Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay Episcopal Bishop to Preach at San Francisco Catholic Parish
Catholic Culture ^ | 11/22/11

Posted on 11/23/2011 11:11:08 AM PST by marshmallow

A notoriously 'gay-friendly' parish in San Francisco has invited an openly homosexual Episcopalian cleric to lead an Advent Vespers service.

Most Holy Redeemer parish asked Bishop Otis Charles, a retired Episcopalian prelate, to lead the November 30 service. After serving as the Bishop of Utah from 1971 to 1993, he publicly announced that he is homosexual. Divorced from the mother of his 5 children, he solemnized a same-sex union in 2004.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Mainline Protestant; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: catholic; ecus; episcopagan; episcopaganbishop; homonaziagenda; homonazibishop; homosexualagenda; homosexualbishop; religiousfaggot; religiousleft; romancatholic; sanfranpsycho; sanfransicko; sexualpaganism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 4,051-4,087 next last
To: Iscool; rzman21

the arrogance is astounding!


701 posted on 11/27/2011 7:32:35 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; HossB86

Where are the answers to those quizzes I gave you?

No one said the RCC is a sola Scriptura church, they are a sola Popa church.


702 posted on 11/27/2011 7:34:25 AM PST by presently no screen name ( If it’s not in God’s Word - don’t pass it off as truth! That’s satan’s job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

You cited NO early church fathers...We already know that by the time these people wrote, or your religion attributed someone’s writing to them, Constantine’s pagan religion was in full operating mode...


703 posted on 11/27/2011 7:37:32 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

I think everything you have to say is meaningless drivel as well, so let’s call it a draw.


704 posted on 11/27/2011 7:37:57 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; HossB86; rzman21

just as i thought, another one who can’t tell us how we know which books are Scripture and which are not.

i would think that if i believed in “sola scriptura”, i would want to know for sure that every book in the Bible is the Word of God and not just some man’s opinion.

i never can get answer to this question.


705 posted on 11/27/2011 7:39:57 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; rzman21; RnMomof7; smvoice; CynicalBear; metmom

congrats rz, there is a rule in religous debates....when one side needs to claim “Constantine” did something, the other side wins!!

LOL!


706 posted on 11/27/2011 7:42:13 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: metmom
That's why they can not discuss the scriptures...They are puppets...Everything is scripted...When we go outside of their script with scripture, they are completely lost...

They have no response...They don't know any response...So the insults fly to deflect their complete lack of biblical knowledge...

707 posted on 11/27/2011 7:44:22 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: metmom
That's why they can not discuss the scriptures...They are puppets...Everything is scripted...When we go outside of their script with scripture, they are completely lost...

They have no response...They don't know any response...So the insults fly to deflect their complete lack of biblical knowledge...

708 posted on 11/27/2011 7:44:35 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Everything you write is an insult, so what’s point of arguing with you?

You don’t counter with scripture. You counter with your INTERPRETATION of scripture. We care as much about what you think about scripture as you do about what we do.

Evangelicalism is founded on Okham’s razor, which says the simplest answer is the correct one. That is the same principle that atheism is predicated on.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm

So don’t go accusing Catholics and the Jews before then of using pagan philosophy. Catholics inherited the use of philosophy from the Jews.


709 posted on 11/27/2011 7:44:44 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Everything you write is an insult, so what’s point of arguing with you?

You don’t counter with scripture. You counter with your INTERPRETATION of scripture. We care as much about what you think about scripture as you do about what we do.

Evangelicalism is founded on Okham’s razor, which says the simplest answer is the correct one. That is the same principle that atheism is predicated on.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm

So don’t go accusing Catholics and the Jews before then of using pagan philosophy. Catholics inherited the use of philosophy from the Jews.


710 posted on 11/27/2011 7:45:00 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

It opposes God’s Word - of course, it’s false.
>>Translation: “Catholicism opposes my opinion - of course, it’s false.”


711 posted on 11/27/2011 7:47:15 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

They are puppets...Everything is scripted...When we go outside of their script with scripture, they are completely lost...
>>Look in the mirror.


712 posted on 11/27/2011 7:48:07 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Oh the irony..."

This is the most dishonest post in a very long line of dishonest posts from you. Although it attempts to cite its sources the entire post with typos and formatting was copied (stolen; plagiarized?) as it is clearly the work of others. Presenting stolen falsehoods and deceptions to prove you and your version of Christianity is superior is in deed ironic. This might pass for scholarship amongst the guests at George W. Hill but it doesn't in the honest world. Just when I thought it impossible to think less of you.........

VEHEMENTER NOS was written to address a law passed by a French leftist government in which the state had to approve the selection and retention of Bishops. You might not oppose the Obama administration selecting your clergy but actual Christians did and do object "vehemently".

