Posted on 10/14/2007 8:25:58 PM PDT by Salvation
Spiritually He is present through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, but not physically. That is what the second coming means -- His second physical coming to earth.
Nanette, I just found this post. Please don't worry about it. I have a problem with my temper too, especially when I get passionate over a subject (as I do over this subject). Honestly, there's nothing to forgive. I feel awful that you think there is.
"He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead."
That wording precludes any sort of belief that Jesus is/was making regular physical trips back and forth from the throne of His Father for Communion services, much less sitting in chalices and monstrances in church tabernacles.
Clearly, the distinction between must be made between the sense in which Jesus is absent, and the sense in which he is present, because you, I, and all the Church fathers recognize some sense in which he is present, and one in which he is absent.
But who says your distinction is correct?
Jesus is not present in the sense that he speaks for Himself, can pop up on camera, etc. Certainly, taking on the Greeks called the “formal accident” of bread is certainly not being here in the sense that Revelations depicts.
Now, if it were NOT the position of the early Church that Christ is obectively present in the Eucharist, then the person who DID first say that He was present would certainly be considered a heretic, an idolator, etc. Yet, with all the debate about the nature of Christ (dualism, monarchism, monophytism, etc.), no-one ever seems to take issue with what would be outrageous statements.
Now, Protestants such as Missey_Lucy_Goosey claim to have studied Church Fathers like Justin Martyr. She reads Justin as denying the presence because he clarifies that Christians aren’t cannibals. But here’s what Justin says: “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
Not necessarily so. Remember that most people of the day were illiterate, and had little access to the writings of Justin Martyr, et al, and could care less what He wrote. Just because he says so does not mean it was the sentiment of the day. It was merely his sentiment at that particular moment and for many of these guys their opinions vacillated with time.
It wasn't until a false teaching began to gain popularity that it was addressed and not necessarily in a lengthy dissertation that few would read. These would have been addressed orally by preaching the scriptures from the pulpit or by a simple memorizable scriptural creed.
All we know for sure is that perhaps by the middle of the 2nd century, the fundamentals of the faith that were on the lips of of the faithful were embodied in the Apostles Creed. And not only is the Real Presence not found therein, but there is/was no room for it at all for those who believed the Creed's words: "is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again to judge the living and the dead". The location of the Real Presence was/is at the right hand of His Father from whence He will come again [the second time].
>> Not necessarily so. Remember that most people of the day were illiterate, and had little access to the writings of Justin Martyr, et al, and could care less what He wrote. Just because he says so does not mean it was the sentiment of the day. It was merely his sentiment at that particular moment and for many of these guys their opinions vacillated with time. <<
We’re not talking of the illiterates, here, though. While Justin Martyr was not Pope, or reporting the decisions of an ecumentical council, he was very influential. His writings are cited by (and thus implicitly endorsed by) Tatian, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Ephanius, Jerome, and many more Church Fathers, who were in the practice of scouring the writings of others for the hint of heresy. (Even Tertullian himself would later be regarded as heretical over arguably a finer detail.)
The attacks on the doctrines of the Church require one to equate ignorance with uncertainty, uncertainty with reasonable doubt, and reasonable doubt with a justification to consider any doctrines of the Catholic Church presumptively wrong.
Often, one can get in trouble from arguing from silence, or the dog that didn’t bark. But, in this case, Justin’s articulation of the doctrine is so unambigious, and direct, and the danger of heresy so grave, that it’s inconceivable that guardians against heresy would blindly commend Justin’s writings if it contained what would be a very blatant, grave, and explicit heresy.
What we find instead is equally explicit attestations from Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others. And none of these were criticized, either.
Still, your facts are not in evidence by any stretch. Keep throwing it at the wall. It doesn’t stick.
There is no disservice where Truth is affirmed.
You just don't like her conclusions.
They're based in error. Do you like error?
Jesus came to fulfill the Law. He surpasses it; as God, He is the dictator.
We have understood from the beginning that what Jesus has said, He means, and we follow. The lunacy first began in the 900’s and never gained any traction until the Reformers led the merry charge into hitherto suppressed 1st century heresies and Biblical Vandalism.
Read all of the relevant accounts in the Gospels and in Acts. I suppose that your Bible does contain the Gospels; most of the older ones do. I’m not aware of the current state of availability of Montanist Bibles that are apparently quite liberally distributed to certain denominations.
So after Peter received the keys and was instructed to feed My sheep, Jesus intended for Christianity to hungry until Saint Calvin (Peace Be Upon Him) rode up on horseback 1500 years later?
And this explains how heresy enters into the church. Justin Martyr was not exactly a paragon of Christian orthodoxy. He had his theological problems and thus when later writers cite him as an authority, instead of checking his work against scripture, one can be left with a tradition of false doctrine in the works of those who rely on him.
