In baseball, a Grand Slam is when the batter hits a home run while the bases are loaded, resulting in an instant score of 4 home runs. Using that analogy, have come across 4 devastating quotes against Protestantism (and even Eastern Orthodoxy) coming from the Third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus (431AD). As I present the quotes, it will become clear from the significance of the things taught that one must take a stand and conclude either this Council was orthodox and Catholic or heterodox and untrustworthy.
Quote #1 -
Quote #1 -
Forasmuch as the divinely inspired Scripture says, “Do all things with advice,” it is especially their duty who have had the priestly ministry allotted to them to examine with all diligence whatever matters are to be transacted. (Letter to the Synod in Pamphylia)
First off, credit goes to Joe and his excellent Catholic apologetics blog for finding this quote. The quote "Do all things with advice" comes directly from the deutero-canonical book of Sirach 32:19, and the footnote on this text quotes famous Protestant historian Philip Schaff who agrees that this Ecumenical Council plainly saw this book as divinely inspired Scripture. But Protestants say that this book is for sure not inspired Scripture and they threw out this book.
Quote #2 -
Quote #2 -
Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood. (Second Letter of Cyril to Nestorius)
This quote contains three powerful statements that should make any good Protestant cringe. First, St Cyril describes the Mass as the "Unbloody Sacrifice," meaning the Mass is a Sacrifice and re-presents the same sacrifice of Calvary but only in an 'unbloody' manner, the very thing Catholic Dogma teaches. Second, St Cyril says that the Eucharist is Christ's actual flesh and blood, not mere bread symbolizing Christ's flesh. Third, at the end of this quote Cyril quotes John 6:52-53, saying that this refers to the Eucharist. But Protestants cannot affirm any of these things, and in fact hold them as hallmarks of a false church.
Quote #3 -
Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time (Session III)
This quote plainly says that there is no doubt and that it is known by all that Peter was the prince and head of the apostles and leader of the Church, and that Pope Celestine was Peter's successor and rules in his place. This quote is an abomination for both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox for obvious reasons: if the Papacy is true, both of those groups are in deep trouble! Eastern Orthodox love to espouse that the Papacy is the worst heresy ever, even worse than Arianism and Nestorianism. And yet nobody at this Council noticed the worst heresy ever being spouted right off in front of them! They must pick whether this Council taught heresy here or whether the Catholic Church is right. The truth is plain for those who want to see it.
Quote #4 -
If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh let him be anathema. (Anathema #1 against Nestorius)
If anyone does not agree that in a real sense that Mary is the "Mother of God," then they are embracing heresy. Of course, this dogma has been widely misunderstood to mean Mary created/produced the Trinity, but all it means is that Mary bore and gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son. There are many Protestants who disagree with this dogmatic teaching and do not believe Mary is "Mother of God" and consider this a major heresy and blasphemy.
In the end, the Protestant really has to decide whether the Church went completely in heresy this early on in Church history or not. These teachings are too significant to sweep them under the rug or cherry pick the Council's teachings. This Council provided a benchmark for all Christianity at the time as to what was orthodox and what wasn't, so to claim heresy effectively entails the whole visible Church went apostate. I know many Protestants will try all kinds of fancy tricks to get around this, but really this isn't a hard issue to address. Catholics have no problem taking these things at face value as they're plainly taught, and we affirm these things even today.
Either take Christian history seriously or don't. I would just hope that Protestant seminaries would be honest enough to admit that this Council sounds nothing like what any Protestant denomination would ever teach.
75 comments:
Nick,
You put to much faith in church fathers and councils.
An "unbloody" sacrifice saves no one nor has power to do anything. You should read Michael Taylor's blog on the issue of the meaning of eating the flesh and drinking His blood at http://fallibility.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-flesh-profits-nothing-roman.html
'Unbloody sacrifices' has no power? So, why the Levitical offering of grains? And why the so many Levitical sacrifices has no power, according to Hebrews?
unbloody does not refer to the "lacking blood" since there is blood present--its just in an unbloody form, meaning, no violent means, that is Jesus was beat to a bloody pulp once at Calvary, and what we are doing is not repeating that violence.
