Posted on 09/18/2010 8:26:32 PM PDT by markomalley
and the mess in Haiti has vanished off the MSM, and that’s a Catholic colony. in fact every French colony had Catholic influence because at the time of colonialism it was France sending out all it’s Vatican emissaries to the new lands.
” in fact every French colony had Catholic influence because at the time of colonialism it was France sending out all it’s Vatican emissaries to the new lands.”
That’s a new one on me. France owned the Vatican!
Was it located in Paris by any chance?
Wasn’t Jesus a nice Jewish man?
Uh? on Christianity being the “next chapter in the religion of Judaism’.... something not kosher in this statement...maybe reframe it?
Let's take a look at Roman Catholic theology . and what the RCC declares is Apostolic Truth. I
Ireanaeus writing around 180 believed happened during Communion:
"For as the bread, which is produced from thee earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." (Against Heresies, 4:18:5)
Theodoret, 400s:
"For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." - Theodoret (Dialogues, 2)
What we see is actually Lutheran like Theology, namely that the bread "takes up" the body of Christ, it still remains bread, kinda like a sponge taking up water but remaining a sponge.
What about Tertullian ?
"Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Against Marcion, 1:14)
And...
"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. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.” (Against Marcion 4:40)
Tertullian believed what most Protestants believe believe, that the bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Jesu
If transubstantiation was taught by the apostles and passed down orally to bishops, are these guys rebelling against that tradition?Were they perhaps ignorant of this truth that Roman Catholicism says that Christians believed from the beginning?
Justin Martyr said of it in 150 AD: "Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him…Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth.” (Dialogue with Trypho Ch 117) And Augustine:
It may be also understood in this way: 'The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.' The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, 'Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.' But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, 'ye will not have Him always.' And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me ye will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes." (Augustine, Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)
There was no doctrine of transubstantiation until 1215..Before that catholics were free to believe as they chose on this matter
Wag when reading scripture it is important to read it in context.. time, place, audience, situation ,and surrounding verses..
The Catholic church cherry picked scripture out of context to justify their doctrine, they did not develop the doctrine from scripture
The quote you used, from Mr Wallace, said this:
‘While we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognise sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolic authority. . . Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were fore-shadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament.’ Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. IV, St. Augustin: The Writings Against the Manicheans and Against the Donatists, Reply to Faustus the Manichean 6.5, 20.21 (New York: Longmans, Green, 1909), pp. 169, 262.
The actual text (from Stothert's translation) (with all the context and non of the elipses) says this:
5. With all this, you venture to denounce the sacrifices of the Old Testament, and to call them idolatry, and to attribute to us the same impious notion. To answer for ourselves in the first place, while we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolic authority. For these things "were written for our learning, upon whom the end of the world has come." What you object to in sacrifice is the slaughter of animals, though the whole animal creation is intended conditionally in some way for the use of man.
Commentary: this is part of a large work known as Contra Faustum. Faustus was a Manichean with whom Augustine was having a debate. The point to which Augustine was responding in this book is contained in the first paragraph of the document. It says:
1. Faustus said: You ask if I believe the Old Testament. Of course not, for I do not keep its precepts. Neither, I imagine, do you. I reject circumcision as disgusting; and if I mistake not, so do you. I reject the observance of Sabbaths as superfluous: I suppose you do the same. I reject sacrifice as idolatry, as doubtless you also do. Swine's flesh is not the only flesh I abstain from; nor is it the only flesh you eat. I think all flesh unclean: you think none unclean. Both alike, in these opinions, throw over the Old Testament. We both look upon the weeks of unleavened bread and the feast of tabernacles as unnecessary and useless. Not to patch linen garments with purple; to count it adultery to make a garment of linen and wool; to call it sacrilege to yoke together an ox and an ass when necessary; not to appoint as priest a bald man, or a man with red hair, or any similar peculiarity, as being unclean in the sight of God, are things which we both despise and laugh at, and rank as of neither first nor second importance; and yet they are all precepts and judgments of the Old Testament. You cannot blame me for rejecting the Old Testament; for whether it is right or wrong to do so, you do it as much as I. As for the difference between your faith and mine, it is this, that while you choose to act deceitfully, and meanly to praise in words what in your heart you hate, I, not having learned the art of deception, frankly declare that I hate both these abominable precepts and their authors.