Just because Justin says it's so doesn't make it so. His writings were not scripture and were not always scripturally sound -- as was true of so many of the church fathers even when the apostles were still alive.
When a statement by Justin Martyr is at odds with the Apostles Creed which quotes essentially from scripture, then which one should you believe??
The issue isn't whether or not the Church Fathers have the charsm of infallibility. Infallibility is only enjoyed by the papal office in teaching faith and morals. The issue is whether the universal acceptance of doctrine - in union with the Holy Father at Rome - is guarded by infallibility - and that answer is "yes". Theology is a science. A scientist may publish his findings in one research paper, do additional research, and then discover a different result, prompting a new paper which corrects his earlier findings. Since a theologian is not personally infallible, it's absurd to place an expectation of veracity upon every word consigned to print in the library of patristics. The test of veracity is not consistency of statements over the lifetime of a Church Father. The test of veracity is the universal acceptance of the doctrine as promulgated by Rome. And Rome, herself, does not simply, unilaterally decide doctrine. It takes years of consultation with theologians and bishops and reflection and prayer to determine wherein the Truth lies.
Whereas Justin Martyr may not, by himself, constitute authority, his writings are an important part of the body of evidence that this is what the Church traditionally believed from the beginning.
>> And this explains how heresy enters into the church. Justin Martyr was not exactly a paragon of Christian orthodoxy. He had his theological problems and thus when later writers cite him as an authority, instead of checking his work against scripture, one can be left with a tradition of false doctrine in the works of those who rely on him. <<
YOu see how YOPIOS (Your Own Personal Interpretation Of Scripture) works? You consider everyone who disagrees with YOPIOS to be a heretic, so you can dismiss their viewpoint as abberational. So, when you will dismiss Tatian, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Ephanus, Jerome and the bunch as all heretics, why do you bother discussing the positions of the Church Fathers? Admit that you regard the study of the Church Fathers to be pointless and be done with it! But, instead, you dismiss them on the one hand, but try to cite them as consistent with your views on the other.
And what prompts this in this instance? Because Justin understood the Apostle’s Creed in a way different from your wholly uneducated, knee-jerk interpretation? (Whatever education you may have has no bearing on the fact your interpretation is uneducated.) You draw a distinction between body and spirit. So what? Do you even know that your distinction makes suspect your understanding of what the Greeks meant by ‘body’? Why is your distinction better than Justin’s? Do you even know whether he HAS a distinction? Do you care, or is this a convenient “gotcha” to disregard Justin?
So, let’s say you’re right, and Justin, Tatian, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Ephanus, and the entire lot are all heretics. Why would the Council of Constantinople reassert that bit about “and is seated at the right hand of the Father”? See, behind your declarations of heresy is the presumption that all those you proclaim heretics are a bunch of idiots.
Quit pretending you have any regard for the Church Fathers, if you’ll declare Justin a heretic on your own base presumption of the meaning of the Apostle’s Creed. How DARE you declare, out of your pure ignorance, that men such as St. Jerome merely took on good faith Justin’s theology, rather than checking it against scripture? You’re like a school child who has barely mastered his times table attempting to correct Einstein’s theory of relativity.
You don’t speak Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. St. Jerome was brilliant in all three. He devoted his life to translating the bible, and earnestly studied Justin Martyr as well... and you have the naked audacity to declare that “later writers cite him as an authority, instead of checking his work against scripture.”
When a statement by Justin Martyr APPEARS TO YOU to be at odds with the Apostles Creed which quotes essentially from scripture, you SHOULD presume you don’t know what you are talking about.
Ouch!!!! but you still didn’t answer the question: Which carried greater weight in the early church: the Apostles Creed or a statement by Justine Martyr??
>> but you still didn’t answer the question: Which carried greater weight in the early church: the Apostles Creed or a statement by Justine Martyr?? <<
The Apostle’s Creed. My earlier point was precisely that the other Church Fathers would have been lightning fast to pick Justin’s comments to threads, had they detected the slightest whiff of heresy. The fact they did not means they found it to be in perfect harmony with the teaching of the apostles.
Re-define? Yes, redefine.
As I have already noted Rome has redefined what "tradition" means.
At the Council of Trent, IV Session pertaining to the establishment of dogma, and the interpretation of the Scriptures, Rome declared it must be conformed to the "unanimous consent of the fathers", and also confirmed that same principle at Vatican I.
Following is the dogmatic declaration made at Trent:
Decree Concerning The Edition And Use Of The Sacred Books
Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.
Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.
**********
As I have already noted, Rome is in violation of that very principle as it pertains to the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, by interpreting and teaching in a dogmatic fashion that passage established a Roman papal supremacy through Peter, which is an interpretation and teaching that is most definately contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, which has been demonstrated to be indeed the fact by the citation of several church fathers who do not interpret any Roman papal primacy at all, quite the contrary.
