| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/25/2015 3:29:26 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:
childishness |
Posted on 02/20/2015 12:33:03 PM PST by RnMomof7
Because all were not capitalized, I would not see it as pejorative to any one group. It might not be proper grammar but I don't see it as insulting. If only one were consistently not capitalized, then you'd have grounds for complaint, IMO.
Shhhh. It’s a secret.
With some writers we have much more to draw upon; for others we just have shorter or fragmentary pieces which as to the question at hand may not be entirely clear.
But what we DO know from this period is that the Church Fathers were a very conservative group, jealously guarding the Truth which they understood had been received from the Apostles. If someone advanced an idea that was out-of-step with what had been received, it tended to cause controversy. But there is no recorded controversy over the nature of the Eucharist until the 9th century.
Does this prove that there was total agreement? No. But it does make the case that the ECF's held to greatly varying viewpoints on the Eucharist look mighty weak. I've never seen it credibly advanced that any of the ECF's took a Protestant-type view that it is purely a symbolic, memorial meal. Even the most "figurative" writers (like those out of Alexandria) asserted that the Eucharist was a true sacrifice, which conveyed salvific benefit to the participant. "Infused grace" was the viewpoint in that day.
Like I said, I don't find Protestants talking this way.
YOU With some writers we have much more to draw upon; for others we just have shorter or fragmentary pieces which as to the question at hand may not be entirely clear.
Wow....that's a pretty big qualifier you've inserted into the discussion now. Seems like you hedging on your statement that all 100% of the ECFs were in 100% agreement on this issue.
Here is one of the major problems with Catholicism....the use of allegory in understanding the text.
Clement (much like Origen, fellow Alexandrian) employed an allegorical style of Biblical interpretation which complicates understanding his views on the Eucharist.
So I would ask you...why should we believe anything you've posted on this topic....or any other for that matter?
ME>They contradict themselves on a host of issues.<
YOU But not on the Eucharist.
ME>That's the point with the ECFs....they've been picked over like fruit in a grocery store. <
YOU: Indeed, you are a case in point of a highly selective picker.
ME >They contradict themselves on a host of issues.<
YOU: But not on the Eucharist. When a Patristics scholar like Kelly (who without question is one of the foremost 20th century experts) can say of Augustine that "he shared the realism held by almost all his contemporaries and predecessors," then your attempts to make the historical record appear otherwise is rightly called out as dishonest.
YOU: So, I ask again, why should we take anything else you claim as credible?
That was never my statement. My position is that there is wide agreement among the ECF's on the Eucharist, and that those who are less than clear (they didn't write with your objections in mind) don't support the Protestant view, so what's your point?
So I would ask you...why should we believe anything you've posted on this topic....or any other for that matter?
You don't have to. But know this: if you try BS'ing your way on history (like you tried with Augustine and the others) I will call you on it every time I see it.
You can believe me on that.
Mary gives her consent. Can’t you see that?
Mary gives her consent....so?
Bonaventure: …the gates of heaven will open to all who confide in the protection of Mary. Blessed are they who know thee, O Mother of God, for the knowledge of THEE is the high road to everlasting life, and the publication of thy virtues is the way of ETERNAL SALVATION . Give ear, O ye nations; and all you who desire heaven , serve, honor Mary, and certainly you will find ETERNAL LIFE.
Ephem: …devotion to the divine Mother…is the unlocking of the heavenly Jerusalem.
Blosius: To the, O Lady, are committed the KEYS and the treasures of the kingdom of Heaven.
Ambrose: …constantly pray ‘Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its KEYS.
Fulgetius: …by Mary God descended from Heaven into the world, that by HER man might ascend from earth to Heaven.
Athanasius: …And, thou, O Lady, wast filled with grace, that thou mightiest be the way of our SALVATION and the means of ascent to the heavenly Kingdom.
Richard of Laurence: Mary, in fine, is the mistress of heaven; for there she commands as she wills, and ADMITS whom she wills.
Guerric: …he who serves Mary and for whom she intercedes, is as CERTAIN of heaven as if he were already there…and those who DO NOT serve Mary will NOT BE SAVED.
Anselm: It suffices, O Lady, that thou willest it, and our SALVATION is certain.
Antoninus: …souls protected by Mary, and on which she casts her eyes, are NECESSARILY JUSTIFIED AND SAVED.
No; she does not.
What she says is an acknowledgment of what IS going to happen.
Why does Rome CONSTANTLY try to put things into people's mouths that they do NOT say?
Luke 1:31-38
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:
37 Because no word shall be impossible with God.
38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
That was never my statement.
Roll tape.....
ME>They contradict themselves on a host of issues.<
YOU: But not on the Eucharist.
It was your position there was no contradiction on the ECFs.
As you asked me....why should we trust you going forward when you were incorrect on this issue?
Yes, “Be it done to me according to your word.” Mary consented. She said YES!
Elsie, don’t you think Mary had free will?
You haven’t beaten me and you never will. Your quarrel is with Jesus Christ, not me.
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.