As far as John 6 does, equating "the flesh" with "my flesh" renders John 6 into incomprehensible contradictory gibberish when the phrase "the flesh" is used in the NT it refers to mans inclination to sin eg the spirit is willin but the flesh is weak
nick: you should know by now Protestant do not care for council even the early ones--except for the REformed--and even then they only pretend to especially if its can superficially be read to support them--like Orange II--despite the only anathema it makes is against Calvinistic doctrine
Pride is the linchpin of Pism. The devil wrapped his lies up as possible truth with Pism. Wormwood would be proud!
No real Protestant can take true Church history seriously. To do so would mean acknowledging that the Catholic Church is the true, historical Christian church. So, the Protestant who comes to this realization really has only two choices. Accept the Catholic faith or attack it to still his conscience.
The early church from the NT for the next 5 centuries is not about Roman Catholicism. It took time for the church to develop into Roman Catholicism. We know this by looking at the development of the powers of the bishop of Rome and doctrines that were not taught by the apostles such as indulgences, the Marian dogmas and a celibate leadership to name a few things that set it apart from the apostolic church.
We default to Christ.
Not to the church.
Not to the Bible.
You can keep your "grand slam against Protestants" which is just an expression of human pride.
Steve Martin -
Christ is part if the Church. By rejecting the Church you reject him.
Your post is filled with pride because you think you have it all figured out without his Church and only listening to part of Christ's commands.
Where is this apostolic church? What happened to it? It went underground?
You think the apostles didn't teach repentance for the temporal effect of sin? You're crazy if you don't. An indulgence is a punishment. Quit using this word incorrectly and go study what the word means. You must work to repent. Get over it and stop trying to create an intellectual exercise of Christianity.
Michael who? I'll gladly take Saint Augustine over some 21st century scholastic who doesn't understand the Mass. The liturgy of the Mass PRECEEDED a fair amount of books in the NT. Of course, man's propensity to twist words and reject truth knows no bounds.
Either reject Catholicism ( which is Christianity) as a total failure right out of the gate (and until today) or stop trying to force Christianity to conform to you.
Steve D. -
Exactly! Pism is intellectual, historical and biblically dishonest. Nothing about Pism naturally flows from scripture or history. Pism is the precursor for Mormonism.
The early Church is ALL about Roman Catholicism and the Mass!!!! Next you'll tell us the Angel Moroni has some new texts! Quit making up history and ignoring it.
The Bible is the word of God and you don't default to it?
What kind of believer are you? If you don't have Tradition (which includes the Word) you have no idea what Christ ever taught.
You aren't a Protestant. What exactly are you?
cwdlaw223
"said...
Michael who?"
Maybe you forgot already that he dealt with most of your objections in great detail here:
http://fallibility.blogspot.com/p/roman-catholicism.html
Compared to Saint Augustine, he's another nobody scholastic. He has yet to fashion a decent argument on any major biblical issue raised on this site. He ignores history and needs pages and pages of illogical or incorrect positions about Rome to try to make his argument. He asks for an answer to a biblical question, we given him an answer and then he doesn't like the answer.
Quit kidding yourself with your proto-Mormonism and either reject Christianity or submit to Christ's Church.
I noticed you did not refute one point he made. Not one. That tells me you know he is right otherwise you would have refuted him.
The Church fathers are in unanimous agreement about the Mass and what happens? A bunch of progressives come along with a better interpretation of scripture in the 16th Century. How convenient they attacked the Mass to allow themselves the power to create their own church.
The conflict has been and always will be over the Mass and authority. Sinful man believes he can figure Christianity out from a collection of books that never, ever were written to be a recipe for salvation. The books were predominantly chose as scripture because of their use DURING THE MASS. Furthermore, it's not just about "getting saved," it's about trying to love God like he loves us. Salvation is a by-product of such faith, hope and charity.
If the Mass isn't real Christianity is one big joke and Christians should be pitied.
Are you the same person that keeps asking people on this site to post written evidence if oral tradition? Do you understand the law of non-contradiction?
Do you understand the liturgy of the Mass is apostolic tradition? Do you understand the Bible itself (all 73 books) is part of apostolic tradition? Do you understand the concept of the Trinity? Do you understand the deposit of faith left by the Apostles allows the Church to refine the teachings of the Apostles.
All of the above is a small part of tradition that people claim doesn't exist. If it's not written down it must not have happened or existed in biblical times. Good luck with that worldview. You end up spawning Pism which leads to theological relativism.
