidence. This is more convoluted than epicycles, and can never bind the Christian conscience.

You cite Trent yet ignore the first four? Why?

Until this post, I did not cite Trent. Vatican I happened in the late 1800’s. And no matter which of these I do cite, you know perfectly well why I cite them. Infallibility is a heavy burden to bear. There can be no contradictions or the concept fails, and these are easy to show in the later councils.

The early councils were not relevant to infallibility or other late developing and uniquely Roman Catholic doctrines, but were closer in time to the Gospel advent and thus were focused more on doctrines that had their foundation in Scripture.

Indeed, but for the pugnacious Athanasius fighting the Arians nearly single handed, even against the bishop of Rome, the Church might have turned fully to that heresy. And Athanasius’ weapon of choice in the battle was Scripture, holding it preeminent even over the confused maneuvering of the bishop of Rome, who temporarily sided with the Arians.

And that is why I am arguing Protestants should use the Vulgate, the text that has been in existance from the fourth century over the text that they do use dating from the fifteenth.

The Byzantine Greek has an excellent pedigree. Why settle for a 4th Century translation when you can have something much closer to the autographs? But even if we accepted this arbitrary limitation, not even the Vulgate would support uniquely Roman dogma. Indeed, you think we are limited to the Textus Receptus, but even the TR was informed in many ways by Jerome’s fine work, and also the source of some textual errors that are cured by resort to the Byzantine textual tradition.

But because we make no presumption that any local assembly in Rome had any special claim to preference, adopting a particular translation product of that denomination is a decision that must stand on its own merits, and given the current state of scholarship, reverting to the Vulgate would be a retrograde decision.

[The Proto-Bible] is 100 percent myth. :) Show me a proto-bible! Where’s the evidence?

I think this is a definitional problem more than an evidence problem. Surely you agree the Gospels and epistles were written by the authors for which they are named. Paul’s letters were written by Paul. John wrote a Gospel and some epistles. Matthew and Mark and Luke wrote Gospels. Physical fragments of these documents do exist and some of them are apparently First Century products. See http://ancientroadpublications.com/Studies/BiblicalStudies/FirstCenturyMSS.html

But I surmise this is not your problem. I suspect rather that you are again engaging in circular reasoning, this time that because only Rome’s product could serve as a proper Bible, Rome must be the only true church, because it produced the only legitimate Bible. Can you see the circle there? I can. A nice, tight, self-serving little circle.

I did not advance said argument. [“The assertion that all things Christian issued”] Please stop casting about strawmen.

I have no interest in straw men. I sincerely don’t. I thought it was Rome’s position that all Christianity was or at least should be construed as under Rome from the first days of the Petrine See in Rome. Am I wrong in this? Isn’t this the entire basis of our disagreement? If not, why do you object to the existence of other Christian denominations? I am, not kidding, confused by your statement.

Suppose you ran across someone who considered themselves a strict constitutionalist, but the text of the constitution that they used lacked the 2nd and 10th amendments.

Well, that would concern me, but it would concern me more to find someone with a complete Constitution having, I dunno, say 57 Amendments, and who considered all of them equally authoritative and original, even though there was substantial evidence that some of them were forgeries.

I believe as Dr. King believed, that Christians have the moral duty to defy bad laws. This includes Roe.

And I believe, as Luther and Calvin did, that Christians have a moral duty to defy bad theological precedents that have no grounding in the Christian’s real Constitution, the Scriptures.

Again, I am not going to discuss Petrine Primacy with you before we’ve come to an understanding on Apostolic succession. It’s simply a pointless discussion. It’s like teaching someone calculus when they do not understand algebra.

Nice sidestep, a condescending pat on the head rather than an attempt to reconcile a clear challenge to infallibility. The question is more basic that you’re making it out to be. Are Protestants who reject the uniquely Roman view of Peter anathema, per Vatican I, or united with Christ, per Vatican II?

BTW, I have family who can do way more than calculus, real rocket scientists, and I can tell you, by comparison, what we’re talking about here isn’t rocket science. If your system of assumptions works, you should be able to explain the glaring conflicts between Vatican I and II, like you should have been able to tell me whether your decision to follow Rome was infallible, and like you should be able to give me something better than crickets on the heretical Pope Honorius.

Peace,

SR

“Circular. It’s like you didn’t read my last post. What Protestants do accept from those councils as binding they accept only because it can be backed up by Scripture.”

Not so. They are authoritative because they are Church Councils. The only thing backing them is the magisterium and the pope.

“If your understanding of John 6 is essentially materialistic”

John 6 goes on to say, “how can this man give us his flesh to eat”. So yes. Jesus wants us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. That is why he says, *I* am the mana in the desert. *I* am the living bread come down from heaven.

