:o)
Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
You are applying a quote to the wrong bit of doctrine. Schaff was talking about “This eucharistic sacrifice, however, the ante-Nicene fathers conceived not as an unbloody repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross, but simply as a commemoration and renewed appropriation of that atonement, and, above all, a thank-offering of the whole church for all the favors of God in creation and redemption.”
Schaff’s reason for calling it a false reading of Irenaeus is:
424 Adv. Haer. IV. c. 18, §. 4: “Verbum [the Logos] quod offertur Deo;” instead of which should be read, according to other manuscripts: “Verbum per quod offertur,”—which suits the connexion much better. Comp. IV. 17, § 6: “Per Jes. Christum offert ecclesia.” Stieren reads “Verbum quod,” but refers it not to Christ, but to the word of the prayer. The passage is, at all events, too obscure and too isolated to build a dogma upon.
I have no clue what that says.
Also, my link was wrong, it is here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vii.xi.html
Good reading on the Eucharist and early fathers here:
http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html
“You know I think the real question is can an unregenerate man choose to do “good””
Not for me. “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
Well said. The Septuagint was written in Greek. The Greek translation surely ought to prevail.
But since God has said, repeatedly and explicitly, that he DOES want all to come to repentance, I think my interpretation stays IAW scripture as a whole. When Jesus said, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him”, I take “world” to mean world, not elect.
Perhaps God means that He elected us all (to separate us from the animals, plants, bacteria, viruses and Democrats).
We are saved by God’s grace and His alone, with nothing of ourselves. We repent or reject, and need to walk in the Spirit. Deal with it.
If we are called on to repent, that means that we have the means or the ability to repent. If the individual can repent or not, then there is no frogmarching and no involuntary enslavement.
We are dancing, however. God does not kidnap, and scripture is quite explicit - God wants all to repent. All do not.
This, to me, seems to be the defining error of Calvin. He could never reconcile the two.
Many thanks.
The folks who eat the daily bowls of YOPIOS very often get it so very wrong in very comical fashion. If it weren’t so serious, that is.
RN””Secondly I was a cradle Catholic, educated by Franciscans, Srs of Namur and Srs of Mercy ..Catholic educated through College. I was a lector,liturgist,CCD teacher ,and speaker at woman’s retreats””
... and now you make up your own belief system based on your individual SELF interpretations of a Book (the Bible) that has very little consistency with historical Christianity through the ages
I was a cradle Catholic as well and once lost my faith because of bad CCD teacher’s etc...Now by the Grace of God I’m back in full union with Holy Mother Church
RN””Instead of being insulting””
.....And Your statements about the Catholics are not insulting?
RN-””little did I know then that all of my works in church and for charity were filthy rags before God””
So I guess now you could say... who needs good works grounded in love when you have FR and long ping lists to become a internet theologian and make up beliefs as I go
Rn-””Christ did not come for the righteous..OR SELF RIGHTEOUS ..He came for sinners like me.””
Me too. You’re Sounding Catholic ....very good,dear sister. We agree!
Rn-””transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century....so you assertion that it was always held to be the real body and blood is just not accurate.””
Transubstantiation was just a different way of explaining what was always believed-The Church sometimes needed to define thing better to keep the heretics from spreading error.
I suggest you read this http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3
The Church ALWAYS believed the Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Christ.
Just a few examples....
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” -ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH-”Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” JUSTIN MARTYR -”First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”-St. Irenaeus of Lyons-”Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely
“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, (we become partaker of the divine nature.) [2 Peter 1:4]-ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM -”Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]
“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).
“Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.’” Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380).
“Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, ‘is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer’; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, ‘This is My Body.’” Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383).
I could go on and on with these writings
Take the advice of these Holy people who were far more Christlike than you or I and come back to Our Eucharistic Lord
I have no idea and don't really care to find out...But I know there were at least two...
Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Act 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Act 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Act 13:4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.
This is Paul's first missionary journey...You'll notice that Paul started his journey on a boat out of Seleucia which is at that time, in Syria, north of Jerusalem...And Seleucia is just a few miles away from Antioch, Syria, which is right across the bay from Tarsus...
The scripures point the way and tell where Paul stopped...
Paul started in Antioch...If that Antioch was the Antioch in Turkey, Paul would have had to travel across Turkey, back into Syria to he could catch the boat at Seleucia, Syria and ultimatey hit the mainland again at just south of Perga, Turkey...They then traveled inland about a hundred miles to Antioch (Turkey)
Now if your premise was any where near correct, which it isn't, Paul would have started at Antioch, Turkey, although we have no clue how he might have gotten up to Turkey, turning around to come back in the same direction, making no stops til he got to the seaport in Syria and then went back to Antioch, Turkey...Just didn't happen...
:o)
Lol. If I wore a hat it would be off to you. 8~)
I have no idea and don't really care to find out...But I know there were at least two...
Yes; and they were identified as Antioch (in the south of Turkey) and Antioch-in-Pisidia in the middle of Turkey. The Antioch of the Acts 13 was the Antioch in the south of Turkey, not Antioch-in-Pisidia. I suppose that it is confusing. Now if your premise was any where near correct
Not my premise; it's God's.
Hypothetically, what size would it be?
Your post is a great example of whining Roman Catholics who name-call between throwing out rude and personal comments.
It's absolutely laughable you label as pejorative both terms, "Roman Catholic" and "Dreckleburg."
No one takes comments like yours as serious discussion and it sure isn't humor. A double failure.
So you've decided to return from your self-imposed exile for how long? Can we look forward to another exit opus dei?
There was no Turkey at the time...That southern Antioch you speak of is in what was Syria at the time...And it's not at all confusing to me...
You're the one that implied there was only one Antioch in the Christian world at that time...All of a sudden, you come up with two...You must have done a little research in the last hour or so...
From the Catechism:
1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.
The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant. The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church's whole liturgy finds its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name.
“””Schaff was talking about “This eucharistic sacrifice””
Schaff has been debunked on much of this by the protestant Scholar JND Kelly. The thing about Schaff is that he did not have modern research ability and he really is not an accurate source for commentary of the Church Fathers in this day and age.
Here is a good example of this
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num29.htm
Besides this link,this site goes into detail on a number of issues that Schaff made mistakes about
There is a good map here:
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/turkey/antioch-map
If you click on the balloons, it will tell which is Seleucia & which is Antioch. It is in Turkey. The map doesn’t seem to have a scale, but it looks to be about 75-100 miles from Incirlik, Turkey, where I spent more time than I care to recall flying to & from northern Iraq. There is (or was) a bombing range near Konya, that used to be Iconium.
FWIW - the mountains surrounding Adana (and near Tarsus) are around 10-12K high.
The text of ALL of Scripture in totality, or the text of that one verse?
I will continue to keep you in my prayers.
God bless you.
sitetest
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.