A Baptist's Search For Historical Proof of St. Patrick Takes Her To Rome

CH Network ^ | Patty Patrick Bonds

[jude24]

Precisely.

This past year, I took a "Survey of Western Church History" class at SUNY Buffalo (taught by the Campus Crusade director). I got exposed to the writings of men such as Athanasius and Augustine , and found Augustine, particualarly, compelling. His Confessions rang true with me, one of the best devotional books I've ever read.

I can sympathize with the woman in the article above; her reaction to examining the historic Christian figures is not completely unbelievable to me. (Don't worry; I'm not going to jump to the Catholics.... but I do see where she was coming from.)

Even so, I think we can learn a lot from the Catholic theologians. We may believe they have hermaneutical holes (I certainly do believe that), but they were Christians, and that's something we in the Evangelical Protestant church have tended to forget.

I did get a brief chuckle yesterday at church. One of the hymns sung in the worship service was by Bernard of Clairvoux -- for a church that gives more weight to Dave Hunt than to Augustine, well, that's an interesting hymn choice. I doubt if most of the people at my church realized who the author was. Maybe a couple, but most didn't.

[wideawake]

I have to agree with drsteve. Her "conversion" is based on experience, warm fuzzies, rather then on a personal response to God.

A personal response to the living God is a total one involving heart, mind and soul.

Your statement is like saying "His 'love' for his Dad is based on experience, warm fuzzies, rather than a personal response to his father."

Your assesment of her conversion (without the patronizing quotation marks) is based upon an assumption that Catholics do not authentically respond to God. The work of the Holy Spirit in my life belies that assumption.

[old and tired]

**It alone is the inspired Word of God. **

But the Bible didn't drop out of the sky. Don't we have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because because of the Early Church fathers? Weren't the gnostic gospels dismissed because Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin the Martyr, and Irenaeus dismissed them? And didn't all these men believe in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist?

For us Catholics, the Real Presence is our defining doctrine and the gospels are the heart of the Bible. But if you can give me some evidence that these men did not believe in the Real Presence (i.e. the core Catholic doctrine), then I think the Protestant argument that the Bible was already generally agreed upon might have more weight.

I'm not a theologian or a church historian. I generally don't like to get involved in discussions like this becuase I'm going by what I learned from the Christian Brothers in high school some 50 years ago. I'm pinging Black Elk, Nyer, and Herman the Cherusker because they're smarter than I.

[drstevej]

The fathers recognized the canon, they did not write it nor were they accorded infallible interpretative authority.

The issue for me is whether the doctrine is taught in the Bible. These debates have been lengthy here and I do not wish to rehash them. Let me summarize to say I do not find the doctrine of the Real Presence taught in Scripture. Jesus ate bread at the Passover seder and He drank wine at the seder. These elements symbolized his impending crucufuxion.

Jesus frequently used figuratiuve language. Often his disciples even misunderstood him. I believe the Bible is inerrant as a result of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I will examine the text from a strict constructionist standpoint.

John 21:22-23 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

[Desdemona]

One thing please to keep in mind about the early church fathers (Augustine, St. Athanasius, and many others) wrote BEFORE the canon was closed.

[drstevej]

***We then carry that nature into the world and become the sacrament of Christ to others. ***

Is this orthodox Catholic teaching? Which sacrament is, does it have a name? References please.


***If you want to argue if the cells of my finger nails receive Christ or not, I'll leave you to the Thomas Aquinases of our day***

You are the one who proclaimed the notion of Christ in every cell of your body, I just questioned whether it was an orthodox statement.

[drstevej]

I am fully aware of the fact. I am also aware that none of their writings are canonical or infallible.

[wideawake]

The classic seat of the doctrine of the Real Presence is John 6.

When someone says that their flesh is real food and their blood is real drink, they aren't speaking figuratively.

Jesus says the kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed.

He doesn't say my flesh is like real food. He says that it is real food.

[wideawake]

You're begging the question. Why are the accepted canonical writings canonical?

[old and tired]

you're smarter than me too!

[drstevej]

Simile - a comparison using like or as (the kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed)

Metaphor - a comparison omitting like or as (I am the door of the Sheep)

[drstevej]

wideawake, I have to head out for church. There are many threads that have hashed this out.

I am more interested in discussion of biblical arguments you set forth.

[old and tired]

**There are many threads that have hashed this out.**

Can you please point me to them when you get a chance? I'd very much like to see your in depth analysis.

Thank you.

[drstevej]

I didn't say I hashed it out. Nevetheless, the discussion is there.

Later.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, sorry:)

It sounds like to me that because she suddenly got a feeling from a beautiful ceremony she assumed God was there.

Do you ever get nice feelings watching some movie. Have you ever seen the movie Titanic, or Pearl Harbor. Those movies in most people produced nice feelings. Does that make them factual about the events they portray? Probably if we looked at the lives of everyone involved in those events we could probably, if we really wanted it to be so, (not that anyone would, this is just an anology:) find someone that you could fit into the story as told by the movie. But that would not make it true, no matter how hard we believed it. We based our beliefs on a feeling then found "facts" to back it up.

The feeling is NOT what we should base our trust on that something is the truth. It should be based on the facts, facts can and do produce feelings. She did not know at the time her feelings showed up what the truth was. She couldn't. It was the first time she had been to a mass. So then when/if she then went to scripture she was looking to back up that warm feeling. IMO, her conversion was backwards.

I think that is why it took me so long to see the truth in scripture. My feelings produced by beautiful ceremonies, family upbringing, etc. colored my beliefs. I wanted so bad for the Catholic way to be alright so that I continue on with the good feelings. But in the end, when I asked God to lead me to the truth no matter what, and picked up the bible and read it for myself I had to reject the Catholic Church. Now my feelings WANTED the catholic church to be right, do you think I had on the wrong pair of glasses?

I don't know why there are so many different denominations. I wish there wasn't. But there were different beliefs within the Jewish people during our Lords time, so that just must be the way things are. You have to diligently search with an open heart, and trust God to lead you.

Becky

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Its relatively straightforward to show that the New Testament was NOT agreed upon among the Church Fathers until the AD 300's. Just look at their lists of canonical books, which frequently omit some of the Epistles, or the Apocalypse.

On the other hand, the Old Testament, so far as I know, was not subject to any controversy - the Church admitted and used the Septuagint, which includes the Deuterocanon or Apocrypha as you like.

Since the Old Testament is the matter of controversy at hand between Catholics and Protestants, this is a rather strange turn-about.

the Real Presence (i.e. the core Catholic doctrine)

I'm glad the Christian Brothers instilled this so firmly into you. The Real Presence (and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) is a summation of all other Catholic doctrines, from the Trinity and Incarnation, to the Crucifixion and Resurrection, to the unity of the Church, to the sacramental system of graces, to the Ecclesial heirarchy. That's why Luther said "Tolle missam, tolle ecclesiam" - "Destroy the Mass and you will destroy the Church".

[drstevej]

***"Destroy the Mass and you will destroy the Church"***

I think this has been ultima's argument. I agree that it is a lynchpin of RC doctrine. That's why I find it astounding that many Catholics today neither understand or believe it.

That's also why I am appalled that priests are allowed to do clown masses and other funky stuff. They may formally acknoweledge a belief in the real presence but their innovations make their genuine belief suspect at best.

This is admittedly an outsiders view.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Its a correct view.

[american colleen]

I would have agreed with you until it happened to me. It isn't "feelings" or anything "warm and fuzzy" at all, but our limited human vocabulary makes it hard to translate what happens into words... because the experience is bigger than only words.

It's kinda like (what happened to me, anyway) you are sitting and minding your own business (I was thinking of grocery shopping) and this interior illumination overwhelms you to the point that it encompasses your whole being - nothing like I have ever experienced in my life before or since.

[ACAC]

The church fathers were not inspired by God like the Bible is, so I really don't care what they said. In fact, in the Bible, Jesus often told the disciples they were not correct in their understanding of what Jesus was saying. If the disciples were wrong so often when they talked to Jesus in person every day, why trust someone who never talked to him?