This is all acripture, yet you do not accept it. Why?

“pseudo-Aristotelian scheme Aquinas invented”

As opposed to what Luther invented? I’m sorry but Aquinas came first. Scripture is pretty clear that Christ wants us to eat his flesh and drink of his blood. This is a hard teaching, and people are still trying to explain it all away today.

So you aren’t really a sola scripturist after all. You’re a Protestant bound by 15th century tradition of Luther.

“anachronistically superimposing a doctrine on the text that as to its specifics was unheard of until about the 15th Century.”

You’re correct. That’s exactly what you’re doing. I fixed this for you.

“So here’s the deal. We can go round and round on this”

Or you can simply admit ath you elevate protestant tradition over the authority of scripture. :)

“Scriptural justification for why Trent should anathematize those who accept all the words of John but reject Aquinas’ use of substance and accidence in describing an event that never provably occurs.”

Show me evidence for this position prior to Luther.

“Until this post, I did not cite Trent. Vatican I happened in the late 1800’s. And no matter which of these I do cite”

It does matter. You’re citing the evidence that you believe supports your case, while ignoring the evidence that demonstrates your case to be false. It’s the same church that decided Chalcedon as Trent.

“Infallibility is a heavy burden to bear. There can be no contradictions or the concept fails, and these are easy to show in the later councils.”

This is bad logic. You’re saying, “we can accept what we do like and reject that which we don’t like. We can pick and choose doctrines. This is why Protestants are adopting homosexuality and supporting abortion. :)

“The early councils were not relevant to infallibility”

Yes, they are relevant, as they are infalliable Church declarations, just like the rest of the councils.

“closer in time to the Gospel advent and thus were focused more on doctrines that had their foundation in Scripture.”

So IOW, you like the label, “Now with less Rome than before, but don’t worry, we still have lots of Rome.”

“Athanasius fighting the Arians nearly single handed, even against the bishop of Rome, the Church might have turned fully to that heresy. And Athanasius’ weapon of choice in the battle was Scripture, holding it preeminent even over the confused maneuvering of the bishop of Rome, who temporarily sided with the Arians.”

“Rome when we like it, not-Rome when we don’t”

Athanasius wasn’t a protestant, sir. :)

“The Byzantine Greek has an excellent pedigree. Why settle for a 4th Century translation”

Fine, then we use the Codex Vaticanus. It still doesn’t explain why you use Luther’s canon.

“and also the source of some textual errors that are cured by resort to the Byzantine textual tradition.”

TR dates back to the ninth century, a full 6 centuries later than Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. And none of them use a canon invented in the 15th century. :) If they don’t, why do you?

“reverting to the Vulgate would be a retrograde decision.”

So explain to me why, if we would want to use the source closest to Jesus, that you would use a Canon invented in the 15th century over the one in use from the fourth?

“Surely you agree the Gospels and epistles were written by the authors for which they are named.”

Some don’t have names attached to them. Hebrews for one. Yes, I agree that Paul wrote his letters, John, Matthew, Mark and Luke all wrote their Gospels and Luke wrote Acts as well. That’s what the Fathers of the Church say.

“engaging in circular reasoning”

So you cannot produce evidence of a proto-bible. Thank you. As I said, this is 100 percent myth. :) The earliest complete bibles that we do have are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and oddly enough, they do not use Luther’s canon. ;)

“I thought it was Rome’s position that all Christianity was or at least should be construed as under Rome from the first days of the Petrine See in Rome.”

Eusebius himself writes (same source for the Papal lists btw), that there are 5 patriarchal sees in his time. The first three in Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. The re-established one in Jerusalem (the first was destroyed in Bar Kochba, and restored by Juvenal in the 4th, and Constaninople, as elevated by Constantine.

Rome never writes that it is the sole source for Christianity. No, far from it. Petrine primacy asserts only that Peter was elevated beyond all the other 12. That is all, not that the other 11 did not exist.

“If not, why do you object to the existence of other Christian denominations?”

Who says I object? I am simply arguing that our division only goes back to the 15th century. I am arguing that we should all be one again, like we were prior and that the division is not the will of Christ. But, I would not insist that someone leave the Protestant church unless he were sincerely convicted of this fact.

“Well, that would concern me”

And that’s my concern. Your bibles throw out books of the bible for no other reason than the fact that Luther decided in the 15th century to do so. You said you are concerned about modernism? Well that is what happened in the 15th. Your statement earlier that “an event that never provably happens,” I can cite from Erasmus. That is where this idea comes from, sir.

