Posted on 01/24/2015 8:33:46 AM PST by RnMomof7
"...to our martyrs we build, not temples as if they were gods, but monuments as to dead men whose spirits live with God. Neither do we erect altars at these monuments that we may sacrifice to the martyrs, but to the one God of the martyrs and of ourselves; and in this sacrifice they are named in their own place and rank as men of God who conquered the world by confessing Him, but they are not invoked by the sacrificing priest. For it is to God, not to them, he sacrifices, though he sacrifices at their monument; for he is God's priest, not theirs. The sacrifice itself, too, is the body of Christ, which is not offered to them, because they themselves are this body. Which then can more readily be believed to work miracles? They who wish themselves to be reckoned gods by those on whom they work miracles, or those whose sole object in working any miracle is to induce faith in God, and in Christ also as God? They who wished to turn even their crimes into sacred rites, or those who are unwilling that even their own praises be consecrated, and seek that everything for which they are justly praised be ascribed to the glory of Him in whom they are praised? For in the Lord their souls are praised. Let us therefore believe those who both speak the truth and work wonders. For by speaking the truth they suffered, and so won the power of working wonders. And the leading truth they professed is that Christ rose from the dead, and first showed in His own flesh the immortality of the resurrection which He promised should be ours, either in the beginning of the world to come, or in the end of this world."
Here. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120122.htm Book 22, Chapter 10.
A Sacrifice offered by a priest at an altar erected in memorial for a Saint. Two Catholic dogmas right there (the "Real Presence", although admittedly not the dogma of Transubtantiation, but still not a mere "symbol", and the Communion of the Saints.)
Now, in my example of Tobit. That Catholic Church says that is scripture right? So do you believe that burning the heart of a fish and walking through the smoke will drive away demons?
Well then prove that they passed on the teaching of the assumption of Mary.
The quotes in the article from the Church Fathers reflect correct and current Catholic doctrine.
Sola gratia, which is salvation by grace alone, was affirmed by the Catholic Church in 529 A.D., almost 1,000 years before the Reformation. It has ALWAYS been and REMAINS the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Protestants accuse Catholics of works based salvation when, as the Church Fathers note, we actually do not believe in a works based salvation - Catholics believe as the Church Fathers taught; salvation is by grace alone.
The Catholic Church condemns as heresy a works alone based salvation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that justification comes through the grace of God.
The Church Fathers writings all contain references to the sacraments, especially the eucharist; they were Catholic beyond doubt.
The entire post is based on the false premise that the Catholic Church does not believe in sola gratia when in fact that is a false and malicious myth that Protestants spread about Catholics. This is a case of false witness.
Protestants have no authority to tell us what our doctrines when they have distorted them completely,
Faith has to contain works or it is not true Faith.
James 2: 14-24.
(from the post) “If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.”
**Even Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Justification, imputed righteousness, occurred long before the Law was given.**
That happened long before the Law was given alright. Abraham had done a LOT of calorie burning believing before Gen. 15:6. You do realize that God’s words from Gen. 15:6 are a ‘ways down the road’ from Ur of the Chaldees?
By that time Abraham, under God’s command, had traveled at least 400 miles the old fashioned way (with a complicated entourage, and tasks to perform daily. Put up tent. make fire. Take down tent. Put out fire. etc.).
Arriving in Bethel, he built an altar (without going to Menards), which wasn’t just to look at.
Then, AFTER Gen. 15:6, is verses 7-11 where Abraham is again promised the land, but NOT without following MORE commands (more work) for Abraham.
But, the ‘saved without works’ line is built upon the same erroneous teaching as the ‘Abraham believed and did nothing’ to receive the promise, line of thought.
That method is to ignore the scriptures that tell the WHOLE story. People will pull one verse from the story of the Paul, Silas, and the jailor, and avoid the following verses that tell of the instruction in the Word, and the baptisms that took place.
Not only is Acts loaded with inconvenient truth for those that think one doesn’t move a muscle to be saved, it is the ONLY book that SHOWS souls going through the rebirth process.