I also noticed you put more faith in this Michael guy than Saint Augustine when it comes to the Mass? Michael is a better theologian???? At least be honest and admit this fact.
The mass is not Christianity. Its not even in Scripture.
Why didn't you refute any of MT's blog article on the specific points he made?
Please tell that to Saint Augustine and history. The Mass is in scripture but you refuse to believe it. You keep forcing scripture to be something it's not. Scripture isn't an encyclopedia for all things Christian. Scripture itself isn't self defining and it appears you ignore that fact like you do with history.
Why don't you explain how Christianity went right off the rails into a Mass celebrating frenzy. Michael won't. I'll even make it easy on you and let you assume we don't know anything about early Christian worship until 200 AD onward. Good luck with your explanation how everyone was wrong about the Mass but you're right.
If he can't respond here that's his problem, not mine.
Anonymous /
Gravity doesn't exist! There, I said it so it must be true.
You didn't even attempt to respond even though he worked hard to give you a fair hearing and present your arguments fairly. If you truly had the truth on your side you would have been able to refute him with ease. The fact that you had no response shows how weak RC is.
Christ's body can never run out. That's what Ps don't get, among other things, about the issue of calling the Mass an unbloody sacrifice.
The once-for-all portion of the Passover sacrifice is the killing of the lamb on Preparation Day. Consuming the lamb’s body could be done repeatedly, and by multiple parties (until, of course, they ran out of lamb, a concern that doesn’t exist for the Lamb of God).
Let’s say you’ve got a family with 9 people in it. Each of them eats the lamb: that doesn’t re-sacrifice the lamb, in the sense of killing the lamb over and over again. But each person who eats the lamb does uniquely enter into the sacrifice each time.
Like you won't respond to me and the simple question I asked you above?
I responded to all 13 questions posed by Michael. I don't need to keep responding to him on a different website.
I have no idea how hard he worked. I'm sure Joseph Smith and Ellen White were hard workers as well. Just admit that the early Christians were dumb and misguided with their Mass centered worship. Please!
Christ is the Head of the Church.
His Church is found wherever His Word and sacraments are. Not in one big, old, institution. He is there, in the Catholic Church. But so often His Word, His gospel, is covered up by so many barnacles that He is hard to find.
For a lot of Catholics, the Church comes before Jesus.
Not good.
Steve M -
So there's no universal truth? Church A says X, Church B says Y about Baptism, the Eucharist, etc. In your world that appears to be okay.
Steve Martin, The Catholic Church was founded by Christ on the human rock called Peter. Peter was given the power to bind and loosen by our Lord. The authority to rightly administer the sacraments was only given to the apostles and the ones they ordained. You and your fellow Protestants rejected the sacraments as ordained by Christ, and proved yourselves unworthy to administer them. The church, the mystical body of Christ, can not be separated from the head, so we must hold it just as important as Christ himself.
Steve Dalton,
The Rock was Peter's confession of faith...in Jesus. Not the man himself.
The Word is what creates and sustains faith.
No. we do not default to the church...but to the Word of God...Christ Jesus...and in Him, alone.
How exactly did Peter confess when Christ was the one who uttered the word rock and gave Peter keys and the power to bind and loose?
If words have no meaning then Christianity is a fairy tale.
What do you mean by "default"? Why not default to the Father since he must have made Jesus and since Jesus was human he's lesser than the father? Arianism has a lot of appeal if you ignore Christ's Church which was created on this earth to teach. There's a reason Arianism was defeated by Rome and this heresy has gone away. Rome defeated this heresy and it wasn't because man became smarter.
Christ never wanted to be apart from his bride, but in your world he is apart from her. How you justify such position is beyond me. Why you believe that God is not in charge of his PHYSICAL Church baffles me as well.
Time and time again God uses sinful man for his own purposes. I wonder if Ps could re-write history they would get rid of sinful Apostles and replace them as well.
Steve Martin, church history does not support your claim that Jesus was talking about Peter's confession of faith being the Rock. Every Early Church Father I read says Peter, not a confession of faith was the Rock the Church was to be built on. Didn't you ever read the ECF's when you were Catholic, or like many Catholics who convert to the Protestant heresy, do you just willfully ignore them and chant "sola scriptura" as a justification for not doing so?
Solo, not sola. Even Mathison can't explain the solo effect of this insidious doctrine. Scripture doesn't interpret itself nor is it easy to interpret. It wasn't created as a recipe but Ps sure want it to be a cook book.