And so all of the points Augustine makes should be taken as a response to the above assertion by Faustus. So let us take a look, point by point at what Augustine has to say:
The point being, looking at the actual document can help protect you from falling victim to shoddy research on the part of some secondary source, like the above incident.
Now, if you would like to talk Augustine and the Eucharist, we can do so.
The first quote I will provide is from his AD 408 letter to St Boniface (# 98):
9. You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, "Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord's Passion," although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, "This day the Lord rose from the dead," although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith. Now believing is nothing else than having faith; and accordingly, when, on behalf of an infant as yet incapable of exercising faith, the answer is given that he believes, this answer means that he has faith because of the sacrament of faith, and in like manner the answer is made that he turns himself to God because of the sacrament of conversion, since the answer itself belongs to the celebration of the sacrament. Thus the apostle says, in regard to this sacrament of Baptism: "We are buried with Christ by baptism into death." He does not say, "We have signified our being buried with Him," but "We have been buried with Him." He has therefore given to the sacrament pertaining to so great a transaction no other name than the word describing the transaction itself.
The next quote comes from his Sermon #272:
One thing is seen, another is to be understood. What you can see on the altar, you also saw last night; but what it was, what it meant, of what great reality it contained the sacrament, you had not yet heard. So what you can see, then, is bread and a cup; that's what even your eyes tell you; but as for what your faith asks to be instructed about, the bread is the body of Christ, the cup the blood of Christ. It took no time to say that indeed, and that, perhaps, may be enough for faith; but faith desires instruction. The prophet says, you see, Unless you believe, you shall not understand (Is 7:9). I mean, you can now say to me, “You've bidden us believe; now explain, so that we may understand.” Some such thought as this, after all, may cross somebody's mind: “We know where our Lord Jesus Christ took flesh from; from the Virgin Mary. He was suckled as a baby, was reared, grew up, came to man's estate, suffered persecution from the Jews, was hung on the tree, was slain on the tree, was taken down from the tree, was buried; rose again on the third day, on the day he wished ascended into heaven. That's where he lifted his body up to; that's where he's going to come from to judge the living and the dead; that's where he is now, seated on the Father's right. How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it's you that are the body of Christ and its members, it's the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord's table; what you receive is the mystery that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying you express your assent. What you hear, you see, is The body of Christ, and you answer, Amen. So be a member of the body of Christ, in order to make that Amen true.
And so on.
The point being that you really should take the time to research the primary sources, which are eminently available, rather than depending upon a tract from a person who is sworn to steal the souls of Christians for the devil save the souls of Catholics.
just look up all the missionary priests to the New world and see how many French names come up
never said it was
Well, his mother thought he was God and he thought his mother was a virgin, so that kinda sounds like he was Jewish.
So Jesus is not the Messiah that the Jews were expecting? He’s not related to David? He’s not the one the prophets foretold? Christianity is a continuation of Judaism,... the Holy Bible, one book, not two
The Catholic priests did great evangelism to the North American Indian tribes. Some priests were martyred like St. Lawrence, and then there is the mass conversion of the Aztecs to Catholicism causing them to embrace Jesus and to abandon centuries of human sacrifice.
That was a true miracle.
Yet nothing else was ever taught. The ONLY ones who ever believed that John Chapter 6 was a metaphor were the heretical gnostics.
Truth be told, Protestantism has embraced a great deal of the gnostic heresies which is not surprising when one considers that many Protestants proudly embrace a synthesis of Arianism and Nestorianism.
” No FReeper who is not a mod has no power to enforce the rules.”
But “The Mods” know where you live and you can’t stay awake forever!
What all this proves is there was no agreement on what the Lords supper meant and there was no required belief until 1215 when it was declared a doctrine of the church..and yet even today many deny transubstantiation and have a more reformed view of it
and Chaput himself is descended from a French fur trader who came over with the French Papal emissaries and an Indian. that’s is also why there’s that whole area of Quebec mostly Catholic and atheist to this day
Is that where the black helicopters are coming from?
And all it also means is that it's official church doctrine and that to be a *good* Catholic, one must believe it.
That doesn't mean that it's a truth taught by and supported with Scripture.
“...Quebec mostly Catholic and atheist to this day.”
Catholic atheists! Is that the same thing as Satanic Calvinists?
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.