Your link to the Baltimore Catechism does not work, proving even further your sloppy standards for scholarship. Even though, as we have discussed on many occasions, the Baltimore Catechism was a compendium produced for children with the purpose of INTRODUCING them to the faith the section your source snipped from addresses the four marks of the Church. These, from the Apostles Creed, are it is One, it is Holy, it is Catholic, and it is Apostolic. Question 554 is one of the proofs that it is One, because those who reject any article of faith have CHOSEN to not be in Communion.

Fr. Stapleton's Explanation of Catholic Morals - a Concise, REASONED, and Popular Exposiiton of Catholic Morals" is where your post is most damning of your efforts. The source you plagiarized from truncated the title since the full title is counter to the argument. The chapter the quote is from is not Chapter XXIII The Consistent Believer, it is from Chapter XIX Whence Our Belief: Reason. That chapter builds a reasoned case to put our trust in God and once we have followed that reason, and have faith in God, our own reason in matters of faith becomes unnecessary. It does not begin with that premise as your plagiarized source misrepresents.

I would suggest that you read the entire book, as you appear to be in dire need of it and to pay particular attention to chapters dealing with Contumely, Defamation, Detraction, Calumny, Mendacity, and Concealing the Truth.

Bishop Henry G. Graham, the Author of What Faith Really Means" is particularly galling to Presbyterians since he was a convert from the Church of Scotland and was the end of an unbroken family tradition of clergy in the Church of Scotland that had lasted over 200 years. Since its publication in 1910 it has been ridiculed and quoted out of context. The 90 page book is available on line and is largely an appeal to, as Bishop Graham puts it, "our separated brethren".

To portray St. Alphonsus De Liguori's True Spouse of Christ as a teaching for all catholics is one of your bigger whoppers. It is a book intended for nuns in training. LOL.....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Lastly, there is nothing really damning cited from PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE except what is not mentioned, its context. It is an encyclical that addresses the heresy of Modernism and calls upon all Catholics to reject it. We all know how you embrace heresy so your finding fault with this encyclical is no surprise.

713 posted on 11/27/2011 8:51:56 AM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: rzman21
It opposes God’s Word - of course, it’s false..... >>Translation: “Catholicism opposes my opinion - of course, it’s false.”

Leave it to a catholic/catholicism to translate God's Holy Spirit inspired Word as an opinion. You lost credibility. Stick with the RCC doctrines of demons - they fit with that kind of mindset/teaching.
714 posted on 11/27/2011 9:59:02 AM PST by presently no screen name ( If it’s not in God’s Word - don’t pass it off as truth! That’s satan’s job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

You were told - you just don’t like the answer.

Now were are the answers to the questions I asked a few days back? FAIL!


715 posted on 11/27/2011 10:05:06 AM PST by presently no screen name ( If it’s not in God’s Word - don’t pass it off as truth! That’s satan’s job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

No. What you believe is your opinion. I don’t understand why you can’t see that you place yourself above scripture.

Are you saying that you are infallible in your personal scriptural interpretations?

I’d say that you are interpreting the Bible in the light of your anti-Catholic prejudice. You arbitrarily stitch together scriptural passages that fit your prejudice and ignore those that don’t.

I’m not a Roman Catholic, BTW. :)

The Bible is objectively inerrant, but your interpretations aren’t exactly God-breathed. Forget papal infallibility. You seem to be pretty confident in your own infallibility.


716 posted on 11/27/2011 10:09:17 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

“you were told” - what post# was i told in? i must have missed it.

questions from a few days back - again, i have no idea what you are talking about. i will answer your questions, but you first must answer my canon question.

since from experience i know you can’t answer my question, i’ll answer yours anyway just to educate you, just let me know the post # that contains your question.


717 posted on 11/27/2011 10:10:54 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
>>for example, how do you know Hebrews is Scripture and the gospel of Peter is not.<<

Maybe because the gospel of Peter was not written by Peter and that it was written a century after Peter’s real writing? Or maybe the account in the gospel of Peter of a talking cross emerging from the tomb? Nothing was known about it until some fragments were found in the late 1800s. Then it could be the historical errors contained in the gospel of Peter.

If errors and contradictions with the writings of the original Apostles are contained and it can be shown that it probably wasn’t even written by who the real writer wants us to think then it’s a pretty good bet it’s not inspired by God.

718 posted on 11/27/2011 10:29:24 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
i have no idea what you are talking about. i will answer your questions, but you first must answer my canon question.

