[kosta50]

The phrase "through His blood" is not found in either the Jesuit or American Revised Versions; its omission can be traced to Origen (200 A.D.), who expressly denies that either the body or soul of our Lord was offered as the price of our redemption. Eusebius was a devoted follower of Origen; and Eusebius edited the Vatican Manuscript

Didache (c. 70-100 AD) omits to mention that "breaking of the bread" and drinking wine during Eucharist is sacramental, or that it is Real Presence in Body and Blood of Christ. Perhaps that was just how some Christians "understood" it. Which is why 300 years later the Church had to convene the first Ecumenical Council to clear up some of the seirous misconceptions that evolved.

[George W. Bush]

Didache (c. 70-100 AD) omits to mention that "breaking of the bread" and drinking wine during Eucharist is sacramental, or that it is Real Presence in Body and Blood of Christ. Perhaps that was just how some Christians "understood" it. Which is why 300 years later the Church had to convene the first Ecumenical Council to clear up some of the seirous misconceptions that evolved.

But it does raise an interesting question. Just as an example, if baptism of infants is a sacrament, then how is it effective when the object of the baptism, the infant, is oblivious? Does following the teachings of the Church (or a church) by any orthodox believer not in the grip of a fatal heresy but who does not fully understand exactly why he is obeying the dictates of his church (or tradition) still constitute a blessing and proper obedience?

When you look at history, whether Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant, it is not such a simple question. I am not proposing I have an answer by any means. I believe sincere belief and being a diligent student of scripture and the ancient church are the best solution for this. In the end, we have to trust in God to judge the heart and know that we can never practice the faith in absolute perfection.