However, I will add a few more to make it abundantly clear that Rome violates the very principle it claimed to rely on, and did so in a self serving manner in order to claim a primacy which never existed.
Augustine:
So what does all this symbolism mean? That receptacle signifies the Church; the four lines it was hanging from are the four quarters of the earth, through which the catholic church stretches, being spread out everywhere. So all those who wish to go apart into a party, and to cut themselves off from the whole, do not belong to the sacred reality signified by the four lines. But if they don't belong to Peter's vision, neither do they do so to the keys which were given to Peter. You see, God says his holy ones are to be gathered together at the end from the four winds, because now the gospel faith is being spread abroad through all those four cardinal points of the compass. So those animals are the nations. All the Gentile nations, after all, were unclean in their errors and superstitions and lusts before Christ came; but at his coming their sins were forgiven them and they were made clean. Therefore now, after the forgiveness of sins, why should they not be received into the body of Christ, which is the Church of God, which Peter was standing for? Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.13
Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He's the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On hearing this, Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you'...'You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven' (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.
Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.---John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.
**********
Before his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted TO ALL(emphasis mine). I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit;’ and straightway, ‘Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained’ (Jn 20:22-23). This refers to the keys, about which it is said, ‘whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ (Mt 16:19). But that was said to Peter. To show you that Peter at that time stood for the universal Church, listen to what is said to him, what is said to all the faithful, the saints: ‘If your brother sins against you, correct him between you and himself alone’---John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermons, III/8 (273-305A), On the Saints, Sermon 295.1-3, pp. 197-198
***********
When opposing the modalist bishop Zephyrinus of Rome who first tried to twist Matthew 16:18-19 to mean he was the supreme ruler of the church, Tertullian's interpretation of that passage is in conformity with the other church fathers in opposition to Zephyrinus' twisting of the passage, saying:
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’...and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’...In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation...---(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).
***********
Tertullian says that the Church is built through Peter as Peter was symbolic of the entire church, as the church preaches the gospel. This preaching is how Tertullian explains the meaning of the keys. They are the declarative authority for the offer of forgiveness of sins through the preaching of the gospel. If men respond to the message they are loosed from their sins. If they reject it they remain bound in their sins. Tertullian explicitly denies that this promise can apply to anyone but Peter.
Likewise, Origen concurs with Tertullian, Augustine, Eusebius and the other church fathers I will be citing in Peter being a symbolic representative of the entire church whereas the Rock the Church is built upon is the faith Peter expressed in Christ, and the "keys" are bestowed to each and every Christian through the preaching of the Gospel. What was promised to Peter is given to all believers who truly follow Christ. They all become what Peter is, expressed in the following comments: .
Origen:
And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock---Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11
******
Origen, Tertullian and Augustine are explicitly clear that the "keys" are NOT exclusively given to Peter the man, nor to the popes of Rome but to each and every true believer in Christ.
Those, along with the previous citations given earlier should suffice in demonstrating conclusively and incontrovertibly that Rome's interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 is contrary to the "unanimous teaching of the Fathers", which the above and the one's to follow are representative of the overwhelming majority of the church fathers, however, I will add a few more for good measure.
John Chrysostom speaks of James, not Peter, as possessing the chief rule and authority in Jerusalem and over the Jerusalem Council:
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last..There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part---Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33, pp. 205, 207
Chrysostom additionally, in concurrence with the cited above, interprets the keys given to Peter as a declarative authority to teach and preach the gospel and to extend the kingdom of God, not a primacy of jurisdiction over the other apostles and that authority was shared equally by all the apostles. Chrysostom states, for example, that John also held the authority of the keys and, like Peter, he held a universal teaching authority over the Churches throughout the world:
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven...(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).
Conclusion:
The dogmatic declaration made by Rome at Trent and Vatican I that prohibits the interpretation of Scripture in a way that is "contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers" is violated by Rome itself by it's self serving eisegetical interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 which is most definitely contrary to the "unanimous teaching of the Fathers", and has led Rome to redefine "tradition" to be whatever Rome says it is.
LOL, but Rome asserts that it IS human meat.
>> Rome asserts that it IS human meat. <<
Are you joking? That statement is so shockingly removed from anything resembling the truth, I can only suppose you are joking. According to Aquinas’ formulation the substance of the Eucharist changes, but the accidents do not. Accidents are the attributes and modes of a substance. When water changes to ice, several of the accidents change, but the substance remains the same (H2O). When bread changes into the Eucharist, the substance changes, but the accidents do not. The properties of meat are those which mortal flesh retains, but which aren’t common to the Eucharist.
But how do you know that the substance has changed if the accidents always remain the same?
The bible. Remember that?
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.