Cwdlaw223 et al,
This comment that I am typing up is in response to the following comment by Cwd in reply to Steve Martin:
The Bible is the word of God and you don't default to it?
What kind of believer are you? If you don't have Tradition (which includes the Word) you have no idea what Christ ever taught.
You aren't a Protestant. What exactly are you?
I happen to read a blog written by a Lutheran pastor and theologian titled Just and Sinner. Some of you who are my Catholic brethren may be familiar with it. If you are interested in what is currently going on in the Lutheran and Reformed camps you may like that blog.
Recently I read the comments under a post that was written on 26 April 2013 and I saw some that were written by the same Steve Martin who posts comments on Nick's blog. An anonymous person asked him if he is a Confessional Lutheran and believer in the infallibility of Scripture. In reply Steve wrote, I believe that Christ has done, is doing, and will yet do all that is needful. Where the confessions and Scripture and men or women speak to that fact, that I am with them. Where they send us back into ourselves...I am against them.
As you can clearly see, Steve does not believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. The author of that blog wrote a reply to him to thank him for admitting that he disagrees with Scripture and he even told Steve that they have no common ground on which to argue. Steve replied to him, saying, I disagree with Scripture that DOES NOT DRIVE CHRIST.
You do not have to take my word for it; just go to justandsinner [dot] blogspot [dot] com and look for a post titled Luther on the Necessity of Preaching on Sanctification. You can see Steve's comments for yourself.
I think what Steve recently wrote here reveals what he is more like. To quote him, We default to Christ. Not to the church. Not to the Bible. To me he sounds almost like what the early Lutherans called "Enthusiasts." These were people who rejected the Scriptures and Sacraments as the means through which grace is communicated to sinners and for that the Lutherans condemned them. They believed in a direct communication between God and man. I am not saying Steve is an Enthusiast, but I do think he seems like one or something similar. I would even say that what he really believes in can lead to Marcionism.
My conclusion on Steve is that he is not an actual Lutheran. His views are not in agreement with the Formula of Concord. It is inappropriate for Steve to speak on behalf of Lutherans and Lutheranism.
Pax vobiscum.
Steve Martin,
The consequence of your views is that you are the arbiter of truth. It is written in Jeremiah 17:9 that the heart is devious above all else and that it is perverse. If you agree that that verse is inspired by God then you should look to something outside of yourself for orthodoxy. This of course goes for all who appoint themselves to be the arbiter of truth. Jeremiah 17:9 says a lot!
If you really want to be a Lutheran you must be in full agreement with the Lutheran confessions. I recommend reading the Epitome of the Formula of Concord. It is one of the confessions and it is kind of short. Read it carefully and see if you can honestly confess all that is written in it.
And I want to let you know, Steve, that I am not your enemy and I do not rejoice in writing any of this. I am genuinely concerned about your salvation and where you stand in the sight of God. From what I know, based on your own comments, you disagree with some of Scripture and you espouse easy-believism.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. (Matthew 7:21, NRSVCE)
One cannot merely believe in the Apostles' Creed and from there be received into the Kingdom. One must live in Christ (see 1 Corinthians) if one is truly his joint-heir. Saints Paul and Peter told their followers to live their lives in a manner that is worthy of the Gospel for a good reason. This doesn't mean you must be as perfect as Jesus himself – it means you must rectify yourself every day to be the child of God that you really are; and the end you get is eternal life (Romans 6:22).
Pax tecum.
In one sense we are all our own arbiters of truth. However, the Protestant formula holds that each individual interpretation of scripture is truth and there is no Church that has authority over a believer for stating the correct interpretation of scripture. Everyone is on an island in Pism. No obedience or submission. Very child like. Why do I say child like? Because kids determine their own truth but their parents have authority over them just as Christ's Church has authority over us.
The P ignores the issue of where is Christ's Church and twists the concept of such church into (invisible) knots so that he can create a church to match his beliefs. Just admit that history was an abysmal Catholic failure. They won't do that because such belief is ridiculous. They try to reconfigure words and history to make their beliefs fit.
Wormwood smiles when this happens. When the Devil has us believe a lie as truth he wins. The Devil is at his best with such tactics. There is no pure heart with such an empty mind in my book.
Of course, I have my own sins to deal with and Catholicism constantly forces me to deal with them and repent. Maybe that's why people hate Catholicism so much. It's hard to deal with the truth.
To all,
I posted a comment exposing Steve's views about the Holy Scriptures. It is now time for me to confess to all people here my own errors.
Last month I fell into the Sedevacantist camp. For about a week I held onto the views that Pope Pius XII was the last valid pope, that the Second Vatican Council was heretical, and that what the world today knows as the Catholic Church is not truly the Church but something more appropriately called the "Vatican II Sect." After turning away from that error I turned to another error. I reconsidered my Lutheran past and briefly subscribed to views such as Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and whatever I remembered from the Lutheran confessions. After that error I turned almost turned to yet another one. Giving into temptation and sin, I reconsidered my pre-Christian past and looked at photos of idols with reverence.
Anything heterodox, heretical, or schismatic that I have written in the comment sections of Nick's blog, please do not hold it against me. I confess the Catholic faith only. Whenever I can get to Reconciliation, I will confess these and all mortal sins that I have committed. It may be over a week though, for the priest of the local parish I have been attending since February 2013 (the month I embraced Catholicism) is out of the country and when he returns, Lord willing, he will talk with me about being formally received into Church soon as he told me before.
Ora pro me.
Pax vobiscum.
Clint -
I suspect your story is like that of many others on this site. I'll pray for you (most Ps are surprised to hear a Catholic (former Protestant here)) say this. I would never, ever have been converted to Catholicism without God using the internet. I would never have had access to information I get on this site and the Shameless Popery site and Catholic Answers that actually explains Catholicism instead of a bunch of lies.
Man wants God on his terms, not God's terms. It will happen until the second coming.
Nick,
This latest post is definitely one that I can relate to. The main reason why I embraced Catholicism was because I knew the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils were witnesses to historical and authentic Christianity. All other groups who professed Christianity were only heretics. If anybody today wants to identify with genuine biblical Christianity they should identify with the early Catholics rather than with the Arians, Sabellianists, Pelagians, Gnostics, Marcionites, et al.
While I was a Protestant I affirmed that the acceptance of the theology of the first four Ecumenical Councils was the litmus test for orthodoxy. What I really meant was the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, Trinitarianism, Chalcedonian Christology, and that the Virgin Mary is truly Theotokos (Mother of God). I guess you could say I adhered to the Paleo-orthodoxy idea that has many classic Protestants of today as adherents.
There were two problems though. First, there was no real epistemology to support a subscription to only the first four councils. Second, I rejected the ecclesiology of those councils. So one day I got to actually studying the documents of the first three and I realised that if I kept holding to my view of the Ecumenical Councils the consequence would be that the early Church fell into heterodoxy. Why even adhere to anything of the councils then?
I snapped out of my Lutheran and Paleo-orthodoxy views, purchased the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and started attending the local parish. What I have now is total consistency and real historical, biblical, and sound Christianity – I have the Church that Jesus said he would guide to all truth rather than my own genius.
Pax tecum.
Cwd,
Thanks for the reply. All of us, until the Parousia, are in need of prayer.
Pax tecum.
It's tragic to hear former protestants embrace the errors of Rome. That can only be the result of not knowing scripture well and the history of the Roman Catholic church.
It's sad to see Ps accept the lies of the devil and reject scripture, history, logic, reason and Christ's Church. Man will believe anything as long as he can create it.
Every scholastic believes that if we just study harder we'll figure out all of scripture. Man is not and never has been intelligent enough to accomplish this task even though he's convinced he can do it. There is no mystery in Pism. It all can be figured out if you just study hard enough.
Clint,
Hang in there. It's common to have your faith shaken and challenged, but it's also important not to jump ship too quick for any 'side'. As you and other Catholics here can see though, the Protestant position basically will abandon history at the drop of the hat.
Some people are just scared to death of the freedom that being justified by faith, alone, brings.
And when the Catholic Church teaches that THEY are the ONLY true way...then people get really scared.
We don't have the hubris to say that WE are the only way. We do believe that we know the truth (Jesus alone saves - not the Church)...but we believe that others know it too.
Jesus warned us about judging others. So many Catholics ignore those warnings and claim to know who is in...and who is out.
Now that...is scary.
Steve M -
The "freedom" that you speak of is for man to create God in man's image. Justification by faith alone is really a mental exercise without any hope and charity. That's why Rome rejected this insidious construct because they knew that man is not justified by his mental thoughts. To the extent that one forces a legalistic framework for justification (which is denied), man can only be jusitified by faith, hope and charity.
People should be scared of truth given their sinful ways. It's not about hubris, it's about truth. The reason you don't dare claim to have the truth that Rome claims is because you know you don't have such truth.
Rome doesn't know who's in and out and I don't know where you get that Calvinistic idea from. In fact, Rome even admits that some will be saved outside of Rome. Only a western, progressive mind would take the position they can figure out what only God knows.
You keep ignoring the fact that Jesus is in the Church he created. He created one, physical, unified Church on this planet to guide us and you reject it for a relativistic form of Christianity that you made out of thin air.
Now that is scary! People should run for the hills when they hear your relativistic form of Christianity where truth is a matter of personal preference. Jesus saves and you can make him up however you want.
How can someone be saved outside of Rome when popes of the past taught you could not? Don't you know your history?
Please tell us great historian when and which Pope infallibly declared man cannot be saved outside of Rome.
You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Catholicism once again. Only the P mind believes it can figure out God completely. No mystery whatsoever in your world.
cwdlaw,
You keep ignoring the fact that Christ's Church is the one made up of His followers. Those that know His voice. it has nothing to do with the institution.
There are believers and unbelievers in your church...and in mine.
"The wheat and tares grow together"...my friend.
Steve M -
You keep trying to make up a new definition of the word Church. You have no way of knowing who are his followers without doctrine. In effect, you've created a hippie Jesus while ignoring his Word and his bride the Church. Why not reject the Word itself since that was given to and through the Church? Just make things up as you go along if it feels right and allow crazy ideas to permeate the Church. You don't need the Word, just love!! Groovy.
Cwdlaw,
I think it was taught by a pope in 1302 or thereabouts.
Btw- it is not the Roman Catholic church that we see in the pages of the New Testament.
Whereabouts? Seriously? There is NO POPE WHO INFALLIBLY STATED MAN CANNOT BE SAVED OUTSIDE OF ROME. Not one INFALLIBLY made such declaration. More falsehoods passed off as truths. Guess what, some Popes were sinners if you can believe that!
Please explain why the historical Church was ROMAN CATHOLIC! You can try to interpret scripture anyway you want Joseph Smith, but it's much harder to twist history.
The MASS is Roman Catholicism. Pism REJECTS the Mass and calls it a mere dinner with no physical presence. It was a hard saying by Jesus. History proves you wrong and Christianity was the Mass.
Please state that Augustine and Acquinas were confused and misguided.
Did you know that most of rd teachings have not been infallible proclaimed?
The New Testament church was not Roman Catholic.
The Church is where the Word of God, the gospel, is preach in it purity, and where the sacraments are administered in accordance with that gospel...and where there are people who believe it.
NOT in the Lutheran Church only. Or in the Catholic Church only. Or in the Methodist Church only.
It almost seems that you are more in love with the Catholic Church than Jesus Christ Himself.
Anon -
The NT Church was ROMAN CATHOLIC as evidenced through history. You just don't like this fact so, like most progressives, you try to twist history and words to make your worldview work. A Catholic doesn't need to twist anything. The truth comes out through Rome. I presume you won't show us the infallible declaration that must exist.
Steve M.
You seem to love yourself more than Christ or the one, universal Church he created.. You have a warped view of truth and have your feet firmly planted in mid air. Christ is not the author of confusion and yet that is what you hold (mutually exclusive ideas about Christianity).
You are not hearing a word that I say, cdwlaw.
Not a word.
In love with myself. Don't be ridiculous.
That's all I have to say on the matter.
The clay is baked.
have a good life.
Nobody understands your hippie Jesus there Steve M. Nobody except you. You don't accept history or truth.
What you say is heresy. Nobody believed like you in history. Not even the Reformers.
Cwdlaw,
If the New Testament church and the early church was Roman Catholic we would see an infallible pope, the Marian dogmas and indulgences in the 1st 5 centuries. The fact we don't shows it was not. Those are the facts.
They were there, just like the Trinity and Hypostatic Union. Your denomination certainly wasn't there. There is one deposit of faith. Just because it takes time to refine doctrines doesn't mean they didn't exist.
You have no idea what you talk about when it comes to papal infallibility, Marian dogma or indulgences. Even if they weren't there, you have Roman Catholic liturgy, worship and theology.
Where is there anything like Pism in early Christianity. Nowhere to be found.
Are you going to convert to Eastern Orthodox???
You have no idea how to square the fact that history is Roman Catholicism.
Let's get to the real issue:
Where is there a Church in the 1st-5th Century who rejected the real presence in the Eucharist? Step up anonymous and give us the name of one such church and where they specifically reject the real presence?
I have already given you some real issues. Where was the first mass said and by whom? Who was the priest in a church that said it? What date?
You have way more epistemological issues than I do.
First Mass was by Christ, the High Priest. Second? Around the time of the Didache. Do you want pictures or video proof?
Please admit that Augustine and Acquinas were dead wrong about the real presence. Please.
Then show us any evidence of sola Scriptura, justification by faith alone which doesn't have hope and charity as part of faith and a Protestant Bible in the 1-5th century.
Where is the evidence of your position in history? Take your best shot.
Jesus was not saying a mass. The supper was not a worship service. Also His body was not broken or His blood shed on that Thursday nite. That would not happen until Friday.
What specifically did Augustine say about the real presence? Where does he mention that a priest has the power to change the bread and wine?
Anonymous,
There is an option for "Name/URL" that does not require you to log in and is just as anonymous as the "Anonymous" anonymous option. It would help if you used that, since all it does is attach a name to your posts. You don't have to enter email or anything like that.
Anonymous -
Here you go about Augustine:
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
...
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
Let me guess, the above, along with the fact Augustine was a Catholic Bishop, isn't enough evidence for you that Augustine believed in the real presence. Only pictures, or an audio or video recording will do.
When are you ever going to produce the slightest bit of historical evidence that someone believed like you do?
You have no real connection to historical Christianity as described by the early Church Fathers.
Anony -
Here's more for you to think about:
"Occasionally these writers [the Fathers] use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms 'body' and 'blood' may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [E.g. C. Marc. 3,19; 4,40] to the bread as 'a figure' (figura) of Christ's body, and once speaks [Ibid I,14: cf. Hippolytus, apost. trad. 32,3] of 'the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.'
"Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized. Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian's vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of 'to make present.'
"All that his language really suggests is that, while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them. In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of -figura-, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are now Christ's body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine."
("J.N.D. Kelly: Early Christian Doctrines, pg. 212 c. 1978", as quoted in "On the Real Presence")
Are you ever going to put forth your theory why the Mass dominates early Christian history and the real presence wasn't rejected until the Reformers? Please tell us how so many people in the early Church could be so wrong, stupid and misguided?
Here's more from Augustine:
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Ser. 227)
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (Ser. 272)
"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16, 30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body." (Ser. 232)
Go read the blog at Shameless Popery for a list of all of the early Church Fathers who believed in the real presence and the supporting quotes from these fathers.
This site has some great information about the real presence that will correct your misunderstanding there anonymous:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
The NT Church was Roman Catholic to the Core. Why? Because the Mass is central to Catholicism. Why you don't just reject Christianity as a complete failure for 1,400 years baffles me.
"The supper was not a worship service". How willfully ignorant can you be?
Progressives don't care if they're ignorant. What they care about is making the world conform to them instead of the other way around. No different than politicians who are "morally outraged" that someone could take away the right to kill an unborn child or that the economic law of scarcity doesn't apply to healthcare. EXACTLY THE SAME TYPE OF THINKING, JUST IN A DIFFERENT AREA.
The Reformers were the ultimate progressives and liberals. They were so convinced they were smarter than 1,400 years of history that they had to be correct. So what did they do first? Rip out 7 books from the OT was huge start. Absolutely no good reason to reject 1,000 years of the completely Catholic Bible in use except the fact that they needed to change what is "scripture" for their interpretation to work.
Then they started changing the definition of the word church and then they worked on going after the Mass.
"In baseball, a Grand Slam is when the batter hits a home run while the bases are loaded, resulting in an instant score of 4 home runs."
Edit: 4 runs. Not home runs. A grand slam is counted as a single home run although the guy who gets it also has 4 RBI's added to his total stats since he batted himself in and the three guys on base.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0qOg_ybm7Y
Post a Comment