“even though there was substantial evidence that some of them were forgeries.”

As always. Prove this is so. :)

“And I believe, as Luther and Calvin did, that Christians have a moral duty to defy bad theological precedents that have no grounding in the Christian’s real Constitution, the Scriptures.”

Including those of Luther himself?

“Nice sidestep, a condescending pat on the head rather than an attempt to reconcile a clear challenge to infallibility.”

If you disagree on Apostolic Succession, than you automatically disagree on infalliablity. Infalliability has apostolic succession as one of it’s premisses, just like Calculus has Algebra as one of it’s premisses. Ergo, one should first discuss apostolic succession before tackling infalliability.

“Are Protestants who reject the uniquely Roman view of Peter anathema, per Vatican I, or united with Christ, per Vatican II?”

Do you believe there is an unbroken succession of Popes and that the authority granted by Christ to St. Peter was handed down to them?

I appreciate all your efforts, and your desire to be right, but this latest post of yours puts us at an impasse. Each of your responses is one form or another of begging the question. You make it impossible to proceed with real analysis. Your first response is a good exemplar:

They are authoritative because they are Church Councils. The only thing backing them is the magisterium and the pope.

But the subject was not your opinion of why Protestants were largely in agreement with Nicaea et al, but why Protestants themselves consider the doctrines of those councils true, and you cannot speak to that without referring yourself to Protestant opinion, which you do not do. I do not think you have any interest in it. Your strategy appears to be this: plant a Roman flag in anything and everything, regardless of whether the thing so claimed is truly Roman (in modern terms), and then claim we Protestants got there too late. And if I allow you to define Protestantism in purely Roman terms, as nothing more than a breach from the Roman church in the 15th Century, how can you possibly lose with such a strategy?

And that of course means you really have no need of any Protestant to opine on anything. The matter has already been decided by Rome. We are just here to capitulate to Rome, with none of our serious questions answered (infallibility, Honorius, etc.), and none of our pre-15th Century history considered.

But if you presume Rome is the answer in the formation of the question, then the question is begged, the logic circular, and nothing accomplished. We are not here to capitulate. We do have serious questions that will not go away until meaningfully answered. And our history is fully intertwined with the history of the whole church, from the beginning, for Christians who believe as we now do have been present and active in the church from its inception.

Regarding councils, you plant your Roman flag in Athanasius and then tell us the reason we accept, for example, the deity of Christ, is simply because Nicaea said so. That’s not why we accept the doctrine, and it isn’t even why Athanasius accepts it:

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faiths sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.”
Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, NPNF, II, IV:453, Migne, PG, 26:689
“Yes, it behooved, say I too; for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources ; but the ill disposition and the versatile and crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his fellows, compelled the Bishops, as I said before, to publish more distinctly the terms which overthrew their irreligion; and what the Council did write has already been shown to have an orthodox sense, while the Arians have been shown to be corrupt in their phrases, and evil in their dispositions.”
Athanasius, De Decretis, 32, NPNF, Series II, IV:172, Migne, PG, 25:476.

There is more, but it will be enough to look at these. If Athanasius grounds his argument against the Arian with Scripture, then why is it wrong for Protestants, speaking their own mind and not the mind of Rome, to say they find not only merit in his argument, but a model for the Protestant use of Scripture? We see in Athanasius not a Roman but a Berean, for a person is what they do, not where they are from. We may rightly say of Athanasius what Spurgeon said of Bunyan, “Prick him anywhere, and he bleeds Bibline.”

“And your other, 'The Son was not before His generation,' is equivalent to saying, 'There was once when He was not,' for both the one and the other signify that there is a time before the Word. Whence then this your discovery? Why do you, as 'the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord and against His Christ.' for no holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather 'always' and 'eternal' and 'coexistent always with the Father.' For, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1.'”
Available at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm

And on and on he goes, one Scripture after another, blow after blow, till nothing of Arian’s delusions remain. I have used these same arguments in debate with modern Arians, and they are still as effective, not because of the vote in Nicaea, but because:

Heb 4:12 … the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Now I know you wish to claim Athanasius as an uncontested property of modern Rome, but Athanasius should not, by your own standards, be seen as Roman. I am sure you would consider a position on the Eucharist which deviates from the modern view of transubstantiation to be problematic, yes?

`For here also He has used both terms of Himself, flesh and spirit; and He distinguished the spirit from what is of the flesh in order that they might believe not only in what was visible in Him, but in what was invisible, and so understand that what He says is not fleshly, but spiritual. For for how many would the body suffice as food, for it to become meat even for the whole world? But this is why He mentioned the ascending of the Son of Man into heaven; namely, to draw them off from their corporeal idea, and that from thenceforth they might understand that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly from above, and spiritual meat, to be given at His hands. For `what I have said unto you,' says He, `is spirit and life;' as much as to say, `what is manifested, and to be given for the salvation of the world, is the flesh which I wear. But this, and the blood from it, shall be given to you spiritually at My hands as meat, so as to be imparted spiritually in each one, and to become for all a preservative to resurrection of life eternal.'
Athanasius, ad Serap. iv. 19, concerning John 6:62-64

To which any Protestant could give a hearty Amen. Note carefully, he says “For for how many would the body suffice as food,” as though this was a problem, and you confuse me to no end when you appear here to agree, not with Jesus, but with his poor confused, materialistic audience, who are trying to figure out how Jesus means to make his body into literal, corporeal food for them:

John 6 goes on to say, “how can this man give us his flesh to eat”. So yes. Jesus wants us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

But that is adverse to what Athanasius says above, that Christ seeks to “draw them off from their corporeal idea,” and instead to view his flesh and his blood as “spiritual meat,” “imparted spiritually in each one.” This language of distinction between the corporeal and the spiritual is perfectly conformed to the Protestant belief in the spiritual presence, but is entirely incompatible with transubstantiation as formulated by Aquinas. And Athanasius came well before Aquinas.

And here you lose me completely:

As opposed to what Luther invented? I’m sorry but Aquinas came first.

I’m sorry, but Aquinas, though he did come before Luther, came well after Jesus and John, Augustine, and Athanasius, to mention only a few, all of whom distinguish the spiritual from the corporeal, in a manner compatible with Protestant understanding.

By contrast, the entire point of transubstantiation is the opposite, to permanently and pathologically conflate the spiritual with the corporeal, in opposition to the clear words of Christ, in an amazing leap beyond anything dreamed of during the patristic period. Indeed, transubstantiation is a doctrine no one had heard of before the 9th Century AD, when Paschasius Radbertus, a monastic from Corbey, France, published his book, “On the Body and Blood of the Lord.” It would later fall to Aquinas to fine tune the theory, adding the Greek concepts of accidence and substance to explain how the elements of the Eucharist could be corporeally the body of Christ and only seem to be bread and wine.

And if you doubt my assertion that Aquinian transubstantiation is a vicious and unholy conflation of the spiritual and the corporeal, in that the corporeal swallows the spiritual whole, reflecting a materialistic rather than a spiritual mindset, consider this:

"Even though a mouse or a dog were to eat the consecrated host, the substance of Christ’s body would not cease to be under the species, so long as those species remain, and that is, so long as the substance of bread would have remained; just as if it were to be cast into the mire. Nor does this turn to any indignity regarding Christ’s body, since He willed to be crucified by sinners without detracting from His dignity; especially since the mouse or dog does not touch Christ’s body in its proper species, but only as to its sacramental species."
(Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part Three, Question 80, Article 3, RO3).

So what does this mean? If Athanasius is not Aquinas on the Eucharist, is he still Roman enough for you? You roundly condemn Protestants as unfaithful to Scripture for holding positions common to Christians up till Nicaea, yet you claim these early believers, who don’t believe as you do on this critical doctrine, are proof of the antiquity of Roman doctrines of which they had never heard. It really makes no sense.

And will you also disown Augustine?

"But doth the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.”. . .It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.”. . .But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood."
(Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, Psalm 99, Section 8).

We could press on and on, but the hour is late, and I am not a young man. This will have to do for now. Suffice it to say that your arguments all alike proceed from the tacit assumption that modern Rome owns the original copyright on all the key creations of early Christianity, when in fact the Rome you think you see there in the shadows of the first three centuries did not come into being until much later, as evidenced by the late innovation of transubstantiation and other such doctrines for which there is no primary evidence from the proto-Christian era, though there is much evidence for the existence and use of the Scriptures during that same period, despite your claims to the contrary.

My point is this. I would love to keep going with you, and if I had no other obligations, I probably would. But your responses thus far have given me no hope of a conversation in which fundamental assumptions can be reached and challenged. I have been through this before. I know it can be painful. I have been an atheist, a practitioner of eastern meditation, a flagrant rebel sinner, and a prodigal son returning to his Father and finding grace. I know it is possible to talk about these things in a way that deals honestly with those assumptions. I don’t believe we are there yet. I should probably be spending my time in other pursuits. I bear you no ill will, and I have enjoyed talking with you, but I cannot spend the rest of my natural days chasing the circle of your argument for Rome. There is no profit in it. Maybe in the future.

Peace,

SR