Play your deceptive games w/someone else - I'm not into it. Your done!
719 posted on 11/27/2011 10:48:57 AM PST by presently no screen name ( If it’s not in God’s Word - don’t pass it off as truth! That’s satan’s job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: rzman21
It would behoove you to stop quoting the Bible because all you do is twist them to fit your private prejudices.

There we have it in a nutshell. Stop quoting Scripture.....

I reject your interpretation as much as you reject mine. I see the Gospel According to Metmom, not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I RARELY post my interpretation, rather let Scripture speak for itself.

Your argument is with Scripture, the word of God, itself.

720 posted on 11/27/2011 12:08:57 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
rzman21:“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ.....

iscool: Meaningless drivel...

Especially ironic in light of the subject of the thread and the infiltration of the priesthood by homosexuals, the cover up by their enablers, and rampant immorality that has existed within the Catholic church for centuries. It was spoken against in the 1000's by Peter Damian in his The Book of Gomorrah.

St. Peter Damian's Book of Gomorrah: Homosexual Situation Graver than Damian's Time http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/929551/posts

721 posted on 11/27/2011 12:28:09 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
Matthew 28 records Jesus giving His authority to the Church to TEACH, yet they feel no obligation to learn.

See the problem is Catholics ASSUME they are THAT church of the NT... the word church does not mean a denomination but the called out ones..the saved..

There was no Roman Catholic Church for 300 years after these words were spoken..

722 posted on 11/27/2011 12:32:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
"...the word church does not mean a denomination but the called out ones...."

Please, stop attempting to speak authoritatively. Unless you can demonstrate the Gift of Tongues, which is the ability to fluently speak a language you were never exposed to, a few hours spent stumbling around on the internet is not equivalent to a proper education. Your time would be better spent and you would be left with fewer errors if you sought out a real education with real books and professors, homework and tests.

The actual word used was Ekklesia (ἐκκλησία). While a completely literal translation means "called out" the actual translation referred to a formal body of Greek democratic governance. It predated the writing of the New Testament by some 500 years. The Ekklesia was the body that held the power to declare war, sue for peace, choose and charge, try and remove magistrates and governmental officers and held the authority to pass the death sentence over citizens. It was not some ragtag body as Protestantism suggests. In the new testament context it is the Church.

723 posted on 11/27/2011 2:11:49 PM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Especially ironic in light of the subject of the thread and the infiltration of the priesthood by homosexuals, the cover up by their enablers, and rampant immorality that has existed within the Catholic church for centuries."

Are you now suggesting you actually read St. Peter Damian's Book and have some knowledge of what it contains or is this like your earlier post on reason in which you are merely cutting and pasting, summarizing and concluding from others (poor) scholarship?

While we are on that subject do you care to explain the plagiarism I pointed out?

724 posted on 11/27/2011 2:19:34 PM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; RnMomof7; metmom; smvoice

“errors and contradictions from the writings of the real Apostles”

my friend, how do you know that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.

there is only one way to know for sure, i suspect no non-Catholic will be brave and honest enough to admit it.


725 posted on 11/27/2011 5:00:27 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; rzman21

someone off their meds today?

gee, i was looking forward to educating you by answering your question.

i understand why you won’t answer mine, i think everybody understands why.


726 posted on 11/27/2011 5:02:03 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; RnMomof7
The actual word used was Ekklesia (ἐκκλησία). While a completely literal translation means "called out" the actual translation referred to a formal body of Greek democratic governance.

What kind of 'double-speak' is that???

It predated the writing of the New Testament by some 500 years. The Ekklesia was the body that held the power to declare war, sue for peace, choose and charge, try and remove magistrates and governmental officers and held the authority to pass the death sentence over citizens.

In the new testament context it is the Church.

Act 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Act 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

We could go on for a long time but this should suffice...

It's easy for you guys to dupe the Catholics because they'll believe anything you guys tell them... But you won't be pulling that wool over the eyes of born again bible believers because you have to get your stories by the scriptures first...

And as always, it didn't happen...

You'll notice the last verse I posted: The Church is not instructed to feed the flock...The overseers are instructed TO FEED THE CHURCH...

As in all the verses I posted, the church is the people; the called out assembly...The church IS NOT some ruling hierarchy that is the Church...

Please, stop attempting to speak authoritatively. Unless you can demonstrate the Gift of Tongues, which is the ability to fluently speak a language you were never exposed to, a few hours spent stumbling around on the internet is not equivalent to a proper education. Your time would be better spent and you would be left with fewer errors if you sought out a real education with real books and professors, homework and tests.You mean like you have???

Or, one could save thousands of bucks by going down to the local five and dime, pick up a bible and in the comfort of their home learn more about God than years of your books and tests will give you...

727 posted on 11/27/2011 5:02:41 PM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
It's a pretty good bet that the indwelling voices in their heads isn't the Holy Spirit.

To realize this would require someone outside oneself, some authority other than oneself. A Church. Without this: Echo Chamber.

Pray for the unchurched.

728 posted on 11/27/2011 5:06:07 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: rzman21
I think everything you have to say is meaningless drivel

Most have ignored their posts long ago. Join the club!

729 posted on 11/27/2011 5:07:47 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; rzman21; smvoice; metmom; Natural Law; CynicalBear; Iscool; presently no screen name

there was no Roman Catholic Church for 300 years after Matthew?

LOL!

i love these statements that are just thrown out there without any facts or evidence provided to support them.

let’s examine this statement, shall we?

who established the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century?
what happened to the Christians before the RCC was established?
what historians or Christian before the 16th century thought the RCC was started in the 4th century and not the 1st?
what doctrinal change in the 4th century was started by thr RCC as opposed to the Christians before them?
St Augustine lived in Northern Africa in the late 4th century, early 5th century. He wrote that the Catholic Church, of which he was a bishop, was the Church established by Jesus Christ. what do you know in the 21st century that St Augustine didn’t know in the late 4th century?
in the mid 2nd century, St Irenaeus provided a continuous list of the Bishops of Rome from St Peter to the Bishop of his day. Augustine provided an updated list from that period til his day. how were they wrong and you are right?

much like my question of who has the authority to infallibly state the canon of Scripture, these questions will go unanswered.

cue the crickets..........


730 posted on 11/27/2011 5:15:00 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: rzman21
Are you saying that you are infallible in your personal scriptural interpretations?

'Tis the only logical conclusion on can draw from the posts.

But.. the advantage to the poster is: He's God! Kewl.

731 posted on 11/27/2011 5:16:03 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
While we are on that subject do you care to explain the plagiarism I pointed out?

Subjects are for changing when pursued beyond stolen snippets. Then it's Wack A Mole Time! Leaving reason and logic behind quickly rather than engage in coherent debate seems to be the nonCatholic Apologist's primary tool on this thread.

732 posted on 11/27/2011 5:23:16 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
:LOL..I wrote "...the word church does not mean a denomination but the called out ones...."

Then you ..after mocking me

Please, stop attempting to speak authoritatively. Unless you can demonstrate the Gift of Tongues

You THEN wrote this

The actual word used was Ekklesia (ἐκκλησία). While a completely literal translation means "called out"

Thanks for the "CORRECTION"

733 posted on 11/27/2011 5:54:51 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; rzman21; smvoice; metmom; Natural Law; CynicalBear; Iscool; ...
That NT church had no mass, There was no priesthood, no altars. The Lords table was not considered a sacrifice in the early church, so there were no need for those things that one needs for a sacrifice. no "eucharist, no vestments , no confessions, no 7 sacraments, no priesthood, no pope, no immaculate conception , no assumption, no relics, no purgatory, no indulgences, no "holy water", no such animal as "apostolic succession... nada... nothing .....

There was no Roman catholic church until the 300's even then there was no "mass" no "sacrifice" , no purgatory , etc...

734 posted on 11/27/2011 6:03:02 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; smvoice; boatbums; CynicalBear; Iscool; metmom; rzman21; Natural Law

Apologetics Toolkit

Early Christians on the Holy Eucharist
contributed by Eric Ewanco

eje@world.std.com
[Some of these are duplicated in the main document on the Eucharist. Most are from William Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers.]

Clement of Rome (80 A.D.) in Corinthians 36:1 refers to the Eucharist as the ``offering of the gift.’’
St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians, 40:
Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (the Didache), 9:2; 14:1, circa 90 A.D.:
Regarding the Eucharist ... 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.
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. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 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. [Mal 1:11,14].

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.:
Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.:
Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.

Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century:
Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ

It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.’’ Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood’’, and he gave it to them alone.

The Sunday Assembly

Furthermore, after this we always remind one another of these things. Those who have the means aid those who are needy, and we are always united. Over everything which we take to ourselves we bless the Creator of the universe through His Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

On the day called after the sun [Sunday] there is a meeting for which all those dwelling in the cities or in the countryside come together. The records of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time allows. When the reader has stopped, the one who is presiding admonishes and encourages us by a sermon to the imitation of those good examples.

Then we all stand up together and lift up our prayers and, as I said previously, when we have finished our prayer, bread is brought forth and wine and water. The one who is presiding offers up prayers and thanksgiving according to his ability and the people acclaim their assent with ``Amen.’’ There is the distribution of and participation on the part of each one in the gifts for which thanks has been offered, and they are sent to those who are not present through the deacons.

We all come together on the day of the sun since it is the first day, on which God changed darkness and matter and made the world. On that day, Jesus Christ our Savior arose from the dead. They crucified him on the day preceding that of Saturn, and on the day of the sun he appeared to his Apostles and disciples and taught them these things which we have presented also to you for inspection.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, [5,2,2] 180 A.D.:
If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He 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.

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 180 A.D., 4,17,5:
Again, giving counsel to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits from among His creatures, not as if He needed them, but so that they themselves might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful, He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ``This is My Body.’’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His Blood.

He taught the the new sacrifice of the New Covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: ```You do not do my will,’ says the Lord Almighty, `and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offer to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the gentiles,’ says the Lord Almighty.’’ (Mal 1:11). By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to Him, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the gentiles.’’

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 18, 2, 180 A.D.:
It is not oblations as such that have met with disapproval. There were oblations of old; there are oblations now. There were sacrifices among the people of Israel; there are sacrifices in the Church. Only the kind of oblation has been changed: now it is offered by freemen, not by slaves. There is one and the same Lord, but the character of an oblation made by slaves is distinctive, so too that of an oblation made by sons: their oblations bear the mark of freedom.

We must make oblation to God, and in all things be found pleasing to God the Creator, in sound teaching, in sincere faith, in firm hope, in ardent love, as we offer the firstfruits of the creatures that are his. The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator when it makes its offering to him from his creation, with thanksgiving.

We offer him what is his, and so we proclaim communion and unity and profess our belief in the resurrection of flesh and spirit. Just as bread from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, made up of two elements, one earthly and one heavenly, so also our bodies, in receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, for they have the hope of resurrection.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, [5,2,2] 180 A.D.:
If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He 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.

St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children [1,6,41,3] 202 A.D.:
When the loving and benevolent Father had rained down the Word, that Word then became the spiritual nourishment of those who have good sense. [42,1] O mystic wonder! the Father of all is indeed one, one also is the universal Word, and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere; and one is the Virgin Mother. I love to call her the Church. This Mother alone was without milk, because she alone did not become a wife. She is at once both Virgin and Mother: as Virgin, undefiled; as a Mother full of love.

Calling her children about her, she nourishes them with holy milk, that is with the Infant Word. . . . The Word is everything to a child: both the Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. `Eat My Flesh,’ He says, `and drink My Blood.’ the Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!

St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children [2,2,19,4] 202 A.D.:
The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His Immortality. the strength of the Word is the Spirit, just as the blood is the strength of the body. [20,1] Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, —of the drink and of the Word,—is called Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.

Tertullian’s The Resurrection of the Dead [8,2] A.D. 208-212:
The flesh, then, is washed, so that the soul may be made clean. The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded with the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. They cannot, then, be separated in their reward, when they are united in their works.

Tertullian [ca. 200/206 AD] in his treaties on Prayer [6,2], quotes John 6 in connection with a spiritual understanding of the Lord’s prayer “give us this day our daily bread.” In a spiritual sense Christ is our daily Bread, presumably because of the practice of the daily reception of the Eucharist.
Later in that same treatise [19,1] he writes;

Likewise, regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the sacrificial prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive the Body of the Lord. Does the Eucharist, then, obviate a work devoted to God, or does it bind it more to god? Will not your fast be more solemn if, in addition, you have stood at God’s altar? The body of the Lord having been received and reserved, each point is secured: both the participation in the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.
Regarding worship on the Lord’s Day Tertullian also writes; [The Crown [3,4] AD 211]:

We take anxious care lest something of our Cup of Bread should fall upon the ground.

Origen, Contra Celsum, 8:57:
We are not people with ungrateful hearts; it is true, we do not sacrifice ... to such beings who, far from bestowing their benefits upon us, are our enemies; but to God who has bestowed upon us an abundance of benefits ... we fear being ungrateful. The sign of this gratitude towards God is the bread called Eucharist.

Origen Homilies on Exodus 13,3:
I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know, when you received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercised every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. but if you observe such cation in keeping His Body, and properly so, how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?

St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Lord’s Prayer, 252 A.D., chapter 18:
As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we say ‘Our Father,’ because He is the Father of those who understand and believe, so too we say ‘our Bread,’ because Christ is the bread of those of us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: ‘I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, saying: ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.’ And so we petition that our bread, that is Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may not withdraw from His sanctification and body.

St. Cyprian, Letter of Cyprian to a Certain Magnus, 6 (76), 5; 255 A.D.:
Finally, the sacrifices of the Lord proclaim the unity of Christians, bound together by the bond of a firm and inviolable charity. For when the Lord, in speaking of bread which is produced by the compacting of many grains of wheat, refers to it as His Body, He is describing our people whose unity He has sustained, and when He refers to wine pressed from many grapes and berries, as His Blood, He is speaking of our flock, formed by the fusing of many united together.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.:
`I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc. [1 Cor 11:23]’. This teaching of the Blessed Paul is alone sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, which when ye are vouchsafed, ye are of [Eph 3:6] and blood with Christ. For he has just distinctly said, [1 Cor 2:23-25] Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, , who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, , who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?

2. He once turned water into wine, in Cana of Galilee, at His own will, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood? That wonderful work He miraculously wrought, when called to an earthly marriage; and shall He not much rather be acknowledged to have bestowed the fruition of His Body and Blood on the children of the bridechamber?

3. Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, [2 Peter 1:4]

4. Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, [1 John 6:53] They not receiving His saying spiritually were offended, and went backward, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.

5. Even under the Old Testament there was showbread; but this as it belonged to the Old Testament, came to an end; but in the New Testament there is the Bread of Heaven, and the Cup of Salvation [cf. Ps 116:13], sanctifying soul and body; for as the Bread has respect to our body, so is the Word appropriate to our soul.

6. Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith establish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.

7. The blessed David also shall advise thee at the meaning of this, saying, [Ps 23:5] What he says, is to this effect. Before Thy coming, evil spirits prepared a table for men, foul and polluted and full of all devilish influence; but since Thy coming, O Lord, When the man says to God, , what other does he mean but that mystical and spiritual Table, which God hath prepared , that is, contrary and in opposition to the evil spirits? And very truly; for that had fellowship with devils, but this, with God. . . .

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart’, partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine’. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou , and proceed from [2 Cor 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:—To whom be honour, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, 23 (Myst. 5), 8-18; 350 A.D:
After the Spiritual Sacrifice, the unbloody act of worship has been completed. Bending over this propitiatory offering we beg God to grant peace to all the Churches, to give harmony to the whole world, to bless our rulers, our soldiers, and our companions, to aid the sick and afflicted, and in general to assist all who stand in need; and then we offer the Victim also for our deceased holy ancestors and bishops for all our dead. As we do this, we are filled with the conviction that this Sacrifice will be of the greatest help to those souls for whom prayers are being offered in the very presence of our holy and awesome Victim. . . In the same fashion, when we offer our prayers to God for the dead, even though they be sinners, we weave no crown, but instead we offer Christ slaughtered for our sins, beseeching our merciful God to take pity both on them and on ourselves.

St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:
The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Dial. IV,58:
Although He (Christ) who rose from the dead shall die no more - death no longer has power over Him - still, although He is immortal and His living form incorruptible, He is being slaughtered for us in this mysterium of the holy sacrifice. Because there His body provides nourishment, His flesh being divided up, His blood pours out - no longer into the hands of non-believers, but into the mouths of believers.

St. Ephraim Homilies [4,4] AD 338-373
Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.

St. Ephraim Homilies [4,6] A.D. 338-373:
After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out . . . Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: `This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen me do, do you also in My memory. whenever you gather together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My body, and drink My Blood.’

St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity [8,14] A.D. 356-359:
When we speak of the reality of Christ’s nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously—had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: `My Flesh is truly food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him [John 6:56-57].’ As to the reality of His flesh and blood, there is little room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly Flesh and truly Blood. And these Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is it not true? Let those who deny that Jesus christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God.

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 82, 4, 370 A.D.:
Let us submit to God in all things and not contradict Him, even if what He says seems contrary to our reason and intellect; rather let His words prevail over our reason and intellect. Let us act in this way with regard to the (eucharistic) mysteries, looking not only at what falls under our senses but holding on to His words. For His word cannot lead us astray. . . When the word says, `This is My Body’, be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. . . How many now say, `I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.’ Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!

St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy,” 2,4, c. 397 A.D.:
I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same.

St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Treachery of Judas” 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:
It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.

St. John Chrysostom:
Why does (the Apostle) say, `The bread which we break’? (1 Cor. 10.17). We can see this during the Eucharist, but not at the cross. Yet what He has suffered on the cross, He is suffering for you at this Sacrifice. He allows himself to be divided, so as to nourish all (participants in the sacrifice of the Mass.)

St. John Chrysostom (PG 59:261)
This blood is the salvation of our soul; it cleanses our souls, it beautifies our soul; ... it makes it shine even more than gold. Through the pouring out of this blood, it becomes possible to walk the path of heaven.

St. Ambrose of Milan, “On the Mysteries” 9, 50-52, 58; 391 A.D.:
Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed. . . . Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures. . . . Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: `For our fathers ate spiritual food and drink spiritual drink.’ [1 Cor 10:2-4] For the body of God is a spiritual body.

St. Ambrose, De Sacrametis:
Whenever the blood of Christ is being poured out, it flows for the forgiveness of sins.

St. Augustine, Sermons, [227] A.D. 391-430:
... I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. 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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received.

St. Augustine, Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430:
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 the Blood of Christ. ... How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. ... `You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.’ If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: `Amen’; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: `The Body of Christ!’ and you answer: `Amen!’ Be a member of Christ’s Body, so that your `Amen’ may be the truth.

St. Augustine, Explanations on the Psalms, [33, 1, 10] A.D. 392-418:
`And he was carried in his own hands [3 Kgs 20:13 LXX? corrupted].’ But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it was meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: `This is My Body.’ For He carried that Body in His hands.

St. Augustine, Explanations on the Psalms, [98, 9] A.D. 392-418:
And adore the footstool of His feet, because it is holy [Psalm 98:9, LXX 99:9]. . .In another place in the Scripture it says: `The heavens are my throne, but the earth is the footstool of My feet’ [Isa 66:1] Is it the earth, then, that He commands us to adore, since in this other place the earth is called the footstool of God’s feet? . . . I am put in jeopardy by such a dilemma (Anceps factus sum): I am afraid to adore the earth lest He that made heaven and earth condemn me; again, I am afraid not to adore the footstool of My Lord’s feet, but because the Psalm does say to me: `Adore the footstool of My feet.’ I ask what the footstool of His feet is; and Scripture tells me: `The earth is the footstool of my feet.’ Perplexed, I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless he adores it ; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; and not only do we not sin by adoring, we do sin by not adoring.

St. Augustine, Explanations on the Psalms, A.D. 392-418, [98, 9]:
`Unless he shall have eaten My flesh he shall not have eternal life. [John 6:54-55]’ [Some] understood this foolishly, and thought of it carnally, and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some parts of His Body to give them ... But He instructed them, and said to them: `It is the spirit that gives life; but the flesh profits nothing: the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life’ [John 6:64]. Understand spiritually what I said. You are not to eat this Body which you see, nor to drink that Blood which which will be poured out by those who will crucify Me. I have commended to you a certain Sacrament; spiritually understood, it will give you life. And even if it is necessary that this be celebrated visibly, it must still be understood invisibly.

St. Augustine, The Trinity, [3, 4, 10] A.D. 400-416:
Paul was able to preach the Lord Jesus Christ by means of signs, in one way by his letters, in another way by the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood; for when we speak of the Body of Christ and of His Blood, certainly we do not mean Paul’s speaking, nor his parchments nor his ink, nor the meaning of the sounds issuing from his tongue, nor the signs of letters written on skins. By the Body and Blood of Christ we refer only to that which has been received from the fruits of the earth and has been consecrated by the mystical prayer, and has been ritually taken for our spiritual health in memory of what the Lord suffered for us.

St. Augustine, 172,2, circa 400 A.D.:
For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.

St. Augustine, “Homilies on the Gospel of John”, 26, 13, 417 A.D.:
O Sacrament of piety! O sign of unity! O Bread of love! He who desires life finds here a place to live in and the means to live by. Let him approach, let him believe, let him be incorporated so that he may receive life. Let him not refuse union with the members, let him not be a corrupt member, deserving to be cut off, nor a disfigured member to be ashamed of. Let him be a grateful, fitting and healthy member. Let him cleave to the body, let him live by God and for God. Let him now labor here on earth, that he may afterwards reign in heaven.

St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:
The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice. . . . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.:
Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and `This is My Blood,’ in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Catecheses,” 22, 9; “Myst.” 4; d. 444 A.D.:
We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ . . . draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.

Synod in Constantinople (Jan. 1156-May 1157):
Today’s sacrifice is like that offered once by the Once-begotten Incarnate Word; it is offered by him (now as then), since it is one and the same sacrifice.

Council of Trent:
In the sacrifice of the mass, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is made present, its memory is celebrated, and its saving power is applied.


©The Augustine Club at Columbia University, 1996-2002

augustine@columbia.edu
Last update: March 5, 2002

no mass, altar, sacrifice or Eucharist?????

how about no clue about Church History.

i love St Ignatius, who was personally taught the Faith from St John, the Apostle and author of John 6.


735 posted on 11/27/2011 6:11:08 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; RnMomof7

Lots of opinions of men.

Is there Scripture buried in there anywhere?


736 posted on 11/27/2011 6:23:02 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
"The actual word used was Ekklesia (ἐκκλησία). While a completely literal translation means "called out".

Tales of your ignorance are highly underated. Let me introduce you to the "Idiom" (Latin: idioma, "special property", f. Greek: ἰδίωμα – idiōma, "special feature, special phrasing", f. Greek: ἴδιος – idios, "one’s own"). An idiom is an expression, word, or phrase that has a figurative meaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made. Kione Greek is highly idiomatic.

737 posted on 11/27/2011 6:26:26 PM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
Why, the Pope sounds positively pauperish the way you describe him. One meal shy of total destitution. Fortunately for him, he is surrounded by all the gold, and silver and art, and jewels, and ermine, and marble that religious institutions were commanded by Christ to own. not. If not for those Pope Perks, I’m sure he would be riding around in his Ice Cream Truck, selling Popesicles to earn enough for a bowl of soup and a piece of bread a day.

The Pope owns much less than you do. The Pope owns virtually nothing. I'll bet that we will not mistake you for a penniless hermit.

738 posted on 11/27/2011 6:31:43 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Yeah, I'll just bet the pope is living in poverty. So he doesn't own a house? Big deal. Why should he when it's all provided for him for free anyway? Jesus didn't live so ostentatiously.

The Pope owns much less than you do and his apartments are much smaller than your house is. Smug away.

739 posted on 11/27/2011 6:33:22 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Yeah, I'll just bet the pope is living in poverty. So he doesn't own a house? Big deal. Why should he when it's all provided for him for free anyway? Jesus didn't live so ostentatiously.

The Pope owns much less than you do and his apartments are much smaller than your house is. Smug away.

740 posted on 11/27/2011 6:33:27 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Right on, metmom! That’s the wealth and power the poor little church mice talk about - the leader of their WORLDLY church who they support.

Whee. Let's hear it for the Joel Osteens and the Rick Warrens and the Robert Schullers who live in ostentatious splendour. The Pope has less money and possessions than you do. Think on that.

741 posted on 11/27/2011 6:36:20 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
O good grief. You didn’t even keep up with what the conversation was about.

Darn. How about you in your infinite wisdom correct me?

742 posted on 11/27/2011 6:37:29 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
How does one 'believe god" and yet deny the inherency of scripture ?

I don't 'believe god'. I believe God. I believe that God Created His Church for us men. I don't believe that men created their own churches for Him.

How does one believe the most incredible claim of scripture..the resurrection and yet doubt the ability of God to preserve absolute truth in His word??

I don't doubt the ability of God to preserve Truth. He Has - in the institution of the Church. It is the institutions of men - the legacy of the Reformation - that take away from the transmission of God's word to men.

743 posted on 11/27/2011 6:45:01 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; RnMomof7
RN is correct. The Church knows Mormons are not Christians, therefore what they call “baptism” is invalid.

However, rebaptism is only for pagans. I wonder if this will conclude as I suspect...

744 posted on 11/27/2011 6:47:56 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: rzman21
Arguing with Evangelical Fundamentalists is pointless, considering they believe they are wiser than all Christians who preceded them.

Only the god in the mirror is as wise as they are...

745 posted on 11/27/2011 6:49:10 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
the arrogance is astounding!

Unfortunately no, just usual.

746 posted on 11/27/2011 6:52:12 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; rzman21
congrats rz, there is a rule in religous debates....when one side needs to claim “Constantine” did something, the other side wins!!

Bingo!!!!

747 posted on 11/27/2011 6:53:33 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
"That NT church had no mass,"

Now you are just being ridiculous. The initial construct of the modern Catholic Liturgy was documented in the early 1st century in the Didache and more extensively documented in the writings of St. Clement of Rome in the late 1st century. St. Justin Martyr tells us that the basic structure of the Mass was already in place by the year 150.

Your fabrication about a priesthood in the early Church has been very thoroughly refuted in many threads so I won't go into it again except to say that the diaconate, priesthood and Episcopacy was present in the first century.

Christian altars are cited in 1 Corinthians 10:21; where St. Paul differentiates the "table of the Lord" (trapeza Kyriou) on which the Eucharist is offered, with the pagan "table of devils" altars.

Trapeza continued to be the term for altar among the Greek Fathers and in Greek liturgies. The Epistle to the Hebrews (13:10) refers to the Christian altar as thysiasterion, the word by which the Septuagint alludes to Noah's altar. This term occurs in several of the Epistles of St. Ignatius.

Confession was commissioned by Jesus Himself in John 20:22-23. You would do well to reconcile.

748 posted on 11/27/2011 6:59:26 PM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
>> Darn. How about you in your infinite wisdom correct me?<<

Nah, if a person doesn’t even grasp the track of the conversation it’s just not worth the time.

749 posted on 11/27/2011 7:29:16 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

750 posted on 11/27/2011 7:32:51 PM PST by narses (what you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and what you loose upon earth, shall be ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 4,051-4,087 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson