Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine
Is God a Trinity? ^ | Various | Various

Posted on 04/15/2013 5:06:15 PM PDT by DouglasKC

The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine

Few understand how the Trinity doctrine came to be accepted - several centuries after the Bible was completed! Yet its roots go back much farther in history.

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

Most people assume that everything that bears the label "Christian" must have originated with Jesus Christ and His early followers. But this is definitely not the case. All we have to do is look at the words of Jesus Christ and His apostles to see that this is clearly not true.

The historical record shows that, just as Jesus and the New Testament writers foretold, various heretical ideas and teachers rose up from within the early Church and infiltrated it from without. Christ Himself warned His followers: "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name . . . and will deceive many" (Matthew 24:4-5).

You can read many similar warnings in other passages (such as Matthew 24:11; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 2 Timothy 4:2-4; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 1 John 2:18-19, 26; 4:1-3).

Barely two decades after Christ's death and resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote that many believers were already "turning away . . . to a different gospel" (Galatians 1:6). He wrote that he was forced to contend with "false apostles, deceitful workers" who were fraudulently "transforming themselves into apostles of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:13). One of the major problems he had to deal with was "false brethren" (verse 26).

By late in the first century, as we see from 3 John 9-10, conditions had grown so dire that false ministers openly refused to receive representatives of the apostle John and were excommunicating true Christians from the Church!

Of this troubling period Edward Gibbon, the famed historian, wrote in his classic work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire of a "dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church" (1821, Vol. 2, p. 111). It wasn't long before true servants of God became a marginalized and scattered minority among those calling themselves Christian. A very different religion, now compromised with many concepts and practices rooted in ancient paganism (such mixing of religious beliefs being known as syncretism, common in the Roman Empire at the time), took hold and transformed the faith founded by Jesus Christ.

Historian Jesse Hurlbut says of this time of transformation: "We name the last generation of the first century, from 68 to 100 A.D., 'The Age of Shadows,' partly because the gloom of persecution was over the church, but more especially because of all the periods in the [church's] history, it is the one about which we know the least. We have no longer the clear light of the Book of Acts to guide us; and no author of that age has filled the blank in the history . . ."For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul" ( The Story of the Christian Church, 1970, p. 33).

This "very different" church would grow in power and influence, and within a few short centuries would come to dominate even the mighty Roman Empire! By the second century, faithful members of the Church, Christ's "little flock" (Luke 12:32), had largely been scattered by waves of deadly persecution. They held firmly to the biblical truth about Jesus Christ and God the Father, though they were persecuted by the Roman authorities as well as those who professed Christianity but were in reality teaching "another Jesus" and a "different gospel" (2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:6-9).

Different ideas about Christ's divinity lead to conflict

This was the setting in which the doctrine of the Trinity emerged. In those early decades after Jesus Christ's ministry, death and resurrection, and spanning the next few centuries, various ideas sprang up as to His exact nature. Was He man? Was He God? Was He God appearing as a man? Was He an illusion? Was He a mere man who became God? Was He created by God the Father, or did He exist eternally with the Father?

All of these ideas had their proponents. The unity of belief of the original Church was lost as new beliefs, many borrowed or adapted from pagan religions, replaced the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Let us be clear that when it comes to the intellectual and theological debates in those early centuries that led to the formulation of the Trinity, the true Church was largely absent from the scene, having been driven underground. (See the chapter "The Rise of a Counterfeit Christianity " in our free booklet The Church Jesus Built for an overview of this critical period.).

For this reason, in that stormy period we often see debates not between truth and error, but between one error and a different error— a fact seldom recognized by many modern scholars yet critical for our understanding.

A classic example of this was the dispute over the nature of Christ that led the Roman emperor Constantine the Great to convene the Council of Nicaea (in modern-day western Turkey) in A.D. 325.

Constantine, although held by many to be the first "Christian" Roman Emperor, was actually a sun-worshiper who was only baptized on his deathbed. During his reign he had his eldest son and his wife murdered. He was also vehemently anti-Semitic, referring in one of his edicts to "the detestable Jewish crowd" and "the customs of these most wicked men"—customs that were in fact rooted in the Bible and practiced by Jesus and the apostles.

As emperor in a period of great tumult within the Roman Empire, Constantine was challenged with keeping the empire unified. He recognized the value of religion in uniting his empire. This was, in fact, one of his primary motivations in accepting and sanctioning the "Christian" religion (which, by this time, had drifted far from the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles and was Christian in name only)

. But now Constantine faced a new challenge. Religion researcher Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God that "one of the first problems that had to be solved was the doctrine of God . . . a new danger arose from within which split Christians into bitterly warring camps" (1993, p. 106).

Debate over the nature of God at the Council of Nicaea

Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 as much for political reasons—for unity in the empire—as religious ones. The primary issue at that time came to be known as the Arian controversy.

"In the hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing body of Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was to his interest to have the church vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop Hosius, who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet representing the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to restore harmony.

"Constantine himself of course neither knew nor cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius' advice appealed to him as sound" (Arthur Cushman McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, 1954, Vol. 1, p. 258).

Arius, a priest from Alexandria, Egypt, taught that Christ, because He was the Son of God, must have had a beginning and therefore was a special creation of God. Further, if Jesus was the Son, the Father of necessity must be older. Opposing the teachings of Arius was Athanasius, a deacon also from Alexandria. His view was an early form of Trinitarianism wherein the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one but at the same time distinct from each other.

The decision as to which view the church council would accept was to a large extent arbitrary. Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God: "When the bishops gathered at Nicaea on May 20, 325, to resolve the crisis, very few would have shared Athanasius's view of Christ. Most held a position midway between Athanasius and Arius" (p. 110).

As emperor, Constantine was in the unusual position of deciding church doctrine even though he was not really a Christian. (The following year is when he had both his wife and son murdered, as previously mentioned).

Historian Henry Chadwick attests, "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun" ( The Early Church, 1993, p. 122). As to the emperor's embrace of Christianity, Chadwick admits, "His conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear" (p. 125).

Chadwick does say that Constantine's deathbed baptism itself "implies no doubt about his Christian belief," it being common for rulers to put off baptism to avoid accountability for things like torture and executing criminals (p. 127). But this justification doesn't really help the case for the emperor's conversion being genuine.

Norbert Brox, a professor of church history, confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian: "Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god . . . At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)" ( A Concise History of the Early Church, 1996, p. 48).

When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination" (1971 edition, Vol. 6, "Constantine," p. 386).

With the emperor's approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius—also a minority view. The church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicaea to endorse a belief held by only a minority of those attending.

The groundwork for official acceptance of the Trinity was now laid—but it took more than three centuries after Jesus Christ's death and resurrection for this unbiblical teaching to emerge!

Nicene decision didn't end the debate

The Council of Nicaea did not end the controversy. Karen Armstrong explains: "Athanasius managed to impose his theology on the delegates . . . with the emperor breathing down their necks . . .

"The show of agreement pleased Constantine, who had no understanding of the theological issues, but in fact there was no unanimity at Nicaea. After the council, the bishops went on teaching as they had before, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain imperial favor. Athanasius was exiled no fewer than five times. It was very difficult to make his creed stick" (pp. 110-111).

The ongoing disagreements were at times violent and bloody. Of the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea, noted historian Will Durant writes, "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome" ( The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8). Atrociously, while claiming to be Christian many believers fought and slaughtered one another over their differing views of God!

Of the following decades, Professor Harold Brown, cited earlier, writes: "During the middle decades of this century, from 340 to 380, the history of doctrine looks more like the history of court and church intrigues and social unrest . . . The central doctrines hammered out in this period often appear to have been put through by intrigue or mob violence rather than by the common consent of Christendom led by the Holy Spirit" (p. 119).

Debate shifts to the nature of the Holy Spirit

Disagreements soon centered around another issue, the nature of the Holy Spirit. In that regard, the statement issued at the Council of Nicaea said simply, "We believe in the Holy Spirit." This "seemed to have been added to Athanasius's creed almost as an afterthought," writes Karen Armstrong. "People were confused about the Holy Spirit. Was it simply a synonym for God or was it something more?" (p. 115).

Professor Ryrie, also cited earlier,writes, "In the second half of the fourth century, three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor [today central Turkey] gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity" (p. 65). They proposed an idea that was a step beyond Athanasius' view—that God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit were coequal and together in one being, yet also distinct from one another.

These men—Basil, bishop of Caesarea, his brother Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus—were all "trained in Greek philosophy" (Armstrong, p. 113), which no doubt affected their outlook and beliefs (see "Greek Philosophy's Influence on the Trinity Doctrine," beginning on page 14).

In their view, as Karen Armstrong explains, "the Trinity only made sense as a mystical or spiritual experience . . . It was not a logical or intellectual formulation but an imaginative paradigm that confounded reason. Gregory of Nazianzus made this clear when he explained that contemplation of the Three in One induced a profound and overwhelming emotion that confounded thought and intellectual clarity.

"'No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Three than I am carried back into the One. When I think of any of the Three, I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me'" (p. 117). Little wonder that, as Armstrong concludes, "For many Western Christians . . . the Trinity is simply baffling" (ibid.).

Ongoing disputes lead to the Council of Constantinople

In the year 381, 44 years after Constantine's death, Emperor Theodosius the Great convened the Council of Constantinople (today Istanbul, Turkey) to resolve these disputes. Gregory of Nazianzus, recently appointed as archbishop of Constantinople, presided over the council and urged the adoption of his view of the Holy Spirit.

Historian Charles Freeman states: "Virtually nothing is known of the theological debates of the council of 381, but Gregory was certainly hoping to get some acceptance of his belief that the Spirit was consubstantial with the Father [meaning that the persons are of the same being, as substance in this context denotes individual quality].

"Whether he dealt with the matter clumsily or whether there was simply no chance of consensus, the 'Macedonians,' bishops who refused to accept the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, left the council . . . Typically, Gregory berated the bishops for preferring to have a majority rather than simply accepting 'the Divine Word' of the Trinity on his authority" ( A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State, 2008, p. 96).

Gregory soon became ill and had to withdraw from the council. Who would preside now? "So it was that one Nectarius, an elderly city senator who had been a popular prefect in the city as a result of his patronage of the games, but who was still not a baptized Christian, was selected . . . Nectarius appeared to know no theology, and he had to be initiated into the required faith before being baptized and consecrated" (Freeman, pp. 97-98).

Bizarrely, a man who up to this point wasn't a Christian was appointed to preside over a major church council tasked with determining what it would teach regarding the nature of God!

The Trinity becomes official doctrine

The teaching of the three Cappadocian theologians "made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture" ( The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, "God," p. 568).

The council adopted a statement that translates into English as, in part: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages . . . And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets . . ." The statement also affirmed belief "in one holy, catholic [meaning in this context universal, whole or complete] and apostolic Church . . ."

With this declaration in 381, which would become known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Trinity as generally understood today became the official belief and teaching concerning the nature of God.

Theology professor Richard Hanson observes that a result of the council's decision "was to reduce the meanings of the word 'God' from a very large selection of alternatives to one only," such that "when Western man today says 'God' he means the one, sole exclusive [Trinitarian] God and nothing else" ( Studies in Christian Antiquity, 1985,pp. 243-244).

Thus, Emperor Theodosius—who himself had been baptized only a year before convening the council—was, like Constantine nearly six decades earlier, instrumental in establishing major church doctrine. As historian Charles Freeman notes: "It is important to remember that Theodosius had no theological background of his own and that he put in place as dogma a formula containing intractable philosophical problems of which he would have been unaware. In effect, the emperor's laws had silenced the debate when it was still unresolved" (p. 103).

Other beliefs about the nature of God banned

Now that a decision had been reached, Theodosius would tolerate no dissenting views. He issued his own edict that read: "We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but (who affirm) the order of the Trinity by recognizing the Persons and uniting the Godhead" (quoted by Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223).

Another edict from Theodosius went further in demanding adherence to the new teaching: "Let us believe the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles [assemblies] the name of churches.

"They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and the second the punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of Heaven, shall decide to inflict" (reproduced in Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, editor, 1967, p. 22).

Thus we see that a teaching that was foreign to Jesus Christ, never taught by the apostles and unknown to the other biblical writers, was locked into place and the true biblical revelation about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was locked out. Any who disagreed were, in accordance with the edicts of the emperor and church authorities, branded heretics and dealt with accordingly. Trinity doctrine decided by trial and error.

This unusual chain of events is why theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson would summarize the story in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith by noting that the adoption of the Trinity doctrine came as a result of "a process of theological exploration which lasted at least three hundred years . . . In fact it was a process of trial and error (almost of hit and miss), in which the error was by no means all confined to the unorthodox . . . It would be foolish to represent the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as having been achieved by any other way" (1980, p. 172).

They then conclude: "This was a long, confused, process whereby different schools of thought in the Church worked out for themselves, and then tried to impose on others, their answer to the question, 'How divine is Jesus Christ?' . . . If ever there was a controversy decided by the method of trial and error, it was this one" (p. 175).

Anglican churchman and Oxford University lecturer K.E. Kirk revealingly writes of the adoption of the doctrine of the Trinity: "The theological and philosophical vindication of the divinity of the Spirit begins in the fourth century; we naturally turn to the writers of that period to discover what grounds they have for their belief. To our surprise, we are forced to admit that they have none . . .

"This failure of Christian theology . . . to produce logical justification of the cardinal point in its trinitarian doctrine is of the greatest possible significance. We are forced, even before turning to the question of the vindication of the doctrine by experience, to ask ourselves whether theology or philosophy has ever produced any reasons why its belief should be Trinitarian" ("The Evolution of the Doctrine of the Trinity," published in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, A.E.J. Rawlinson, editor, 1928, pp. 221-222). Why believe a teaching that isn't biblical?

This, in brief, is the amazing story of how the doctrine of the Trinity came to be introduced—and how those who refused to accept it came to be branded as heretics or unbelievers.

But should we really base our view of God on a doctrine that isn't spelled out in the Bible, that wasn't formalized until three centuries after the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles, that was debated and argued for decades (not to mention for centuries since), that was imposed by religious councils presided over by novices or nonbelievers and that was "decided by the method of trial and error"?

Of course not. We should instead look to the Word of God—not to ideas of men—to see how our Creator reveals Himself!


TOPICS: General Discusssion; History; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: god; jesus; origins; trinity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560561-580 next last
To: count-your-change; kosciusko51
This teaching of a triune god didn’t come from the Apostles so it was taught in error. Which is not surprising, this Jesus foretold. (Matt. 13:26)

In order to not only say that but believe it is a true statement, one would have to totally ignore ALL the Scripture passages that have been posted in this thread so far. The teaching of the triune God was a doctrine ALWAYS believed and held to by the earliest Christians until this very day. The false doctrines followed afterward that denied Jesus is Almighty God in the flesh - the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity - and/or that the Holy Spirit is not the third person of the triune God. If not for the Scriptures - written by and distributed under the authority of the Apostles - then it would NOT have been a universally-held doctrine of Christians. Besides, it's not just a few nebulous verses we are talking about here but numerous references throughout both the Old and New Testament books.

Now, people can choose to ignore those Scriptures or quibble over their clear interpretation, but no one can honestly state the doctrine was not found in Scripture WRITTEN UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

521 posted on 04/22/2013 5:06:38 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Well said! It takes a certain amount of humility to admit that we cannot save ourselves nor that “our” selected church is the ONLY true way to salvation. In God’s economy, it is HIS way, the narrow path, or the highway which is the BROAD one that leads to destruction.


522 posted on 04/22/2013 5:21:23 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Thank you for your frank opinions, all those caps are not needed though, I can still read the regular type...really.

Buying a couple of interlinears may be of help to you in your studies since the Scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek.

The doctrine of the trinity with it's definitions cannot be explained from Scripture but I freely invite you to take that definition of God and explain it.

523 posted on 04/22/2013 6:18:24 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51; Natural Law

“Unfortunately, the cults are right when they say errors have crept into the church.”

what can i say, i am speechless. thank you for making my point for me.

care to name a doctrine the ECF’s added to the teaching of the Apostle’s in the 2nd and 3rd century and where were the “true” Christians to resist this unbiblical doctrine?


524 posted on 04/22/2013 7:03:31 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; Greetings_Puny_Humans; kosciusko51; metmom

i am with you, let’s all hold hands and sing kum ba ya, IF you can answer yes to the following two questions:

1. does the world believe that Jesus was sent by the Father?
2. does the world believe Jesus has loved them as the Father loves Him?

if the answer is yes, by all means stay outside the Church, being one with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is of no benefit.

HOWEVER - if the answer to the two questions above is NO, i would ask that you read and pray for understanding of what the will of God is as expressed in Jesus prayer in John 17 and St Paul’s appeal ( actually the Holy Spirit speaking thru Paul ) for unity in 1 Corinthians 1.

nothing will lead the unbeliever’s to Faith in Christ than the unity of those who claim to be follower’s of Jesus ( including His deity and the Trinity )

true unity needs to be centered on Jesus Christ Himself and as St Paul tells us, must be by partaking of the Eucharist:

1 Corinthians 10:17 “ because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread”


525 posted on 04/22/2013 7:24:04 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans; kosciusko51; boatbums; metmom

we undermine each other every day and lay the fertile ground for muslims and heretics to sow confusion and false teaching by rejecting the historical, orthodox Christian Faith for our own opinions.

if we aren’t one as the Father and Jesus are one, we are out of the will of God.


526 posted on 04/22/2013 7:29:12 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Apologetics Toolkit

Early Christians on the Holy Eucharist
contributed by Eric Ewanco

eje@world.std.com
[Some of these are duplicated in the main document on the Eucharist. Most are from William Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers.]

Clement of Rome (80 A.D.) in Corinthians 36:1 refers to the Eucharist as the ``offering of the gift.’’
St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians, 40:
Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (the Didache), 9:2; 14:1, circa 90 A.D.:
Regarding the Eucharist ... Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too, the saying of the Lord is applicable: Do not give to dogs what is sacred.
On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations. [Mal 1:11,14].

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.:
Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.:
Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.

Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century:
Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ

It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.’’ Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood’’, and he gave it to them alone.

The Sunday Assembly

Furthermore, after this we always remind one another of these things. Those who have the means aid those who are needy, and we are always united. Over everything which we take to ourselves we bless the Creator of the universe through His Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

On the day called after the sun [Sunday] there is a meeting for which all those dwelling in the cities or in the countryside come together. The records of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time allows. When the reader has stopped, the one who is presiding admonishes and encourages us by a sermon to the imitation of those good examples.

Then we all stand up together and lift up our prayers and, as I said previously, when we have finished our prayer, bread is brought forth and wine and water. The one who is presiding offers up prayers and thanksgiving according to his ability and the people acclaim their assent with ``Amen.’’ There is the distribution of and participation on the part of each one in the gifts for which thanks has been offered, and they are sent to those who are not present through the deacons.

We all come together on the day of the sun since it is the first day, on which God changed darkness and matter and made the world. On that day, Jesus Christ our Savior arose from the dead. They crucified him on the day preceding that of Saturn, and on the day of the sun he appeared to his Apostles and disciples and taught them these things which we have presented also to you for inspection.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, [5,2,2] 180 A.D.:
If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 180 A.D., 4,17,5:
Again, giving counsel to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits from among His creatures, not as if He needed them, but so that they themselves might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful, He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ``This is My Body.’’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His Blood.

He taught the the new sacrifice of the New Covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: ```You do not do my will,’ says the Lord Almighty, `and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offer to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the gentiles,’ says the Lord Almighty.’’ (Mal 1:11). By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to Him, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the gentiles.’’

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 18, 2, 180 A.D.:
It is not oblations as such that have met with disapproval. There were oblations of old; there are oblations now. There were sacrifices among the people of Israel; there are sacrifices in the Church. Only the kind of oblation has been changed: now it is offered by freemen, not by slaves. There is one and the same Lord, but the character of an oblation made by slaves is distinctive, so too that of an oblation made by sons: their oblations bear the mark of freedom.

We must make oblation to God, and in all things be found pleasing to God the Creator, in sound teaching, in sincere faith, in firm hope, in ardent love, as we offer the firstfruits of the creatures that are his. The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator when it makes its offering to him from his creation, with thanksgiving.

We offer him what is his, and so we proclaim communion and unity and profess our belief in the resurrection of flesh and spirit. Just as bread from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, made up of two elements, one earthly and one heavenly, so also our bodies, in receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, for they have the hope of resurrection.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, [5,2,2] 180 A.D.:
If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children [1,6,41,3] 202 A.D.:
When the loving and benevolent Father had rained down the Word, that Word then became the spiritual nourishment of those who have good sense. [42,1] O mystic wonder! the Father of all is indeed one, one also is the universal Word, and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere; and one is the Virgin Mother. I love to call her the Church. This Mother alone was without milk, because she alone did not become a wife. She is at once both Virgin and Mother: as Virgin, undefiled; as a Mother full of love.

Calling her children about her, she nourishes them with holy milk, that is with the Infant Word. . . . The Word is everything to a child: both the Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. `Eat My Flesh,’ He says, `and drink My Blood.’ the Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!

St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children [2,2,19,4] 202 A.D.:
The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His Immortality. the strength of the Word is the Spirit, just as the blood is the strength of the body. [20,1] Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, —of the drink and of the Word,—is called Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.

Tertullian’s The Resurrection of the Dead [8,2] A.D. 208-212:
The flesh, then, is washed, so that the soul may be made clean. The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded with the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. They cannot, then, be separated in their reward, when they are united in their works.

Tertullian [ca. 200/206 AD] in his treaties on Prayer [6,2], quotes John 6 in connection with a spiritual understanding of the Lord’s prayer “give us this day our daily bread.” In a spiritual sense Christ is our daily Bread, presumably because of the practice of the daily reception of the Eucharist.
Later in that same treatise [19,1] he writes;

Likewise, regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the sacrificial prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive the Body of the Lord. Does the Eucharist, then, obviate a work devoted to God, or does it bind it more to god? Will not your fast be more solemn if, in addition, you have stood at God’s altar? The body of the Lord having been received and reserved, each point is secured: both the participation in the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.
Regarding worship on the Lord’s Day Tertullian also writes; [The Crown [3,4] AD 211]:

We take anxious care lest something of our Cup of Bread should fall upon the ground.

Origen, Contra Celsum, 8:57:
We are not people with ungrateful hearts; it is true, we do not sacrifice ... to such beings who, far from bestowing their benefits upon us, are our enemies; but to God who has bestowed upon us an abundance of benefits ... we fear being ungrateful. The sign of this gratitude towards God is the bread called Eucharist.

Origen Homilies on Exodus 13,3:
I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know, when you received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercised every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. but if you observe such cation in keeping His Body, and properly so, how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?

St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Lord’s Prayer, 252 A.D., chapter 18:
As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we say ‘Our Father,’ because He is the Father of those who understand and believe, so too we say ‘our Bread,’ because Christ is the bread of those of us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: ‘I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, saying: ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.’ And so we petition that our bread, that is Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may not withdraw from His sanctification and body.

St. Cyprian, Letter of Cyprian to a Certain Magnus, 6 (76), 5; 255 A.D.:
Finally, the sacrifices of the Lord proclaim the unity of Christians, bound together by the bond of a firm and inviolable charity. For when the Lord, in speaking of bread which is produced by the compacting of many grains of wheat, refers to it as His Body, He is describing our people whose unity He has sustained, and when He refers to wine pressed from many grapes and berries, as His Blood, He is speaking of our flock, formed by the fusing of many united together.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.:
`I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc. [1 Cor 11:23]’. This teaching of the Blessed Paul is alone sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, which when ye are vouchsafed, ye are of [Eph 3:6] and blood with Christ. For he has just distinctly said, [1 Cor 2:23-25] Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, , who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, , who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?

2. He once turned water into wine, in Cana of Galilee, at His own will, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood? That wonderful work He miraculously wrought, when called to an earthly marriage; and shall He not much rather be acknowledged to have bestowed the fruition of His Body and Blood on the children of the bridechamber?

3. Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, [2 Peter 1:4]

4. Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, [1 John 6:53] They not receiving His saying spiritually were offended, and went backward, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.

5. Even under the Old Testament there was showbread; but this as it belonged to the Old Testament, came to an end; but in the New Testament there is the Bread of Heaven, and the Cup of Salvation [cf. Ps 116:13], sanctifying soul and body; for as the Bread has respect to our body, so is the Word appropriate to our soul.

6. Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith establish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.

7. The blessed David also shall advise thee at the meaning of this, saying, [Ps 23:5] What he says, is to this effect. Before Thy coming, evil spirits prepared a table for men, foul and polluted and full of all devilish influence; but since Thy coming, O Lord, When the man says to God, , what other does he mean but that mystical and spiritual Table, which God hath prepared , that is, contrary and in opposition to the evil spirits? And very truly; for that had fellowship with devils, but this, with God. . . .

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart’, partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine’. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou , and proceed from [2 Cor 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:—To whom be honour, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, 23 (Myst. 5), 8-18; 350 A.D:
After the Spiritual Sacrifice, the unbloody act of worship has been completed. Bending over this propitiatory offering we beg God to grant peace to all the Churches, to give harmony to the whole world, to bless our rulers, our soldiers, and our companions, to aid the sick and afflicted, and in general to assist all who stand in need; and then we offer the Victim also for our deceased holy ancestors and bishops for all our dead. As we do this, we are filled with the conviction that this Sacrifice will be of the greatest help to those souls for whom prayers are being offered in the very presence of our holy and awesome Victim. . . In the same fashion, when we offer our prayers to God for the dead, even though they be sinners, we weave no crown, but instead we offer Christ slaughtered for our sins, beseeching our merciful God to take pity both on them and on ourselves.

St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:
The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Dial. IV,58:
Although He (Christ) who rose from the dead shall die no more - death no longer has power over Him - still, although He is immortal and His living form incorruptible, He is being slaughtered for us in this mysterium of the holy sacrifice. Because there His body provides nourishment, His flesh being divided up, His blood pours out - no longer into the hands of non-believers, but into the mouths of believers.

St. Ephraim Homilies [4,4] AD 338-373
Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.

St. Ephraim Homilies [4,6] A.D. 338-373:
After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out . . . Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: `This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen me do, do you also in My memory. whenever you gather together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My body, and drink My Blood.’

St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity [8,14] A.D. 356-359:
When we speak of the reality of Christ’s nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously—had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: `My Flesh is truly food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him [John 6:56-57].’ As to the reality of His flesh and blood, there is little room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly Flesh and truly Blood. And these Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is it not true? Let those who deny that Jesus christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God.

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 82, 4, 370 A.D.:
Let us submit to God in all things and not contradict Him, even if what He says seems contrary to our reason and intellect; rather let His words prevail over our reason and intellect. Let us act in this way with regard to the (eucharistic) mysteries, looking not only at what falls under our senses but holding on to His words. For His word cannot lead us astray. . . When the word says, `This is My Body’, be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. . . How many now say, `I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.’ Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!

St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy,” 2,4, c. 397 A.D.:
I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same.

St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Treachery of Judas” 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:
It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.

St. John Chrysostom:
Why does (the Apostle) say, `The bread which we break’? (1 Cor. 10.17). We can see this during the Eucharist, but not at the cross. Yet what He has suffered on the cross, He is suffering for you at this Sacrifice. He allows himself to be divided, so as to nourish all (participants in the sacrifice of the Mass.)

St. John Chrysostom (PG 59:261)
This blood is the salvation of our soul; it cleanses our souls, it beautifies our soul; ... it makes it shine even more than gold. Through the pouring out of this blood, it becomes possible to walk the path of heaven.

St. Ambrose of Milan, “On the Mysteries” 9, 50-52, 58; 391 A.D.:
Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed. . . . Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures. . . . Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: `For our fathers ate spiritual food and drink spiritual drink.’ [1 Cor 10:2-4] For the body of God is a spiritual body.

St. Ambrose, De Sacrametis:
Whenever the blood of Christ is being poured out, it flows for the forgiveness of sins.

St. Augustine, Sermons, [227] A.D. 391-430:
... I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received.

St. Augustine, Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430:
What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. ... How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. ... `You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.’ If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: `Amen’; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: `The Body of Christ!’ and you answer: `Amen!’ Be a member of Christ’s Body, so that your `Amen’ may be the truth.

St. Augustine, Explanations on the Psalms, [33, 1, 10] A.D. 392-418:
`And he was carried in his own hands [3 Kgs 20:13 LXX? corrupted].’ But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it was meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: `This is My Body.’ For He carried that Body in His hands.

St. Augustine, Explanations on the Psalms, [98, 9] A.D. 392-418:
And adore the footstool of His feet, because it is holy [Psalm 98:9, LXX 99:9]. . .In another place in the Scripture it says: `The heavens are my throne, but the earth is the footstool of My feet’ [Isa 66:1] Is it the earth, then, that He commands us to adore, since in this other place the earth is called the footstool of God’s feet? . . . I am put in jeopardy by such a dilemma (Anceps factus sum): I am afraid to adore the earth lest He that made heaven and earth condemn me; again, I am afraid not to adore the footstool of My Lord’s feet, but because the Psalm does say to me: `Adore the footstool of My feet.’ I ask what the footstool of His feet is; and Scripture tells me: `The earth is the footstool of my feet.’ Perplexed, I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless he adores it ; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; and not only do we not sin by adoring, we do sin by not adoring.

St. Augustine, Explanations on the Psalms, A.D. 392-418, [98, 9]:
`Unless he shall have eaten My flesh he shall not have eternal life. [John 6:54-55]’ [Some] understood this foolishly, and thought of it carnally, and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some parts of His Body to give them ... But He instructed them, and said to them: `It is the spirit that gives life; but the flesh profits nothing: the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life’ [John 6:64]. Understand spiritually what I said. You are not to eat this Body which you see, nor to drink that Blood which which will be poured out by those who will crucify Me. I have commended to you a certain Sacrament; spiritually understood, it will give you life. And even if it is necessary that this be celebrated visibly, it must still be understood invisibly.

St. Augustine, The Trinity, [3, 4, 10] A.D. 400-416:
Paul was able to preach the Lord Jesus Christ by means of signs, in one way by his letters, in another way by the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood; for when we speak of the Body of Christ and of His Blood, certainly we do not mean Paul’s speaking, nor his parchments nor his ink, nor the meaning of the sounds issuing from his tongue, nor the signs of letters written on skins. By the Body and Blood of Christ we refer only to that which has been received from the fruits of the earth and has been consecrated by the mystical prayer, and has been ritually taken for our spiritual health in memory of what the Lord suffered for us.

St. Augustine, 172,2, circa 400 A.D.:
For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.

St. Augustine, “Homilies on the Gospel of John”, 26, 13, 417 A.D.:
O Sacrament of piety! O sign of unity! O Bread of love! He who desires life finds here a place to live in and the means to live by. Let him approach, let him believe, let him be incorporated so that he may receive life. Let him not refuse union with the members, let him not be a corrupt member, deserving to be cut off, nor a disfigured member to be ashamed of. Let him be a grateful, fitting and healthy member. Let him cleave to the body, let him live by God and for God. Let him now labor here on earth, that he may afterwards reign in heaven.

St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:
The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice. . . . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.:
Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and `This is My Blood,’ in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Catecheses,” 22, 9; “Myst.” 4; d. 444 A.D.:
We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ . . . draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.

Synod in Constantinople (Jan. 1156-May 1157):
Today’s sacrifice is like that offered once by the Once-begotten Incarnate Word; it is offered by him (now as then), since it is one and the same sacrifice.

Council of Trent:
In the sacrifice of the mass, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is made present, its memory is celebrated, and its saving power is applied.


©The Augustine Club at Columbia University, 1996-2002

augustine@columbia.edu
Last update: March 5, 2002


527 posted on 04/22/2013 7:37:34 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; metmom; Dutchboy88; Greetings_Puny_Humans; CynicalBear
"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." ROm. 2:16.

You will be judged by this gospel, I will be, metmom will be, the pope will be, Ted Kennedy will be, all of us will be judged according to this gospel. To not preach this gospel, to not even know what this gospel IS, to not even bother to find out what it is, is what sows confusion and false teaching. No man's opinion matters. It's what God says that matters. And He STATED, through Paul, that the gospel Paul preached WILL be the gospel that God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ. Not a single mention of rejecting the "historical, orthodox Christian Faith for our own opinions." Unless that "Christian Faith" is the gospel Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to preach.

528 posted on 04/22/2013 7:43:20 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans; boatbums; metmom; kosciusko51

what am i supposed to believe, what St Ignatius wrote or what this person wishes he wrote?

” they abstain from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ...”

one more time for those in rio linda land - “ the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.

i think it is quite clear what Ignatius believed and my previous post contains three other quite clear quotes where he says the same thing.

i do give the man who’s blog you posted credit for one thing, he realizes that he had better try and change what Ignatius had to say.

WHY? because Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John, probably of Peter as well and was so well thought of, was made the bishop of Antioch and who’s love for Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith was beyond question as he gave his life as a martyr in Rome. there is a 99.99999999% probability that Ignatius correctly understood and taught what John believed and taught when it came to the Eucharist and there is a 100% probability that what John taught and believed was the truth!!

so when Ignatius warned that those who deny the gift of God ( the Eucharist ) are perishing in their disputes, he was talking about the Gnostics in his day, but just as easily you can insert Baptist or Presbyterian in that quote. these two groups also deny the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.

also, notice how Ignatius speaks of the Eucharist as the Body of Christ in a way that assumes the reader of his letter is already a believer in this teaching. how can this be? because the Apostles went all over the known world preaching Christ, baptizing and teaching the Catholic Faith.
what became accepted as “Catholic” is what was believed everywhere and by everyone, including the Real Presence in the Eucharist. you could worship in Egypt, Greece, Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Turkey, North Africa, etc in the 1st century and you would receive the Body of Christ in the Eucharist.
so the question for those reading this is, who do you believe was right concerning the Eucharist, Ignatius or the Gnostics??


529 posted on 04/22/2013 8:00:35 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

why did Jesus command the Church to baptize in Matthew 28?

surely there must have been a reason, no?


530 posted on 04/22/2013 8:03:25 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

“Some are: endurance to the end, repentance from the former life of sin, belief in Jehovah and His Son, taking in accurate knowledge....not the whole of it by any means....”


It’s interesting that this is only “some,” even though it’s quite a bit already, as it leads me to believe it’s the usual double-talk of anti-Trinitarian groups that places one chain after another on the consciences of men. But the Gospel does not bind men to traditions or laws of men, but looses them utterly by the law of grace.

What do you mean by “taking in accurate knowledge.” Does that mean be an anti-Trinitarian who has a mental block on Trinitarian scripture?

Oy, so most of us are damned then!

And what does it mean “endurance to the end”? Do you mean, have faith till the end? Or, do you mean, work hard for your salvation to the end?

Salvation is the sovereign work of God, and cannot be added to by the power of men. It is God who chooses us, and ordains us, so that we may produce fruit.

Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

If it is God who ordains us, and who secures our fruit that it should remain, how can YOU personally add anything to the work of God?

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

If we are called according to His purpose, chosen before the foundation of the world before we had worked either good or evil, what does anyone who confesses Christ as Lord and Savior need to fear of the claims of YOUR religion?

I’ll rest in Christ, thank you very much.


531 posted on 04/22/2013 8:03:48 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

“if the answer is yes, by all means stay outside the Church, being one with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is of no benefit.”


WHICH Catholic Church? The one in Antioch, Alexandria, or in Rome, according to YOUR Popes and Bishops? Throughout all the spam, you’ve not yet touched on the fact that even 600 years later, there was still no doctrine of the primacy of Rome.

It is all built on a foundation of fiction, where you hope to get us to believe, through must speaking, that we need to be obedient to Roman Popes, instead of to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


532 posted on 04/22/2013 8:07:32 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

“we undermine each other every day and lay the fertile ground for muslims and heretics to sow confusion and false teaching by rejecting the historical, orthodox Christian Faith for our own opinions.

if we aren’t one as the Father and Jesus are one, we are out of the will of God.”


What’s funny about this is that they tend to agree with your doctrines, except on the Trinity. They do not preach a Gospel of grace, but one of personal merits to get into heaven... just like the Roman Church.


533 posted on 04/22/2013 8:09:18 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51; count-your-change

it appears the two of you agree that on the fundamental tenants of the Faith, the Church went apostate quickly.
maybe you differ on a hundred years or so?

of course Jesus Christ said this was impossible, not because of man, but because the Holy Spirit is able to guide the Church into all truth and it is IMPOSSIBLE to fool the elect.

i hope everyone can see where this 16th century doctrine of the early Church apostacy has led to.


534 posted on 04/22/2013 8:10:11 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

what’s funny is anyone who would say the Church teaches we are saved by our own personal merits and not by grace alone, doesn’t understand the Faith. ( which of course goes without saying ) How did you come to such an erroneous statement?

i notice you avoid answering why Jesus commanded the Church to baptize?
can you name anyone before the 16th century that agrees with your “two baptism” theory?


535 posted on 04/22/2013 8:26:32 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
If the church remained so pure, why did Paul have to call out the Corinthian church during his life, and why are the seven churches called out in Revelation? And why are we exhorted to be as one? Because it is easy? No, because it is difficult to maintain.

Also, why did the Hebrews fail when they had the Law and the Prophets? One reasons was that they placed their traditions before God.

To say that everything the church did was pure is false. There has always, always, been an admixture of error with truth, and even Christ does say that. And that is why John gave us the admonition:

1 John 4:1-3 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world."

The Gnostics refused to believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, so to the OP. The Gnostics refused to believe God could be flesh, the OP see Jesus as some demi-God, but not God.

Grace and Peace

536 posted on 04/22/2013 8:27:54 PM PDT by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

“what’s funny is anyone who would say the Church teaches we are saved by our own personal merits and not by grace alone,”


If that’s the case, then no Catholic knows their doctrine, as I’ve never met one who could tell me that they were actually saved by grace. They could only tell me that they hoped they would go to heaven in the end (but that they could not know one way or the other), or they told me I was arrogant for trusting in Christ for my salvation.

That’s what happens when you trust in the carnal work over the faith to get you anywhere.

“i notice you avoid answering why Jesus commanded the Church to baptize?”


I notice you avoided answering the reply I already gave, and are now pretending to notice that I avoided it so you can get the pressure off of me noticing that you paid no notice to the three different Bishops that your boys Gregory and Theodoret notably said held the throne of Peter. Much ado about noting, I guess.


537 posted on 04/22/2013 8:30:37 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
Perhaps St. Ignatius is talking about the Gnostic heresy of his day. For instance, St. Ignatius speaks of the body and blood in a less literal sense when he said:

You, therefore, must arm yourselves with gentleness and regain your strength in faith (which is the flesh of the Lord) and in love (which is the blood of Jesus Christ). See J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, 2nd. ed., The Letters of Ignatius, To the Trallians, Chapter 8 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 163.

Greek text: Ὑμεῖς οὖν τὴν πραϋπάθειαν ἀναλαβόντες ἀνακτίσασθε ἑαυτοὺς ἐν πίστει, ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ ἐν ἀγάπῃ, ὅ ἐστιν αἷμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. See J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, 2nd. ed., The Letters of Ignatius, To the Trallians, Chapter 8 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 162.

Another early church father, Tertullian, in his letter Against Marcion says: "Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body."

538 posted on 04/22/2013 8:42:18 PM PDT by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

Furthermore, no Protestant denomination that I know of abstains from the Lord’s Supper, which is what St. Ignatius accuses the Gnostics of doing.


539 posted on 04/22/2013 8:48:01 PM PDT by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
“What do you mean by “taking in accurate knowledge.”

Ask the apostle Paul, he said God willed that all should have accurate knowledge, or full discernment (Gr. epignosis)

“And what does it mean “endurance to the end”?

Since Jesus said those words perhaps if you studied His words more there would be no need to ask me.

He also said taking in knowledge meant eternal life. Do you know what sort of knowledge and of whom?

Repentance? Peter preached to the crowd to get saved from that crooked generation by repentance and baptism.

What do you think? Jesus...Peter ...Paul? Were they engaging in “double-talk”?

“It’s interesting that this is only “some,” even though it’s quite a bit already, as it leads me to believe it’s the usual double-talk of anti-Trinitarian groups that places one chain after another on the consciences of men.”

Yeah, I did say “some”. I can give some more, if you wish.

540 posted on 04/22/2013 9:03:10 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560561-580 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson