So let’s analyze the central features of each of our friends’ response. Judge for yourself the absurdity of their positions. Let’s start with boatbums.
Boatbums
His is a familiar tactic. When up against the ropes forage the usual anti-Catholic websites, plug into a discredited blog authored by one Brian Culliton’s, and then engage in a simplistic, wholesale, and massive cut-and-paste job, to tell us “The Catholic Church is in opposition to Irenaeus’ understanding of the Eucharist elements.” Incredible!
This is the stuff of neophytes trying to play theologian. Let’s keep out the great constellation Catholic theologians for now. Here’s one of their own. Perhaps, J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford scholar and one of the greatest Protestant patristic scholars of the 20th century can speak to this when he says in his monumental historic work: “Early Christian Doctrines (p. 211) the following.
“In the third century the early Christian identification of the Eucharistic bread and wine with the Lord’s body and blood continued unchanged, although a difference of approach can be detected in East and West. The outline, too, of a more considered theology of the Eucharistic sacrifice begins to appear In the West the equation of the consecrated elements with the body and blood was quite straightforward, although the fact that the presence is sacramental was never forgotten. Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes [E.g. de orat. 19; de idol. 7] the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks [De pud. 9], ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The REALISM of his theology comes to light in the argument [De res. carn. 8], based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds on Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s BODY and BLOOD are as REAL as the baptismal WATER.” (All caps are in original)
For serious scholars, a devastating and comprehensive rebuttal to the Protestant interpretation may be found here.
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num8.htm
Cynical Bear:
At one end, he offers this gem of an analysis:
“Catholics cannot show that what they teach is what the apostles taught and should therefore be considered accursed.”
Zureil
At the other end Zuriel tries his hand at scriptural interpretation and in essence he confirms the point made here so many times. That it is not everyone and their grandmother (Indeed, Luther used the term “milkmaid”), who get to make a definitive interpretation of scripture. Christ founded ONE Church and gave only that Church the infallible authority to teach ONE truth. Not the Jeremiah Wrights, the Jim Jones; David Koreshs, Billy Grahams, Benny Hinns, or Joel Osteens or Creflo Dollars to provide a definitive interpretation of the ONE truth for all time.
Zuriel expects to teach us “his” truth as opposed to that of Church, and of course as opposed to the great Catholic theologians such as Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict to say nothing of the scores of eminent Protestant theologians who have converted to Catholicism.
The next time we’ll have “Bishop” TD Jakes debating us how “he” interprets certain Bible passages! And let’s not forget how the Jehovah’s Witnesses offer us “their” version of scripture.
Ealgeone
In between these two extremes, we have ealgeone who instructs us that Catholicism is untrue because it does not teach the “literal six day creation.” (Really, Go see for yourself what he writes. I am being serious.)
Metmom
metmom’s offering of “wisdom” is actually a jewel of supreme ignorance and actually is central to the decay of Protestantism where mainline Evangelical and Lutheran denomination now use scripture alone to justify the ordination of married gay and lesbian pastors.
She writes:
“And this is a perfect example of why Catholicism requires ‘sacred tradition’ because it’s by THAT that most of their doctrine is supported, not by Scripture.” (Her capitals)
This takes the cake so to speak. It completely escapes her that it is by scripture that Catholics establish infallible Petrine Authority and its was by reference and cross-reference to the sacred oral tradition (the unwritten word of God in John 21: 25), beliefs, rituals, and liturgies, against which the hundreds of written fragments were evaluated for the first three hundred years (a long process) and the canonical texts were established in the Synod of Rome in 382 A.D. The same texts used to this day.
To sum up, by this logic until the Reformation and its thousands of sects and sub-sects, for FIFTEEN CENTURIES the followers of the Catholic Church and the successors to the apostles, the saints, and martyrs, the great theologians all got it wrong. Including such outstanding non-Catholic historical scholars like J.N.D. Kelley.
Ravenwolf
ravenwolf complains that St. Irenaeus wrote about the Eucharist around 185 A.D. and there is nothing before that.
To be fair, ravenwolf makes a good and honest point and he deserves a serious response even if he still continues to stick to his views. So without going into a long discourse or referencing scores of links on the point, let’s keep it short with three quick easy references by way of summary.
THE DIDACHE
The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript that was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.
“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.
-Ch. 9:5
“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. “In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.”
-Ch 14
ST. IGNATIUS SUCCEEDING ST. EVODIUS, WHO WAS THE IMMEDIATE SUCCESSOR OF ST. PETER
He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena. He wrote:
“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.” (Letter to the Ephesians. 80-110 A.D.)
ST. CLEMENT WAS THE THIRD SUCCESSOR OF PETER AS BISHOP OF ROME
“He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours.” (St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians.)
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR WAS BORN A PAGAN BUT CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY AFTER STUDYING PHILOSOPHY.
Justin was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 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.” (A.D. 148-155.)
And yes, we cannot leave out St. Irenaeus. Let his own words speak for themselves.
ST. IRENAEUS
St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies. Yet he never could have imagined the Protestant heresies that would follow centuries later. But here’s what he wrote:
“[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”
Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:
At the end of the day it is impossible to disagree with the renowned English essayist in his book, “The Great Heresies,” where after an examination of a number of heresies, including Islam, he writes that Protestantism, unlike other heresies “spawned a cluster of heresies” to which weak minds are drawn.
It completely escapes Catholics that born again believers use infallible SCRIPTURAL authority.
BTW, check out boatbums homepage. You'll find that she's not a he either.
Would post 626 count as making it personal, among other things?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Please consider your posts carefully to see that they are not crossing the line into personal comments.
Look friend...if you're going to quote someone, quote'em. Don't put words in people's mouths.
My actual quote from post 541, which I stand by, is as follows.
STEELFISH: We have a single Credo and Catechism. If you only read it maybe you’d understand Catholic beliefs.
>EALGEONE: and apparently non-catholics are more familiar with this than catholics are!
I understand the catechism teaches catholics and muslims adore the same god and that they don't believe in a literal six day creation....it is symbolic.
tells me all I need to know about catholicism right there. <
And the telling part is no catholic refuted either of my statements.
If catholics don't believe the Genesis account, in that God created the universe, earth, etc in six 24 hour days, I can see why they have messed up so much in the rest of their theology.
So Steelfish....if you're going to quote someone ....man/woman up and get it right.
**So let’s analyze the central features of each of our friends’ response.**
Analyze? Kinda like the mainstream media analyzes conservative positions, with no bias?
The true church of Jesus Christ has never been extremely popular with the masses. Denying one’s self, taking up one’s cross, and following him, is not glamorous. Jesus said, “Few there be that find it”, when he was describing the quest for eternal life.
I can’t answer for the others, but you certainly haven’t answered most of my responses.
Let me ask you another series of questions that you can ‘analyze’:
Paul said that Satan can transform himself into an angel of light, and his demons into ministers of righteousness. What line(s) does Satan not cross to achieve his masterful deceptions?
Let’s just start at Penetcost, to see what he was faced with, after the Spirit was poured out. He was no doubt witness to the birth of the church, heard Peter preach Christ and him crucified; heard the convicted souls ask what they needed to do, and heard Peter’s Acts 2:38 conversion commands.
First and foremost, The devil hates the usage of the name of Jesus in baptism. So, he knew he had to eliminate, or at least discount it’s importance in some way. With the apostles fresh out of ‘seminary’, there was going to be a need for weaker minded ‘replacements’ to come along after the original twelve died off, in order to introduce ‘better understanding’ of the scriptures, and the teachings of Christ and the original twelve.
The ‘replacements’ plan could be done in as many ways as there could be replacement doctrines. Those that stayed true to the apostles doctrine could simply be declared to be closed minded, old fashioned, or not as ‘spiritual’, and forced to go their separate way to still be faithful to the original doctrine. Paul warned of that happening, before leaving Miletus to sail to Judea. So, we KNOW false doctrine was present in the time of Paul.
What other way could Satan try to undermine the foundation of the church?.....lay claim to preserving God’s word? Do you think that that is a line he would not cross? It would be almost essential, in order to build a legitimacy in his quest for the title of ‘the original church’. I’m sure he is a big believer in advertising only the ‘positive’.
We know from scipture that the devil has supernatural powers; even to do things that seem like miracles. But, he can’t forgive sins, and of course, doesn’t want to.
Would Satan make sure to erect the most impressive places of worship?....Put on the most elaborate displays of ceremony?
The devil knows all about the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and pride of life. He has used those weaknesses of man to his advantage for thousands of years. He’s not about to stop short of making a ‘church’ that looks and sounds like it could only have been built by God.
Tell me he won’t give the hungry heart everything but remission of sins, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost (which he couldn’t even if he wanted to).
Tell me he waited hundreds of years to try and make a church that looked and sounded original, as though he’s too stupid, or inexperienced at deception to do it in a few (see Paul’s warning at Miletus again).
Tell me he didn’t add ‘more stuff’, as time went by, to make it look like his ‘church’ had more to offer.
Tell me what lines you don’t think the devil would cross and cross quickly.
We await your analysis.
You don’t rely on God’s word much at all do you.