People use the thief on the cross for salvation doctrine, ignoring the words in Hebrews 9:16-18 that tells us that “a testament is of force after men are dead”.
The thief was not under the Lord’s rebirth commands, for he was not dead yet.
Acts 2:38 is the completely spelled out command from God on how to be born again. It’s the new and living way.
“Where to start.. if all scripture is not true Rome has a problem because it claims its authority from it..”
Where to start.. No Catholic here is claiming any or all scripture is untrue so clearly anyone who would suggest such a thing should meditate on what it means to bear false witness.
“Making doctrine from the silence of scripture is dangerous..”
Like sola scriptura - which is no where in scriptura. Like sola fide which is no where in scripture - except where it is said to be wrong (James 2:24).
“that how cults are born ...”
No. Cults generally are born from Protestant minded people twisting scripture to their own purposes.
“maybe Scientology is right after all scripture does not say Jesus was NOT a space alien..”
If you’re trying to be logical, you’re not succeeding.
“and the womb of Mary was actually a space ship..”
Again, if you’re trying to be logical, you’re not succeeding.
“How do you discern spiritual truth from lies??”
Well, one thing is to remember that Protestant anti-Catholics on FR are almost incapable of telling the truth about the truth.
No one, except for heretics (both to Catholics and Protestants), is claiming that the Gospel was lost after the apostles. Rather, the classic Protestant argument is that the RCC over time kept adding layers to the Gospel, and in the process lost it.
As for the teachings of the church father, the Protestants judge their teaching in light of the Bible. From what I have seen in the discussions here, the RCC judges the Bible based on the churches teaching.
Until either side can agree with the other on a proper way to view the Bible and its teachings, this squabble will continue. I tire of it, so I will say good day and God Bless to you, and leave at that.
Both Lutherans and Presbyterians hold to the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Thus when I was calling it a "symbol" earlier, I was not thinking in the sense of mere memorialism, but in Augustine's sense when he writes this:
“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.” (Augustine, Letters 98)
Naturally, the fact that Augustine's views are consistent with the Reformed views supports the Reformed, not the Catholic, as it places us on the side of tradition, and Catholics on the side of innovation.
“What part of Sola Scriptura do you not understand.”
How anyone can believe in it when it doesn’t appear in scripture and is therefore self-refuting.
“Matthew is part of scripture.”
Show me the verse that specifically says Matthew’s gospel is inspired. And, no, 2 Timothy 3:16 never says it.
“Sola Scriptura means that Matthew being scripture can be used as one of the sources to check if a belief is correct.”
Show me the verse that specifically says Matthew’s gospel is inspired. And, no, 2 Timothy 3:16 never says it.
“Now, in my example of Tobit. That Catholic Church says that is scripture right? So do you believe that burning the heart of a fish and walking through the smoke will drive away demons?”
(sigh) Honestly, Protestant anti-Catholics amaze me with their complete predictability: http://www.oodegr.co/english/ag_grafi/pd/TOBIT/part1.htm
If you ever read John 9:6 ask yourself if Jesus was being superstitious.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Emphasis added, for Gal 1:8 does not say..
what the apostles taught rather the gospel they taught.
The former is a more nebulous term. In other words, if we take it as literally as you demand, then ONLY the GOSPEL can be known authoritatively. All else, all other facts about Christianity, such as the name of the mountain where Christ underwent the Transfiguration (Mt. Tabor, which isn't in Scripture, the name, isn't there), to yes, even events about Mary's life, can't be known with certainty.
It's lunacy to say that and in fact, it's not even what the Scripture says! The Scripture says the GOSPEL must be the same, not that EVERYTHING about everyone in the Bible needs to be IN the Bible for it to be true!
Events about Mary and her life, from her Title "Mother of God" to the dogma of the Assumption don't *contradict* the Gospel, they just simply aren't there, just like the name "Mount Tabor" isn't in Scripture either. But believing Mt. Tabor is where Christ underwent His Transfiguration doesn't *contradict* Scripture, just like the Title and Assumption of Mary don't either.
But go ahead, give me your opinion again to get that precious last word in, go ahead and "convince" me you aren't giving your *interpretation* of Gal 1:8, rather that its merely "speaking for itself", as you use your OPINION of Gal 1:8 as proof of that.
“No one, except for heretics (both to Catholics and Protestants), is claiming that the Gospel was lost after the apostles.”
False. I posted links to where Protestants say the gospel was lost or so distorted that it had to be “recovered”. You can disagree with them - I do - but you cannot say they don’t exist.
“Rather, the classic Protestant argument is that the RCC over time kept adding layers to the Gospel, and in the process lost it.”
Rather, the common Protestant nonsense is exactly what I posted links to. It doesn’t matter how much you dispute what they say. It only matters that they said it.
“As for the teachings of the church father, the Protestants judge their teaching in light of the Bible.”
No. They judge their teaching in light of their own Protestant heresies read back into their interpretations of scripture. The Church Fathers knew the Bible better than Protestants do.
“From what I have seen in the discussions here, the RCC judges the Bible based on the churches teaching.”
The Church judges teachings according to the Word of God (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) and the Magisterium. It doesn’t surprise me that you distort the truth instead.
“Until either side can agree with the other on a proper way to view the Bible and its teachings, this squabble will continue.”
No, until Protestants embrace true Christianity rather than hold to heresies like sola scriptura and sola fide (neither of which appear in scripture as a Biblically approved teaching) Protestants will continue to make the same heretical errors over and over again.
“I tire of it, so I will say good day and God Bless to you, and leave at that.”
God bless you too! Have a nice weekend.
Yet neither Paul nor God regard any of that "calorie burning," otherwise it would have said that Abraham was justified by his works, and thus merited his justification. Without any confusion, it says that his faith was imputed onto him for righteousness specifically in the absence of works, and not anything else.
"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." (Rom 4:4-7)
It says several times: if it is of works, then it is of merit, and if by merit, it is not by grace. Again, salvation "without" works. Again, salvation for those who "worketh not," but believe. Clearly Paul is emphasizing that salvation is the gift of God without regard for works of righteousness.
You also put forward the old strawman:
But, the ‘saved without works’ line is built upon the same erroneous teaching as the ‘Abraham believed and did nothing’ to receive the promise, line of thought.
It suggests that we are antinomians and believe that we "do nothing" but have faith, but we teach, with the full support of the scripture and of the church fathers, that good works are the result of God's working in us, and are not the cause of salvation, otherwise it contradicts the scripture which says:
Rom_4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Thus those whom God saves do good works, and if any do not do them, then they are damned, because all those saved by Christ are also ordained to produce fruit. Some beautiful quotes from Augustine to top it all off on the subject:
“All our good merits are only wrought in us by grace, and -when God crowns our merits, he crowns nothing but his own gifts. (Augustine, Letter 194)
“Have just men, then, no merits? Certainly they have, because they are righteous. But they were not made righteous by merits. For they are made righteous when they are justified, but as the apostle says, they are justified freely by his grace.” (Ibid)
“For who makes thee to differ, and what has thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. iv. 7). Our merits therefore do not cause us to differ, but grace. For if it be merit, it is a debt; and if it be a debt, it is not gratuitous; and if it be not gratuitous, it is not grace. (Augustine, Sermon 293)
"Can you say, 'We will first walk in His righteousness, and will observe His judgments, and will act in a worthy way, so that He will give His grace to us'? But what good would you evil people do? And how would you do those good things, unless you were yourselves good? But Who causes people to be good? Only He Who said, 'And I will visit them to make them good,' and, 'I will put my Spirit within you, and will cause you to walk in my righteousness, and to observe my judgments, and do them'(Ezek.36:27). Are you asleep? Can't you hear Him saying, 'I will cause you to walk, I will make you to observe,' lastly,'I will make you to do'? Really, are you still puffing yourselves up? We walk, true enough, and we observe, and we do; but it is God Who He makes us to walk, to observe, to do. This is the grace of God making us good; this is His mercy going before us." Augustine - Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 4:15
ROFL!! Why don’t you get together with vladimir998 and Salvation and decide what you Catholics consider the gospel before we go any farther on that one.
I forgot to ping you to 133
Jesus was performing that miracle. Burning fish hearts with no mention of doing it in Jesus name is witchcraft.
Fine, then if you acknowledge Augustine does not believe the Eucharist is a mere symbol, we (you and I) have no disagreement. For the Church does not state that the dogma of Transubstantiation was taught explicitly by any one Father, rather it's an understanding that can be found throughout multiple ones. Again, that Augustine doesn't preach it is not concerning, for this very reason.
However demonstrating Augustine didn't teach "Transubstantiation" is a long way from demonstrating he was some kind of "Proto-Protestant".
The quote earlier from Augustine shows little towards answering the question, "How 'Catholic' was Saint Augustine?". In other words, that quote you posted earlier (from his tractate on John) doesn't necessarily disprove the Catholic teaching at all. Neither does this one, for again, you still have the quote from the City of God to contend with, which clearly indicates the Body of Christ is a sacrifice, thus, something real, not something imagined (unless one will foolishly state an imaginary sacrifice would be pleasing to God).
.
It certainly does, because it reads in the exact opposite way from the Catholic interpretation of those verses from John 6. For example:
Father John Bartunek, LC., whose interpretation requires the actual use of “teeth and stomach”:
“This was the perfect opportunity for Christ to say, “Wait a minute, what I really meant was that my body and blood will just be symbolized by bread and wine. Of course I didn’t mean that bread and wine really would become my body and blood. Don’t be foolish!” The strange thing is he doesn’t say that. He does not water down his claim, as if eating his flesh were just a metaphor for believing in his doctrine; on the contrary, he reiterates the importance of really eating his flesh and drinking his blood.”
http://rcspiritualdirection.com/blog/2012/08/15/258-eating-right-jn-652-59#ixzz2pZMDVk3c
Clearly this priest understands Christ of speaking literally of eating the eucharist, whereas Augustine says, without any ambiguity, "why do you ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already." This view places salvation into the hands of faith, and separates us from the literalism your church teaches. When Augustine speaks regarding the eucharist, it is always in the spiritual sense, and in enjoying the communion of Christ through faith, though, physically (in contrast to spiritually), we have never touched Him or been in His presence:
“Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him.” (Augustine, Tractate 50)
Neither does this one, for again, you still have the quote from the City of God to contend with, which clearly indicates the Body of Christ is a sacrifice, thus, something real, not something imagined (unless one will foolishly state an imaginary sacrifice would be pleasing to God).
Augustine describes the Eucharist as a "sacrifice" in the sense that it represents the sacrifice that occurred "once and for all" on the cross, in the same way we say that Christ "rises again tomorrow" on Easter, even though it occurred a long time ago. This was the import of my quote which I replied with. Here is another:
“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head, one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, He who loves his life shall lose it, we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man’s duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, Let him lose his life— that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, help not a sinner. Understand, therefore, that sinner is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.” (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Ch. 16)
Fine, then if you acknowledge Augustine does not believe the Eucharist is a mere symbol, we (you and I) have no disagreement.
We certainly do, but not on the topic of whether or not Augustine believed that the eucharist was necessary to be worshipped or was required to be eaten to be saved.
When Augustine speaks of the eucharist, its benefits are something other than for salvation, but always for our sanctification.
“Jesus was performing that miracle.”
Using mud.
“Burning fish hearts with no mention of doing it in Jesus name is witchcraft.”
Not if God directs the action - and He did through an angel. How is this any different than the story of the bronze serpent in Numbers 21? Moses fashioned A GRAVEN IMAGE (how about that?!) to cure people of snake bites - at the command of God of course. And really that’s a prefigurement of John 3:14. The Tobit story is a prefigurement to the symbolism of fish in Christianity.
I wouldn't even describe him as "proto," but rather as basically not substantially different from Calvin, or Luther, or any of the other Augustinians that have lived throughout the centuries (Luther was not even the first, but only the one that got the most famous).
Debating transubstantiation is a cute endeavor, but it is not the only issue. If you like, would you like to run an experiment where I give you some quotations and ask for your Catholic reading of them-- to compare with something I will pull from Augustine?
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.