Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Following The Truth: Ten Facts Most Catholics Donít Know (But Should!) (Catholic or Open)
CE.cpm ^ | July 9th, 2010 | Gary Zimak

Posted on 12/07/2011 8:24:20 AM PST by Salvation

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-174 next last
To: RobbyS; Quix
Something occurred to me last night while I was thinking about C.S. Lewis's The Discarded Image.

The extravagant language of devotional works, as Robby notes, is not to be put on the same level as the Catechism or doctrine. But there is a sound reason for the existence of such works, especially in light of what Lewis calls "the discarded image" - the medieval and Renaissance worldview.

That worldview was different from ours in some fundamental ways. One was the concept of courtly love -- the devotion to a woman, ordinarily a noble, well-born lady, as an ideal to be admired and served from afar or below. Not out of self-interest, not out of any sexual element, but because part of the duty of a 'parfit gentil knight' was to treat women - of high or low degree - with respect and honor. The Blessed Virgin, as the woman of highest degree, was due the greatest respect and honor, and the most warm-hearted and devoted service.

This gave rise to an entire school of poetry and echoed down literature to Shakespeare and beyond. You see faint echoes of this not only in the homage paid to royalty, and in the devotion of an old-fashioned sort of man to his mother, but also in the traditional courtship where a young man speaks to his beloved in terms both extravagant and courtly.

He isn't really going to 'climb the highest mountain and swim the raging seas' for his young lady, nor are her eyes really like stars or her voice like music, nor is she lovely as the dawn, nor a goddess, nor does he in plain cold fact worship the ground on which she walks. But he says all these things, as an imperfect expression of his love and devotion. Nobody claims that on account of these facially false and outlandish statements that he is a heathen or a heretic, nor that he has put his beloved before God.

Bearing in mind this, bearing in mind also that the Church is slow to change because she is very old, and that men like St. Louis de Montfort (author of possibly the most popular devotion to Mary) were schooled in the old traditions of courtly devotion, perhaps you can better understand some of these expressions.

Some might think that the cold wind that blew through Geneva and Edinburgh and swept away the warm-hearted and pure devotion of gentlemen to the ideal of a great lady was a bad thing, at least in that respect.

101 posted on 12/08/2011 12:46:59 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
Very true. We tend to forget how bourgeois Protestantism was/is. especially the “reform” or Calvinist branch. Max Weber dwells on this as he shows the influence of Calvinism on the development of Capitalism. The split between Catholic and Protestant Europe is most evident in the contrast between the baroque and the puritan attitude toward leisure, which is reflect in its art. Lutheranism and Anglicanism provide a kind of medium between extravagance and plainness, between the celebration of beauty and suspicion of it.
102 posted on 12/08/2011 4:13:16 PM PST by RobbyS (Viva Christus Rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua; Judith Anne

I have been called ignorant, fool, etc. by protestants.

I don’t see Catholics doing that.


103 posted on 12/08/2011 4:19:37 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
I always remember that the Roundheads, the Scotch Presbyters, and the Pilgrim Fathers banned Christmas . . . .

List to me and you shall hear, news hath not been this thousand year:
Since Herod, Caesar, and many more, you never heard the like before.
Holy-dayes are despis'd, new fashions are devis'd.
Old Christmas is kicked out of Town.
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

104 posted on 12/08/2011 4:44:12 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: DrewsMum

did the eunuch believe on Him in Acts 8 according to the Bible definition?


105 posted on 12/08/2011 5:17:43 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

“not going there”

the REASON we aren’t going there is because the Bible doesn’t “go there”.

now, if i understand “sola scriptura” correctly, the Bible is to be the sole rule of faith. if the Bible doesn’t teach something, we shouldn’t believe it as doctrine.

now, Baptism, rather being what some would call a “hobby horse”, is an important part of the Christian Faith.
Jesus Christ gave His AUTHORITY to the Church to baptize in Matthew 28.
Peter commanded baptism in Acts 2:38.
Paul was told in Acts 22:16 to arise and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord.
1 Peter tells us baptism now saves us.

so, when i read over and over again statements that “baptism is a first act of obedience” or “baptism is an outward symbol” or “baptism is for testifying to others” or i hear the term “water baptism”, i channel my inner sola scriptura Protestant and ask a simple question:

Where is any of that in the Bible???

since the claim is made that these questions have been answered, i say:

REALLY???
WHERE?
WHEN?
HOW?

when my posts asking these questions are responded to, you will notice they never ANSWER the questions.

no scripture is given showing anyone was ever told baptism is a first act of obedience, baptism is never called “water baptism” in the Bible, baptism is never called an outward sign, and baptism is never said to be for testifying to others.

THERE IS A GOOD REASON NO ONE IN THE CHURCH BELIEVED ANY OF THIS ABOUT BAPTISM FOR 2,000 YEARS.

What is that reason? Because the Bible DOESN’T GO THERE.

Chalk one up for “sola scriptura”!


106 posted on 12/08/2011 5:34:48 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
An alternative view:

The propitiatory nature of the eucharist is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and it claims that its interpretation and practice is a fulfilment of the prophecy of Malachi 1:11 that a pure and bloodless sacrifice would be offered throughout the world which was acceptable to God. Once again, however, we find this interpretation disputed by the vast majority of Fathers in the early Church. The Roman Catholic Church would lead us to believe that its particular teaching of the eucharistic sacrifice has been the view universally held in the Church from the very beginning. But, as with the teaching on the Real Presence, there is a parallel situation historically with the concept of the eucharist as a sacrifice. Some of the Fathers approach the Roman Catholic interpretation, but the majority do not. Their writings reveal that they viewed the Lord’s Supper as a memorial of thanksgiving and praise in commemoration or remembrance of Christ’s once-for-all atoning sacrifice, and not as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. They referred to the prophecy of Malachi and taught that the eucharist was indeed a partial fulfilment of that prophecy, and even referred to it as a sacrifice, but they did not interpret this in the same way as the Church of Rome has done. As with the term ‘tradition’, the Roman Church has given the word ‘sacrifice’ a certain content and meaning and has read that back into the use of the word by the early Church. Because the Fathers use the term sacrifice to refer to the eucharist it does not mean that they accepted the meaning the Roman Church gives to the word, as a brief survey of the writings of the Fathers reveals.

The Didache seems to refer to the eucharist as the believer’s sacrifice, reflecting the idea of self-giving to the Lord through an offering of praise and thanksgiving for the finished work of Jesus Christ. There is no mention of its being a propitiatory sacrifice. Roman apologists have often appealed to Clement of Rome as a support for their sacrificial interpretation of the eucharist but this is done as a result of a mistranslation. Keating, for example, gives a translation of 1 Clement 44 where Clement mentions those ‘from the episcopate who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices’.22 The problem with this translation is that Clement does not use the word ‘sacrifices’ in his original letter but the word ‘gifts’. So the appeal to Clement of Rome is an empty one.

Justin Martyr believed the eucharist was a spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which commemorated the death of Christ by a Church which now counted Gentiles among its members.23 Irenaeus also referred to Malachi’s prophecy and characterized the eucharist as a thank-offering to God. He maintained that the real sacrifice intended within it was the prayers of true believers, which came from pure hearts wholly yielded to God and undefiled by sin.24 Similarly, Tertullian argued that the true sacrifices offered to God were not of a carnal, physical kind, but the spiritual sacrifice of a broken and a contrite heart before God.25 Origen and Clement of Alexandria stressed this same theme: that the real meaning of the eucharistic sacrifice was as a memorial or commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ which demanded the self-surrender of the soul to God. It was a sacrifice because it involved the prayers and praise of God’s people; the self-surrender of themselves to God from broken and contrite hearts; and the giving of material offerings to the poor. There is absolutely no mention of the eucharist as the literal and renewed sacrifice of Christ as a propitiatory sin-offering.

Eusebius also explicitly states that the fulfilment of the prophecy of Malachi of a pure and bloodless sacrifice was to be found in the prayers and thanksgiving of true Christians throughout the world from contrite hearts.26

But the most influential advocate for this point of view was, once again, Augustine.27 He was unequivocal in his belief that the Lord’s Supper was a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, a commemoration of Christ’s passion. The eucharist is simply a sacramental way of remembering Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice. The sacrament is called a sacrifice only because it is identified with Calvary as a memorial or commemoration of that unique sacrifice.28 It was not Christ who was offered in this memorial but the Church, who offered herself to God through Christ as a living sacrifice from a broken and a contrite heart. He, too, saw this as the fulfilment of the prophecy of Malachi.29

Though the early Church generally viewed the eucharist in spiritual terms, the concept began to emerge of a literal sacrifice in the eucharist. Nearly all historians agree that this change had it beginnings with the third century North African bishop and martyr, Cyprian. The Church at this time was drifting from reliance on God’s grace in Jesus Christ to a theology which included the concept of human works to gain merit before God and to atone for sin through penance, asceticism and good works. Thus, the eucharist as a sacrifice began also to be looked upon, by some, as a means of propitiating God for sins committed after baptism. Men began to view the priest and Christian ministry as being parallel to the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament. And though this analogy had been set forth by earlier Fathers, they always emphasized that the carnal sacrifices of Judaism had been displaced with the spiritual sacrifices of the Church on the basis of the completed sacrifice of Christ. There were no more sacrifices for sin. But the analogy began to lose its strictly spiritual character. Along with a materialistic view of the elements in the eucharist there began to develop through Cyprian, with his view of the sacerdotal nature of the priesthood, the concept of the eucharist as a literal sacrifice. He laid down the axiom:

If Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is Himself the great High Priest of God the Father, and first offered Himself a Sacrifice to the Father, and commanded this to be done in remembrance of Himself, surely that Priest truly acts in Christ’s stead, who imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers a true and full Sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, when he begins to offer it according as he sees Christ Himself offered it.30

In this way Cyprian extended the traditional interpretation of the eucharist to include the concept of a sacramental re-enactment of the original sacrifice of Christ. In his mind, the eucharist was a sacrifice in the sense that it set forth as a memorial the original sacrifice. But given the materializing influences within the Church, it did not take long before the view of the eucharist as a sacramental re-enactment of Christ’s sacrifice, in commemoration of him, was extended to the idea that Christ was truly and literally immolated on the altar. Chrysostom, for example, teaches that Christ physically suffers in the eucharistic sacrifice:

The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the Body of Christ?. . . But why adds he also, ‘which we break’? For although in the Eucharist one may see this done, yet on the cross not so, but the very contrary, For, ‘A bone of Him,’ saith one, ‘shall not be broken.’ But that which He suffered not on the cross, this He suffers in the oblation for thy sake, and submits to be broken, that He may fill all men.31

The drama of such a ‘real’ sacrifice fostered increasingly bizarre ‘visions’ throughout the Church which were used in turn as proof for the truth of the doctrine. A vivid example of this phenomenon was the defence of the materialist view of the eucharist by Radbertus, the ninth century theologian, by recourse to a succession of ‘marvellous stories of the visible appearances of the body and blood of Christ for the removal of doubts or the satisfaction of the pious desire of the saints. The bread on the altar, he reported, was often seen in the shape of a lamb or a little child, and when the priest stretched out his hand to break the bread, an angel descended from heaven with a knife, slaughtered the lamb or the child, and let his blood run into a cup.’32

Yet even when the Church was leaning more and more towards the concept of the literal sacrifice of Christ in the eucharist, the old view of the memorial of Christ’s sacrifice articulated by Augustine and the early Church Fathers was still widely held. For the first 1200 years of the Church’s life there was no unanimity on the nature of the eucharist.

The starting point for both interpretations (material and spiritual) of the eucharist was Scripture. Only in a detailed analysis of what Scripture has to say about the nature of Christ’s sacrifice, and how believers are to commemorate this sacrifice, can we come to a definitive understanding.

There is an important Greek word which is used to describe both the death and the sacrifice of Christ: ephapax, which means ‘once-for-all’. In Romans 6:9-10, Paul clearly states that Christ can never die again because his death was ‘once-for-all’. The author of Hebrews insists that Christ cannot be sacrificed daily, that his body is offered ‘once-for-all’ and that because this once-for-all sacrifice has brought complete forgiveness of sin there is no longer any requirement for an offering or sacrifice for sin.33 All that the animal sacrifices and human priesthood signified in the Old Testament, Christ has fulfilled. Consequently, God has abolished the priesthood and all sacrifices.

This presents the Roman Catholic Church with a dilemma. Scripture teaches that Christ’s body and his sacrifice were offered once. Rome teaches that his body and sacrifice are offered over and over again in transubstantiation and the repetition of each mass. The Church attempts to get around this problem by claiming that the sacrifice of the mass is not a different sacrifice from that of Calvary but the same sacrifice perpetuated through time. Because God is beyond time the sacrifice of the cross is always present with him, and therefore the sacrifice of the mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary. This logic is a semantic smoke-screen: the sacrifice of the cross was an historic space-time event which occurred once and can never be repeated. The application of the Lord’s sacrifice goes on through time in terms of the Holy Spirit bringing men to receive the benefits of his finished work, and the commemoration of his sacrifice goes on through time, but the sacrifice itself cannot be perpetuated. Indeed, the principal theme of the book of Hebrews is that there are no more sacrifices for sin of any kind whatsoever.

Scripture teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ has not only made a once-for-all-time atonement, but that his historical death on the cross is a complete atonement. He has completely satisfied God’s justice: the debt due to man’s sin has been fully paid and therefore all those who come to God through Jesus Christ are wholly free from condemnation. No further expiation for sin can ever be needed. The biblical view is that cleansing and forgiveness for sin are found in the blood of Jesus Christ alone, and never in the works or sufferings of man, for the law demands death as a penalty for sin. The significance of the reference to blood with respect to the work of Christ is that it signifies his life has been given over in death on our behalf and as a payment for our sin. It is because a full atonement has been made that a full forgiveness can be offered:

The blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7).

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace (Eph. 1:7)
.

Scripture nowhere teaches that men must suffer temporal punishment for their own sins to render satisfaction to God, either in this life or in the life to come. All punishment for sin was borne by Christ. This is why the Word of God declares that ‘There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 8:1). God certainly disciplines believers for sin, but this has nothing to do with making atonement or expiation. In the discipline of his children God’s action is remedial, not punitive; it flows from love, not wrath (see Heb. 12:4-13).

Scripture does speak of a eucharistic sacrifice. The word ‘eucharist’ literally means ‘thanksgiving’ and the New Testament frequently enjoins believers to offer this kind of sacrifice of praise: ‘Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of the lips that give thanks to His name’ (Heb. 13:15). This is the true eucharistic sacrifice. Scripture also speaks of other sacrifices the believer is to offer to God — our goods to meet the needs of others, and ourselves in total surrender to God (Heb. 13:16; Rom. 12:1). These are all true sacrifices in the New Testament but they have nothing to do with the expiation of sin.

If, as we have seen, there is no more sacrifice for sin — what is the meaning of the Lord’s Supper? The Supper was established by the Lord Jesus as a memorial of thanksgiving and praise for his atoning sacrifice by which believers were to commune with him spiritually and also to proclaim his death until he comes again. The bread and wine, as Augustine points out, were given as figures or visible symbols of his body and blood and therefore are figurative expressions of his self-sacrifice. They are visible reminders to his people of what he has done on their behalf. When the Lord says, ‘This is my body’, he is speaking figuratively and not literally. In fact, in Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:16,18, Christ refers to the wine after consecration as the ‘fruit of the vine’, indicating that it was still wine. Twice, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-27, Paul refers to the consecrated bread as ‘bread’.

When Jesus refers to himself as the bread of life and says that men must eat his flesh and drink his blood, he makes it clear that his words were to be interpreted spiritually and figuratively: ‘The flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life’ (John 6:63). This discourse could not refer to the Lord’s Supper for Christ had not instituted that ordinance at the time he gave this teaching. He is not speaking here of the eucharist, but of his sacrifice on Calvary. The whole discourse of John 6 is a presentation of Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world in the giving of his flesh and blood, and how men are to appropriate the benefits of that sacrifice. It is those who believe who experience the benefits of his work, and so when he likens faith to eating his flesh and drinking his blood he is explaining the nature of saving faith as the appropriation of his person into the believer’s heart. The Son of God would have us understand that saving faith is much more than mere intellectual assent to truth. As John Calvin pointed out:

We are quickened by the true partaking of him; and he has therefore designated this partaking by the words ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’, in order that no one should think that the life that we receive from him is received by mere knowledge. As it is not the seeing but the eating of bread that suffices to feed the body, so the soul must truly and deeply become partaker of Christ that it may be quickened to spiritual life by his power . . . In this way, the Lord intended, by calling himself ‘the bread of life’ (John 6:51), to teach not only that salvation for us rests on faith in his death and resurrection, but also that, by true partaking of him, his life passes into us and is made ours — just as bread when taken as food imparts vigour to the body.34

Christ often used very vivid language to impress spiritual truth upon men’s minds. When speaking with Nicodemus he tells him that he must be ‘born again’. He refers to himself as a ‘vine’ and believers as ‘branches’. These references are obviously not to be taken in a literal sense. Again, in Matthew 5:29-30 Jesus says:

And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell.

Christ is obviously using starkly realistic language to convey an important spiritual truth: the necessity for radical repentance from sin. He speaks in physical terms but we are not meant to take his words in a literal, physical sense. Precisely the same is true with his teaching in John 6 and his words at the institution of the Lord’s Supper. To interpret all his words in those passages literally would adopt an interpretation which directly contradicts the teaching of Scripture.

Jesus himself teaches us that the Church is to observe the Supper ‘in remembrance of me’. The word remembrance is the Greek word which literally means a memorial. The Supper is no altar of sacrifice, but a table of remembrance, a place of spiritual communion with the Saviour by his Spirit. To teach that Christ has instituted a means whereby his sacrifice can be perpetuated through time is to contradict the plain teaching of Scripture.

This becomes yet clearer from the identification of the Lord’s Supper with the Passover memorial of the Old Testament. The Lord’s Supper was first celebrated at the time of the Jewish Passover and Jesus specifically identifies it as an equivalent when he says: ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer’ (Luke 22:15). What exactly was the Passover? It was an annual feast established by God in which the Jews would remember the night in which the angel of death ‘passed over’ those families which had applied the blood of the lamb to their door-posts (Exod. 12:1-13). ‘Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance’ (Exod. 12:14). This was a ‘memorial’ to a specific act of God in redeeming his people from bondage and death. The ‘memorial’ served to bring to remembrance an important event. It did not repeat the event but kept it vivid in the memory through a physical representation.

Just as God instituted a memorial of remembrance of redemption in the Old Testament, he has done the same in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 5:7 states, ‘For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.’ His death is an accomplished fact. Now we are called, not to a sacrifice, but to a feast: ‘Let us therefore celebrate the feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth’ (1 Cor. 5:8). When Christ states that the bread is to be eaten and the wine drunk in remembrance of him, he is employing the same language as that of the Old Testament memorial in reference to the Passover. The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice, it is the commemoration of a sacrifice.

The Roman Catholic teaching of the eucharist contradicts Scripture and it cannot be validated by the unanimous consent of the Fathers. To teach men to put trust in the eucharist as a sacrificial event is to undermine the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to deny the sufficiency of his once-for-all sacrifice on the cross of Calvary. To suggest in any way that men must rely upon anything but Christ and his cross as God’s means for dealing with sin is to lead men to a false trust and a false gospel.(http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html)

107 posted on 12/08/2011 8:05:45 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; johngrace

THE REAL PRESENCE CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST

The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thes. 2:15)

“And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2)

The Bible The Didache St. Clement of Rome
St. Ignatius of Antioch St. Justin Martyr St. Irenaeus of Lyons
St. Clement of Alexandria St. Cyprian of Carthage Aphraates the Persian Sage
Serapion St. Ephraim St. Athanasius
St. Cyril of Jerusalem St. Hilary of Poiters St. Basil the Great
St. Epiphanius of Salamis St. Gregory of Nazianz St. Gregory of Nyssa
St. John Chrysostom St. Ambrose of Milan Egeria
Aurelius Prudentius Clemens St. Jerome Apostolic Constitutions
St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Augustine Marcarius the Magnesian
St. Leo I St. Caesar of Arles St. Fulgene of Ruspe

INTRODUCTION
Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike think that the Roman Catholic Church invented the doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine presented on the altar at the Mass become the the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit at the consecration. The consecration is the time when the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood. However, the Body and Blood retain the appearance of bread and wine. The Roman Catholic Church, that is, the Latin Rite Catholic Church, and other Catholic Churches in communion with Rome believe that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. The Orthodox Churches and most other Churches of the East do so as well. Anglican [Episcopalian] and other Protestant denominations have interpreted Christ’s presence at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist to be either only spiritual, or symbolic, or non-existent.

Thus, I decided to research what the Early Christians believed on this issue. I searched the indices for “Eucharist” in many volume sets on Early Christian writings, and I was astonished at my discovery. The Early Christians actually took the Real Presence for granted. It doesn’t even seem as if there was much debate. I could not find anyone who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament before the year 500 A.D. Following are the results of my search. Some Christians, e.g. St. Augustine, had very much to say about the Real Presence of Our Lord, so I did not include everything. Also, I want you to know that I did not include other Christians who believed in the Real Presence in this article because they later fell away from the Church for different reasons. Therefore, even though these Christians defended the Real Presence, e.g. Origen, Tertullian, Theodore of Mopsuetta, etc., I did not include their statements.

I pray that this research article will inspire lukewarm Catholics to become excited about their Faith which has faithfully been passed on for over 2000 years. I pray that the Holy Spirit will grant you Faith to believe in Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to receive Him at Mass and visit Him in the tabernacle. He is patiently waiting for you because he loves you and wants you to come home.

Also, I pray that this research article will motivate non-Catholics to ask questions about the Blessed Sacrament to learn more. Our Lord is still with us in the flesh, and He is awesome! I pray that someday you will be able to experience the joy of receiving Him in the Mass and of praying at his feet.


THE BIBLE
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

-1 Cor. 10:16-17

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

-1 Cor. 11:23-27


THE DIDACHE
The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.

“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.

-Ch. 9:5

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. 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.’”

-Ch 14


ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (Alt)
St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope.

“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.”

Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”

Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]


ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Alt)
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-”Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-”Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.


ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (Alt)
St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

“First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

“God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.”

“Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it.”

-”Dialogue with Trypho”, [41: 8-10]


ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (Alt)
St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”

Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”

-”Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely

Named Gnosis”. Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D. “For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.”

-”Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis”. Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.


ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (Alt)
St. Clement of Alexandria studied under Pantaenus. He later succeeded him as the director of the school of catechumens in Alexandria, Egypt around the year 200 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. 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 the 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.”,

-”The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,

-”The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,


ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (Alt)
St. Cyprian of Carthage converted from paganism to Christianity around the year 246 A.D. Soon afterwards, he aspired to the priesthood and eventually was ordained Bishop of Carthage. He was beheaded for his Faith in the year 258 A.D., thus he was the first African bishop to have been martyred.,

“So too the the sacred meaning of the Pasch lies essentially in the fact, laid down in Exodus, that the lamb - slain as a type of Christ - should be eaten in one single home. God says the words: ‘In one house shall it be eaten, ye shall not cast its flesh outside.’ The flesh of Christ and the Lord’s sacred body cannot be cast outside, nor have believers any other home but the one Church.”,

-”The Unity of the Catholic Church”. Ch.8, circa 249-258 A.D.,

Description of an event in which an infant was taken to a pagan sacrifice and then the mother recovered it and brought it to Mass.

“Listen to what happened in my presence, before my very eyes. There was a baby girl, whose parents had fled and had, in their fear, rather improvidently lift it in the charge of its nurse. The nurse took the helpless child to the magistrates. There, before the idol where the crowds were flocking, as it was too young to eat the flesh, they gave it some bread dipped in what was left of the wine offered by those who had already doomed themselves. Later, the mother recovered her child. But the girl could not reveal or tell the wicked thing that had been done, any more than she had been able to understand or ward it off before. Thus, when the mother brought her in with her while we were offering the Sacrifice, it was through ignorance that this mischance occurred. But the infant, in the midst of the faithful, resenting the prayer and the offering we were making, began to cry convulsively, struggling and tossing in a veritable brain-storm, and for all its tender age and simplicity of soul, was confessing, as if under torture, in every way it could, its consciousness of the misdeed. Moreover, when the sacred rites were completed and the deacon began ministering to those present, when its turn came to receive, it turned its little head away as if sensing the divine presence, it closed its mouth, held its lips tight, and refused to drink from the chalice. The deacon persisted and, in spite of its opposition, poured in some of the consecrated chalice. There followed choking and vomiting. The Eucharist could not remain in a body or mouth that was defiled; the drink which had been sanctified by Our Lord’s blood returned from the polluted stomach. So great is the power of the Lord, and so great His majesty!”,

-”The Lapsed” Ch. 25, circa 249-258 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.”,

Source: St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:,

“There was a woman too who with impure hands tried to open the locket in which she was keeping Our Lord’s holy body, but fire flared up from it and she was too terrified to touch it. And a man who, in spite of his sin, also presumed secretly to join the rest in receiving sacrifice offered by the bishop, was unable to eat or even handle Our Lord’s sacred body; when he opened his hands, he found he was holding nothing but ashes. By this one example it was made manifest that Our Lord removes Himself from one who denies Him, and that what is received brings no blessing to the unworthy, since the Holy One has fled and the saving grace is turned to ashes.”,

-”The Lapsed” Ch. 26, circa 249-258 A.D.,

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.”,

Source: St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Lord’s Prayer, 252 A.D., chapter 18:,


APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE
Not much biographical information has been left about Aphraates. It is known that he was one of the Fathers of the Syrian Church. It is speculated that he was made bishop late in his life.,

He is thought to have been born ca. 280 A.D. and to have died ca. 345 A.D.,

“But the Lord was not yet arrested. After having spoken thus, the Lord rose up from the place where He had made the Passover and had given His Body as food and His Blood as drink, and He went with His disciples to the place where He was to be arrested. But he ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood, while He was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented His own Body to be eaten, and before he was crucified He gave His blood as drink; and He was taken at night on the fourteenth, and was judged until the sixth hour; and at the sixth hour they condemned Him and raised Him on the cross.”,

- “Treatises” [12,6] inter 336-345 A.D.,


SERAPION (Alt)
“’Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of Your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth with your magnificent glory, Lord of Virtues. Full also is this Sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to You we offer this living Sacrifice, this unbloody oblation.,

To you we offer this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of His holy Body because the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and broke and gave to His disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat, this is My Body, which is being broken for you, unto the remission of sins.’ On this account too do we offer the Bread, to bring ourselves into the likeness of His death; and we pray: Reconcile us all, O God of truth, and be gracious to us. And just as this Bread was scattered over the mountains and when collected was made one, so too gather Your holy Church from every nation and every country and every city and village and house and make it one living Catholic Church.,

We offer also the cup, the likeness of His Blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ took the cup after He had eaten, and He said to His disciples, ‘Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is My Blood which is being poured out for you unto the remission of sins.’ For this reason too we offer the chalice, to benefit ourselves by the likeness of His Blood. O God of truth, may Your Holy Logos come upon this Bread, that the Bread may become the Body of the Logos, and on this Cup, that the Cup may become the Blood of the Truth. And make all who communicate receive the remedy of life, to cure every illness and to strengthen every progress and virtue; not unto condemnation, O God of truth, nor unto disgrace and reproach!,

For we invoke You, the Increate, through Your Only-begotten in the Holy Spirit. Be merciful to this people, sent for the destruction of evil and for the security of Your Church. We beseech You also on behalf of all the departed, of whom also this is the commemoration: - after the mentioning of their names: - Sanctify these souls, for You know them all; sanctify all who have fallen asleep in the Lord and count them among the ranks of Your saints and give them a place and abode in your kingdom. Accept also the thanksgiving of Your people and bless those who offer the oblations and the Thanksgivings, and bestow health and integrity and festivity and every progress of soul and body on the whole of this Your people through your Only-begotten Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, as it was and is and will be in generations of generations and unto the whole expanse of the ages of ages. Amen.”,

-”The Sacramentary of Serapion, Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice” [13],


ST. EPHRAIM (Alt)
St. Ephraim was one of the great authors of the Syrian Church. Because of his beautiful writings, he is sometimes referred to as the ‘lyre of the Holy Spirit’. He studied under James, Bishop of Nisbis. In 338 A.D. he aspired to the diaconate and remained a deacon for the remainder of his life.,

“Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He 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.,

And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: ‘Take, all of you eat of this; which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.’ But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.”,

-”Homilies” 4,4 ca.. 350 A.D.,

“After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that 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. The 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 are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.”,

-”Homilies” 4,6 ca. 350 A.D.,

“’And your floors shall be filled with wheat, and the presses shall overflow equally with wine and oil.’ … This has been fulfilled mystically by Christ, who gave to the people whom He had redeemed, that is, to His Church, wheat and wine and oil in a mystic manner. For the wheat is the mystery of His sacred Body; and the wine His saving Blood; and again, the oil is the sweet unguent with which those who are baptized are signed, being clothed in the armaments of the Holy Spirit.”,

-”On Joel 2:24”, Commentaries on Sacred Scripture, Vol. 2 p. 252 of the Assemani edition.


ST. ATHANASIUS (Alt)
St. Athanasius was born in Alexandria ca. 295 A.D. He was ordained a deacon in 319 A.D. He accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea, where he served as his secretary. Eventually he succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria. He is most known for defending Nicene doctrine against Arian disputes.,

“’The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:’ You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.”,

-”Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D.,


ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (Alt)
St. Cyril served as Bishop of Jerusalem in the years 348-378 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 (the same body) [Eph 3:6] and blood with Christ. For he has just distinctly said, (That our Lord Jesus Christ the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood.) [1 Cor. 2:23-25] Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?

-”Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 1]

“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, (we become partaker of the divine nature.) [2 Peter 1:4]

-”Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]

“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 stablish 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.

-”Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 6]”

“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, (And bread which strengtheneth man’s heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [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 behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:—To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.”

Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.:

“Then upon the completion of the spiritual Sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over the propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this Sacrifice for all who are in need.”

“Mystagogic Catechesis [23: 5-7]

“Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit of the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn Sacrifice is laid out.”

-Mystagogic Catechesis [23 (Mystagogic 5), 10]

“After this you hear the singing which invites you with a divine melody to the Communion of the Holy Mysteries, and which says, ‘Taste and see that the Lord is good.’ Do not trust to the judgement of the bodily palate - no, but to unwavering faith. For they who are urged to taste do not taste of bread and wine, but to the antitype, of the Body and Blood of Christ.”

-”Mystagogic Catecheses 5 23, 20 ca. 350 A.D

“Keep these traditions inviolate, and preserve yourselves from offenses. Do not cut yourselves off from Communion, do not deprive yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries.”

-”Mystagogic Catechesis [23 (Mystagogic 5), 23]”


ST. HILARY OF POITERS (Alt)
St. Hilary firmly defended the Nicene Creed against Arian false doctrines. He was ordained Bishop of Poiters in 350 A.D. His efforts led to the collapse of Arianism in the West. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pius IX in 1851.

“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.’ As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this 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.”

-”The Trinity” [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D.


ST. BASIL THE GREAT (Alt)
St. Basil is recognized as the founder of Eastern monasticism. He was ordained Bishop of Caesarea in 370 A.D. He defended the Catholic Church against two waves of Arian attacks. The first movement denied the divinity of Christ. The second denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He is considered one of the greatest saints of the Oriental Church.

“What is the mark of a Christian? That he be purified of all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit in the Blood of Christ, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God and the love of Christ, and that he have no blemish nor spot nor any such thing; that he be holy and blameless and so eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood; for ‘he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.’ What is the mark of those who eat the Bread and drink the Cup of Christ? That they keep in perpetual remembrance Him who died for us and rose again.”

-”The Morals” Ch. 22

“He, therefore, who approaches the Body and Blood of Christ in commemoration of Him who died for us and rose again must be free not only from defilement of flesh and spirit, in order that he may not eat drink unto judgement, but he must actively manifest the remembrance of Him who died for us and rose again, by being dead to sin, to the world, and to himself, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus, our Lord.”

-”Concerning Baptism” Book I, Ch. 3.

“To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly: ‘He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.’ Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week, on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint.”

-”Letter to a Patrician Lady Caesaria” [93] ca. 372 A.D.


ST. EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (Alt)
“We see that the Saviour took [something] in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: ‘This is really Me.’ And He gave to His disciples and said: ‘This is really Me.’ And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, ‘This is really Me.’; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of a Savior.”

-”The Man Well-Anchored” [57] 374 A.D.


ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZ (Alt)
St. Gregory was consecrated Bishop of Sasima in the year 371 A.D and was a friend of St. Basil for most of his life.

“Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword.”

-”Letter to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium” [171] ca. 383 A.D.


ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (Alt)
“Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of the God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh.”

-”The Great Catechism [37: 9-13]”

“He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and ‘Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.’ When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed.”

-”Orations and Sermons” [Jaeger: Vol 9, p. 287] ca. 383 A.D.

“The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ.”

-”Orations and Sermons” [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.


ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (Alt)
From 386-397 A.D. St. John Chrysostom served as a priest in the main church of Antioch. He soon became renown for his preaching and writing skills. In 397 A.D. he succeeded St. Gregory of Nazianz as Bishop of Constantinople.

“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. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the birth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things that which is perceived intellectually. 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!”

-”Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew” [82,4] 370 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.”

Source: St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy,” 2,4, c. 397 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.”

Source: St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Treachery of Judas” 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:

“’The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the Blood of Christ?’ Very trustworthily and awesomely does he say it. For what he is saying is this: ‘What is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and we partake of it.’ He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise Him in song, wondering and astonished at His indescribable Gift, blessing Him because of His having poured out this very Gift so that we might not remain in error, and not only for His having poured out It out, but also for His sharing It with all of us.”

-”Homilies on the First Letter to the Corinthians” [24,1] ca. 392 A.D.


ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (Alt)
“You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.”

-”The Sacraments” Book 4, Ch.4:14.

“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.”

-”On the Mysteries” 9, 50-52, 58; 391 A.D.:

“His poverty enriches, the fringe of His garment heals, His hunger satisfies, His death gives life, His burial gives resurrection. Therefore, He is a rich treasure, for His bread is rich. And ‘rich’ is apt for one who has eaten this bread will be unable to feel hunger. He gave it to the Apostles to distribute to a believing people, and today He gives it to us, for He, as a priest, daily consecrates it with His own words. Therefore, this bread has become the food of the saints.”

-”The Patriarchs” Ch. 9:38

“Thus, every soul which receives the bread which comes down from heaven is a house of bread, the bread of Christ, being nourished and having its heart strengthened by the support of the heavenly bread which dwells within it.”

-”Letter to Horontianus” circa 387 A.D.


EGERIA
“Following the dismissal from the Martyrium, everyone proceeds behind the Cross, where, after a hymn is sung and a prayer is said, the bishop offers the sacrifice and everyone receives Communion. Except on this one day, throughout the year the sacrifice is never offered behind the Cross save on this day alone.”

-”Diary of a Pilgrimage” Ch. 35.

Describes a Mass held in front of Mt. Sinai.

“All of the proper passage from the Book of Moses was read, the sacrifice was offered in the prescribed manner, and we received Communion.”

-”Diary of a Pilgrimage” Ch. 3.


AURELIUS PRUDENTIUS CLEMENS (Alt)
“Such is the hidden retreat where Hippolytus’ body is buried. Next to an altar nearby, built for the worship of God. Table from which the sacrament all holy is given, close to the martyr it stands, set as a faithful guard.”

-”Hymns for Every Day” Hymn 170.


ST. JEROME (Alt)
“After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood.”

-”Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew” [4,26,26] 398 A.D.


APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS
“A bishop gives the blessing, he does not receive it. He imposes hands, he ordains, he offers the Sacrifice”

“Apostolic Constitutions [8, 28, 2:9]”


ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (Alt)
“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.”

Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 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.”

Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Catecheses,” 22, 9; “Myst.” 4; d. 444 A.D.:


ST. AUGUSTINE (Alt)
“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. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

-”Sermons”, [227, 21]

“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen’”.

-”Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa

“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.

Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.

“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.

Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:


MARCARIUS THE MAGNESIAN
“[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: ‘This is My Body and this is My Blood.’ Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth.”

-”Apocriticus” [3,23] ca. 400 A.D.


ST. LEO I (Alt)
“When the Lord says: ‘Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His blood, you shall not have life in you,’ you ought to so communicate at the Sacred Table that you have no doubt whatever of the truth of the Body and the Blood of Christ. For that which is taken in the mouth is what is believed in faith; and in do those respond, ‘Amen,’ who argue against that which is received.”

-”Sermons” [91,3] ante 461 A.D.


ST. CAESAR OF ARLES (Alt)
“As often as some infirmity overtakes a man, let him who is ill receive the Body and Blood of Christ.”

-”Sermons [13 (265), 3]


ST. FULGENE OF RUSPE (Alt)
“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the Only-begotten God the Word Himself become flesh offered Himself in an odor of sweetness as a Sacrifice and Victim to God on our behalf; to whom, with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, in the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, with whom He has one Godhead, the Holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of Bread and Wine … In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively; but in this sacrifice which has now been given us, it is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious; but in the present it is announced that He has been killed for the impious.”

-”The Rule of Faith [62]”


IV CONCLUSION
“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.”

(2 Tim 4:1-4)



Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence

New Advent Catholic Supersite: The Fathers of the Church - This is the online source to get Catholic writings on the Church Councils and Early Fathers. Highly Recommended!!!

The Catholic Lifetime Reading Plan - The Age of Persecution - Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
(St Ignatius of Antioch, St Justin Martyr, St Irenaeus, Tertullian, St Cyprian, Lactantius)

The Catholic Lifetime Reading Plan - The Patristic Age - Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
(Eusebius, St. Athanasius, Prudentius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Jerome)

The Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist - What did the earliest Christians believe?

The Real Presence - (Catholic Answers)

Corunum Catholic Apologetic Web Page: Real Presence

Quotations on the Holy Eucharist - from early church writers

Fathers of the Church on the Eucharist - Fr. Burns K. Seeley, S.S.J.C., Ph.D.
(Didache, St. Ignatius, St. Justin the Martyr, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Origen, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Council of Nicaea, Aphraates the Persian Sage, St. Ephraim, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nazianz, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. John Chrysostom, Apostolic Constitutions, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Jerome, St. Augustine)

What’s New Site Index

THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST

Home | Directory | Eucharist | Divine Training | Testimonials | Visit Chapel | Hardon Archives
Adorers Society | PEA Manual | Essentials of Faith | Dictionary | Thesaurus | Catalog | Newsletters

Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association
718 Liberty Lane
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: 815-254-4420
Contact Us
Internet: www.therealpresence.org

Copyright © 2000 - 2011 by www.therealpresence.org
All rights reserved worldwide.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of www.therealpresence.org

the real view of the Church Fathers.


108 posted on 12/08/2011 8:30:34 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Nor did Jesus ever teach that women had no place in the ministry of the Gospel.

Nor does the Roman Catholic Church teach this. Yes there were women disciples/followers but the Apostles were all male, God always refers to Himself in the masculine and when he took human form he came as a man. Blessed are those who find no stumbling block in Him. The Catholic Church is following the example set by Christ.

Now, this may very well have been due to the culture where women were to "keep silent" in the church and to ask their husbands questions about teachings when they got home so there was no interruption.

I have a problem with the idea that the Scriptures are merely products of their cultural milieu. It seems to imply that God did not speak for All Time or that He did not choose adequately those who wrote Scripture.

If you, instead, looked at history objectively you would know that the Reformation happened because of the growing apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church etc..

Yes. YOU are objective but I am not. Whatever. Christ recognized the corruption of the high priests in His own time and yet counseled obedience to them. He gave the authority to Peter and His Church to bind and loose on earth and He well knew how it would play out until the end of time. He set up the authority anyway. If you could manage some objectivity you would see the truth of my previous post. Protestantism is founded in rebellion. It's original sin all over again.

an act of genuine, God-loving Christians who sought to return the Church back to her Biblical roots.

A Bible given to us by the Roman Catholic Church which Martin Luther then took upon himself to edit. Pride and arrogance personified.

109 posted on 12/08/2011 8:35:13 PM PST by TradicalRC (Zero Debt Now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Did you see his shoddy footnotes. He points out the fathers out of context. He is such a scholar?

Just read him correctly he takes everything out of context. Do yourself a favor read for you self not the way he wants you to read it. It's been the for two thousand years. Do not trust his works alone. Read the originals. I have a book of early church fathers. When this "webster" site came up years ago I would compare his quotes to the book. He is mostly out of context.

There is something very wrong with him.

110 posted on 12/08/2011 9:06:33 PM PST by johngrace (1 John 4!- declared at every Sunday Mass,Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: johngrace; boatbums

John,

BB can read post #108 to see what the Church Fathers believed.


111 posted on 12/08/2011 9:13:18 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; Quix; ScubieNuc
But long before this, the Church help up Mary in high honor, because she was, as I have said, the proof that Jesus was not a spiritual being but a man. Further, that she was EverVirgin because the birth of Jesus was unlike any other human birth. This was already being said in the 2nd Century, as a response to the Gnostics.

Though, again, I think y'all can believe what you want, the idea that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus plays into the Gnostic thought. After all, they did not believe that Jesus came in the flesh. They taught that the material world was evil. Therefore, to say Jesus passed through the birth canal without changing Mary physically would have played into the false beliefs of the Gnostics. But Jesus WAS in physical, human form, he WAS/IS God incarnate - in the flesh. To teach Mary remained a virgin would BE Gnostic teaching, NOT Christianity.

I fully believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. He is the Messiah and that miracle was foretold in Isaiah 7:14. I also honor her faith and courage as well as her faithfulness to Jesus. But, teachings such as her perpetual virginity, her being the Mother of God, her sinlessness and it being necessary for her to bear Christ, her bodily assumption into Heaven and her role as mediator and dispenser of all graces I will pass on. Not only are these teachings NOT Scriptural, they even contradict Scripture. This is just one more proof to me that the Catholic Church is NOT the "catholic" church.

112 posted on 12/08/2011 9:14:07 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

Hi Boatbums- William Webster quotes the Early Fathers without the original verses being in his document on most cases. If he does it is out of context. He goes to a book. Instead of original documents writings.


113 posted on 12/08/2011 9:15:47 PM PST by johngrace (1 John 4!- declared at every Sunday Mass,Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Do you have to resort to outrageous font size and color to make a point?


114 posted on 12/08/2011 9:24:04 PM PST by Barnacle (Is treason a high crime or misdemeanor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Who quoted it? If thats the one I remember. That’s not what it reads it again. He is comparing it back. Also I will check it out for you. When you take a writing you compare it to everything else written by same author.


115 posted on 12/08/2011 9:33:04 PM PST by johngrace (1 John 4!- declared at every Sunday Mass,Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01; Gargantua
If the Blessed Mother who is full of grace is dead, then we’re all screwed.

Immaculate Conception Feast Day Blessings!

Mary has the same grace all Christians have. The angel said, "Hail, thou art highly favored...". The word "highly favored" is khä-rÄ“-to'-ō in Greek and means to be highly favored, make accepted, peruse with grace, to honor with blessings. The same word, however, is used again in Ephesians 1:6 "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.". So, we also are "highly favored". She is dead to THIS world, but is fully alive in heaven. So, I disagree, we are NOT screwed.

One more thing, if today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, I understand that it is NOT as some would think the special observance of when Jesus was conceived, but is instead the day Mary was supposedly conceived without sin and it is nine months before HER birth. so, why is there not a feast day for when we all agree that Jesus was immaculately conceived? Just curious. Pope Pius IX didn't get around to officially proclaiming her sinlessness until 1854 in his Ineffabilis Deus and before then, the feast day was to note when she was conceived only, not conceived immaculately.

116 posted on 12/08/2011 9:40:28 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

By what right do you assume that Mary was a fallen creature when God himself had chosen her as his own? The Bible Tells us that it was because of her disobedience that Eve was to suffer in childbirth. You say you believe in the Virgin Birth. Why then deny a miracle of much less consequence.? Mary was no spirit, but the second Eve, and unlike the first God’s obedient servant. The same Christ who passed through closed doors, who could command the spirits of Elijah and Moses to the top of the mountain, could not come into the world as he pleased and without harm to his mother?


117 posted on 12/08/2011 9:51:08 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; daniel1212
the REASON we aren’t going there is because the Bible doesn’t “go there”.

FALSE. We are NOT going there because you have wasted enough people's time with the same questions you have already had answered numerous times. In case you have forgotten already and for anyone else who thinks OLOFOB is genuinely asking for the truth, please read the following, very well researched and Scripturally accurate post from daniel1212:

href=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2884#2866

118 posted on 12/08/2011 10:00:18 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; daniel1212
the REASON we aren’t going there is because the Bible doesn’t “go there”.

FALSE. We are NOT going there because you have wasted enough people's time with the same questions you have already had answered numerous times. In case you have forgotten already and for anyone else who thinks OLOFOB is genuinely asking for the truth, please read the following, very well researched and Scripturally accurate post from daniel1212:

href=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2884#2866

119 posted on 12/08/2011 10:01:14 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence

From the very start, a false statement. The "real presence" was NOT universally held by the early church, it is NOT taught as such in Scripture, and many of the Early Church Fathers did not agree with each other about it. At most you can say it is a derived or developed doctrine. But it most certainly was NOT a doctrine of the early church. In fact, if you read this site http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html you will see how the idea actually did develop and by whom. I also have additional articles if you really ARE interested in the subject objectively.

120 posted on 12/08/2011 10:12:32 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
I realize that because Webster is a former Roman Catholics that his writings are suspect, but I do think he proves his points. Obviously, he is not the only Christian writer who holds these same views. This site also quotes many of those church fathers http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Eucharist.html#Presence

and this site http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/wobbly-evolution-of-romes-doctrine-of.html.

Thanks for the discussion. Have a good night.

121 posted on 12/08/2011 10:35:21 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Good night Sister!-God Bless you and keep you! It is an honor to discuss with fellow Freepers! Remember its a Christian belief on both of us. God will always guide us.


122 posted on 12/08/2011 11:07:08 PM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass,Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
By what right do you assume that Mary was a fallen creature when God himself had chosen her as his own? The Bible Tells us that it was because of her disobedience that Eve was to suffer in childbirth. You say you believe in the Virgin Birth. Why then deny a miracle of much less consequence.? Mary was no spirit, but the second Eve, and unlike the first God’s obedient servant. The same Christ who passed through closed doors, who could command the spirits of Elijah and Moses to the top of the mountain, could not come into the world as he pleased and without harm to his mother?

I don't claim any special "right" but spoke about what I believe. I read in Scripture that we have ALL sinned and fall short of the perfection of God. That is why Christ came for us and only he was born, lived and died without sin. If he had even one sin he could not have paid the penalty for anyone else's sin. I do not believe that God made Mary sinless from her conception because that would contradict Scripture. There are no exceptions in that "all" but Christ and that is because he was fully God while fully man. The argument often used is that God cannot look upon sin so he had to have a perfect womb in which to be conceived. That is NOT said anywhere in Scripture, it is NOT logical because God became a man and was surrounded by fallible, sinful people his whole life here on earth. Don't you think there would at least be a few prophecies that addressed the issue? As it stands, the early Christians did not hold to that doctrine and the Catholic Church made no definitive statements about the varying thoughts until 1800 years after Mary had died.

I don't understand the ferocity that comes out of some people when this subject is discussed. Nobody is disrespecting Mary. It isn't disrespectful to see her as a very blessed and faithful woman who in spite of her own sinful nature was chosen by God to bring the Messiah into the world. Did you know that every Jewish woman hoped that her child would be the Messiah? I read that even Eve, when she gave birth to her first child, Cain, she said, "I have gotten a man from the LORD" (Gen. 4:1) The Hebrew words say she said "I have gotten a man EVEN Jehovah". She had already been told that God would provide a Savior and, of course, Isaiah hadn't been written yet, but she thought her son was the one to crush the head of the serpent, Satan.

Finally, like I said, to proclaim that Jesus "passed through the door of Mary's womb" like he did through the doors of the upper room after his resurrection, shows two errors. First, Jesus in his resurrection body was changed from his human, physical one. He was in his "glorified" body. But while he was still in the one that could tire, feel pain and die, he was as solid and human as you and I. There is no Scriptural warrant for saying Mary did not give birth the way all women do. Secondly, it DOES play into the Gnostic mindset to imply that Jesus was spirit only and that he did not inhabit real, human flesh, bones and blood.

God choose Mary, but not for the reasons your church says he did. Plus, think about this, if Mary was without sin from the moment of her natural conception and remained so until the announcement of the angel, then you must also admit that Mary did not have free will to accept the will of God. What would have happened if she said no? If she couldn't say no, then where is her sacrifice, her faith, her reasons for honor? She was just a robot? No, I don't think so either.

123 posted on 12/08/2011 11:39:20 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Your assumption is that Paul meant something more than the simply statement than that men are sinful and cannot be brought to perfection except by through God’s grace. The “contradiction” is only a contradiction of your interpretation of that verse.

I think you are running away from the singularity of the Virgin Birth. God could have chosen to come among men as he perhaps did to Abraham, as an angelic being. He could have been born, as John the Baptist was, to a mother and a father. That would have made him more like us. But Matthew and Luke tells us this was not the case. Mark says nothing about the matter, and John , like Paul, only tells us that he was born of a woman. John does tell us that he was divine, something that Luke tells us only by implication. Luke, however, tells us far more about Mary than any other Evangelist, and we are left with no doubt about her holiness and the most extraordinary nature of the conception of Jesus. Mary was the first Christian, and we believe with the poet, “our tainted natures’ solitary boast.” Calvin, whose harsh doctrine of the utter depravity of man, did not doubt that Mary remained Virgin throughout her life nor her sinlessness.

As to the argument that her immaculate conception derived her of free will, we argue that it made her that much more capable of a free choice. Eve was born without sin. How then could God justly punish her for sinning if she had no free will.

As to the distinction between Jesus before and after the Resurrection:
Whatever weakness he had was a matter of his choice. From time to time, he revealed himself, as when he calmed the story seas, and when he stood on the mount of the transfiguration when the glory of the Lord was shown.


124 posted on 12/09/2011 1:09:13 AM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.


125 posted on 12/09/2011 2:20:12 AM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
EVIDENTLY

you are of the sterile, mundane, lock-step, narrow, rigid, stereo-typical, strictly slavishly conventional, ducks-in-a-row, cookie-cutter, uncreative . . .

style of posting, writing, speaking, being in the world.

Tyrants love that mentality.

Lemmings march over the cliff much more compliantly with such a mentality and existential style.

I have a different style and perspective, in case you haven't sufficiently noticed. . . . from an earlier long locked thread:

To: Tax-chick; Amityschild; Brad's Gramma; Captain Beyond; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; ...

Good advice by the Pastor.

However . . . Dear Heart . . .

some of my fiercest writing is when I’m exceedingly calm—no raised heart beat or increased breathing rate etc.

Most of my writing—95%?—is when I’m quite calm.

I love playing with words. I love saying things in emphatic, startling, memorable ways.

Maybe I sat through too many boring lectures and read too many boring text books on the way to the PhD.

Maybe I got what few rewards I got growing up by writing vivid, even startling things in English and Social Studies classes.

Besides all that, the instense exchanges are much more alive, authentic, real, to me. I hate shallow discourse more than I hate a LOT of other things. Actually, I don’t hate many things, at all—that is, I hate very few things, total. Hate is just not a familiar feeling to me.

And, I have been the brunt of a lot of ridicule my whole life.

And, I have seen how effective the disinformation psy-ops folks have been using ridicule against UFO disclosures.

I suspect all of that has had some part to play in my ‘Quixicated style.’

It’s rarely personal—except to highlight some folks pontifications who seem to delight in making abjectly foolish, outrageous, HYPOCRITICAL assertions. I enjoy the fray—rather collegially, actually.

I mean . . . if folks are going to BEG for such a response, who am I to refuse to be generous!

Of course, there are a few who seem to ENJOY being just personally harsh, mean and personally assaultive as though they were Saul putting to death Proddys—or wishing they could. Those can be particularly fun highlighting their absurdities, double standards and hypocrisies.

Of course, I realize that I can be absurd as well. I sure earnestly endeavor to be well beyond double standards and hypocrisies. By God’s Grace, He helps me usually succeed on those scores.

If one is going to be silly, brash, fiesty, startling in communications, one has to be a pretty good capacity to see their own clay feet.

33 posted on Tue Jul 06 2010 09:07:54 GMT-0600 (Mountain Daylight Time) by Quix (THE PLAN of the Bosses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2519352/posts?page=2#2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2547599/posts?page=33#33

126 posted on 12/09/2011 2:39:45 AM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; Gargantua

I was being ironic - obviously we are not screwed because as you said Mary is fully alive in heaven - that is the point I was making because another poster stated that Mary is dead.

The Immaculate Conception is the feast day when we celebrate that Mary was conceived without original sin. Her grace is different from ours because we all have original sin and Mary did not.

How do we know? Mary is the ark of the new covenenant - the “ark” where Jesus lived for ninth months.


127 posted on 12/09/2011 4:54:24 AM PST by stonehouse01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

not universally held by the early Church?

Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus all EXPLICITLY SAY THE EUCHARIST IS THE BODY OF CHRIST, all late 1st century to mid 2nd century writers.

NO FATHER SAYS IT IS SYMBOLIC.

DID YOU READ #108?

iF it was “developed” over time, there would have been disagreements between respected orthodox theologians.

find the disagreement in history, IT DOESN’T EXIST!!

for example, suppose this Sunday a Baptist minister taught in a sermon that the Eucharist IS THE BODY OF CHRIST.

how quickly would it be until he was defrocked and fired?? i’d say 5 minutes.

find this type controversy in Church history before the 16th century, it doesn’t exist.


128 posted on 12/09/2011 2:46:00 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; daniel1212

LOL, please everyone read Daniel’s post and see if he tells us where the following are contained in the Bible:

1. where baptism is ever called “water baptism”?
CORRECT ANSWER - NO WHERE

2. where baptism is ever referred to as a symbol?
CORRECT ANSWER - NO WHERE

3. where anyone was ever told to be baptized as a testimony to others?
CORRECT ANSWER - NO WHERE

4. where anyone was ever told to be baptized as a first act of obedience?
CORRECT ANSWER - NO WHERE

indeed, the Bible doesn’t “GO THERE”.

THAT’S WHY NO ONE BELIEVED THESE HERESIES BEFORE THE 16TH CENTURY. EVEN MOST REFORMERS REJECTED THESE DOCTRINES!


129 posted on 12/09/2011 2:58:59 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

1 Cor 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?” St. Paul continued, 1 Cor 11:27 “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.” St. Paul in these words confirmed Catholic teaching that the “bread … of the Lord” is truly Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and that the “cup of the Lord” is the same substance: “Whoever … eats the bread or drinks the cup … will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.”

1 Cor 11:29 “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

If we receive the Holy Eucharist without acknowledging, at least in our hearts, that it is His true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, we send ourselves to hell.

What do you call this from St. Paul, besides scriptural teaching of the real presence? And of course you are throwing away Christ’s teaching recorded in John 6.

It is false to continue to assert that the unbiblical teaching against the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is unbiblical, when it has been shown many times to be clearly the teaching of both Christ and St. Paul.


130 posted on 12/09/2011 3:09:29 PM PST by Judith Anne (For rhe sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Your assumption is that Paul meant something more than the simply statement than that men are sinful and cannot be brought to perfection except by through God’s grace. The “contradiction” is only a contradiction of your interpretation of that verse.

But the FACT of the universal sin nature of ALL mankind is not just stated in the book of Romans. My "interpretation" is not at issue since Scripture clearly states repeatedly that no human is without sin. Both the Old and New Testaments speak to this. In fact at the very start when Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, God spoke about the inherited sin nature. To state that Mary was born without a sin nature AND that she never sinned until the day she died is NOT verified anywhere in Scripture. It was a doctrine that developed over many centuries but was NOT held by the Apostles. Not even John, who took care of her, ever mentioned what would HAVE to have been an extraordinary and miraculous thing.

I think you are running away from the singularity of the Virgin Birth. God could have chosen to come among men as he perhaps did to Abraham, as an angelic being. He could have been born, as John the Baptist was, to a mother and a father. That would have made him more like us. But Matthew and Luke tells us this was not the case. Mark says nothing about the matter, and John , like Paul, only tells us that he was born of a woman. John does tell us that he was divine, something that Luke tells us only by implication. Luke, however, tells us far more about Mary than any other Evangelist, and we are left with no doubt about her holiness and the most extraordinary nature of the conception of Jesus.

I am not "running away" from anything at all. I have no doubts about the very fitting and proper fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. That God would become man, by a miracle of a virgin, is a major prophecy that set apart the true Messiah from all other pretended ones - and, yes, there were false Messiahs then and still. His place of birth, means of conception, his lineage, his town of origin, his trip to Egypt as a baby and many more events were fulfilled exactly in Jesus Christ. But there was not ONE mention of his mother's sinlessness nor her continued virginity after Christ's birth, not in the Old Testament nor anywhere in the New Testament, nor why it would have been necessary. In fact, the New Testament speaks of the brothers and sisters of Jesus multiple times, so why is that ignored?

As to the argument that her immaculate conception derived her of free will, we argue that it made her that much more capable of a free choice. Eve was born without sin. How then could God justly punish her for sinning if she had no free will.

I wasn't the one who said she was deprived of a free will in order to have been the mother of the Messiah. My point was that IF she really was free from sin from her own birth, then that would mean she was NOT given a choice in her bearing the Lord. God could certainly chosen another Jewish virgin, I'm pretty sure Mary was not the only one around those times. My contention is that she did not NEED to be sinless in order to be the mother of Jesus, only that she was a virgin - so that the paternity of Jesus would not be doubted - and that she was from the lineage of David and living in the "right" area of the world. But, as I have said many times, if you want to believe this go ahead. I don't and for salient reasons. I think the Roman Catholic Church erred in making this a part of the faith that MUST be held by all who will be saved.

As to the distinction between Jesus before and after the Resurrection: Whatever weakness he had was a matter of his choice. From time to time, he revealed himself, as when he calmed the story seas, and when he stood on the mount of the transfiguration when the glory of the Lord was shown.

My point for mentioning that was simply to dispute that when he was born, he did not "wisp" through Mary's body like a "spirit" but that he was born fully human with a real flesh and blood and bones body. It was the Gnostics that would declare Jesus was not in a physical body. They would have gladly accepted his birth being so miraculous that Mary remained a virgin after the birth. If we're talking about physical virginity, then she could not possibly have continued to be after giving birth. That is not humanly possible. But it does not make sense to insist she did especially since such was not part of any prophecy. I'm not telling you or anyone else to stop believing what you want, just that if we are discussing the subject, I have a different viewpoint and I give my reasons. At no time am I disrespecting Mary or ascribing disrepute to her. She was truly amazing in her depth of faith that at such a young age she could trust that God would provide for her and protect her. Back then, if you aren't aware, women who were betrothed - for a whole year - could not show up pregnant before the marriage is consummated. To do so would prove adultery and the woman could be stoned to death. If you remember, Joseph, when he found out she was with child, sought to "put her away privately" - meaning spare her life by getting her out of town - but the angel appeared to him in a dream to tell him what was going on and to NOT fear to take Mary as his wife. It took a lot of courage and faith for both of them to continue to honor God and proceed with the birth. Here was Joseph, an innocent man, faced with what looked like a woman who was sexually impure that he was engaged to. What would YOU have done? But he was also a man of faith and he trusted that God would provide and protect them both. They are BOTH wonderful examples of faith for us all. They are BOTH to be honored. And I DO.

131 posted on 12/09/2011 3:37:22 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; boatbums; caww; smvoice; presently no screen name; Quix

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2866#2866

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2935#2935

We are still waiting for you to admit that were wrong in contending that forgiveness and regeneration did not precede baptism when it clearly did [(Acts 10:43-47), and thus this a first formal act of obedience was “an outward display of something that has happened inwardly already,” that being the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16; 1Cor. 12:13; cf. Heb. 6:2) which was testimony to others of their acceptance with God] and further exampling your blindness is only another testimony against Romanism and your desperate sophistry.

And once again, until you can at least admit your blindness than you yourself are not worthy of further attempts to dialog. Maybe another RC would like to argue that Acts 10 is not showing regeneration occurring before baptism, and actually argue against what i hold, as stated.


132 posted on 12/09/2011 4:11:30 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
All else I am going to say on this subject with you, is:

1. If the substances of bread and wine do not physically change into physical human flesh and blood, then IT IS SPIRITUAL. If it is spiritual, then you cannot INSIST that the elements ARE the flesh and blood of Jesus. As Tertullian said: "Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

2. When Jesus said whoever "ate his flesh and drank his blood" would have eternal life/never die, then either he meant eating his actual, physical flesh and blood or he was speaking of spiritually receiving him by faith. Augustine said: "To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again." (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, St Augustin, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate XXVI.I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 168.) So, I would ask you again, if you REALLY believe that one must receive the Eucharist as the flesh and blood of Christ in order to be saved, then why is that not enough? Why is this not a "one-time deal"? Why must it be repeated if eating his flesh and drinking his blood GIVES us eternal life? Doesn't "eternal" mean forever?

I'm expressing these points not to get in another purposeless back and forth dialog that has already been repeated ad nauseum, but to perhaps make people think about what specifically they believe and why. I certainly believe we should know WHY we believe what we believe, and saying "because that's what we believe" doesn't cut it with me. I'm surprised that it would be for anyone else.

133 posted on 12/09/2011 4:31:19 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Back then, if you aren't aware, women who were betrothed - for a whole year - could not show up pregnant before the marriage is consummated. To do so would prove adultery and the woman could be stoned to death.

Wrong. Back then, a pregnant woman betrothed to a man was presumed to be carrying that man's child. Joseph knew Christ was not his child, and did not know He was the Son of God until the angel told him in a dream. That's why he considered putting her away privately. Tradition, which you laugh at, says that Joseph was very old, and not expected to be a father by anyone.

134 posted on 12/09/2011 4:44:16 PM PST by Judith Anne (For rhe sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; daniel1212
indeed, the Bible doesn’t “GO THERE”.

What would natural man who is without the HOLY SPIRIT know about God's Word? NOTHING!! Because It Is Written..

"But the natural man receiveth not the THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD: for they are foolishness unto him: NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned". 1 Cor 2:14

Stick with your man-made teachings because WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT - you speak foolishness and you can NEVER KNOW the things of God without the HOLY SPIRIT.

THAT’S WHY NO ONE BELIEVED THESE HERESIES BEFORE THE 16TH CENTURY. EVEN MOST REFORMERS REJECTED THESE DOCTRINES!

They are only considered heresies from the gates of hell and the prophesy I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. was fulfilled by the obedience of Martin Luther. And the gates of hell are STILL WHINING about it.

Praise GOD for His HOLY Spirit inspired WORD which IS the FINAL AUTHORITY for HIS CHURCH.
135 posted on 12/09/2011 4:48:54 PM 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 129 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
"You abandon the commandments of God to follow human traditions."

Tradition, which you laugh at,

You betcha!
136 posted on 12/09/2011 4:53:15 PM 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 134 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

Why?


137 posted on 12/09/2011 4:57:19 PM PST by Judith Anne (For rhe sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Because Jesus says so..."See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ". Col 2:8

"Thus you nullify the Word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." Mark 7:13
138 posted on 12/09/2011 5:05:17 PM 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 137 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Wrong. Back then, a pregnant woman betrothed to a man was presumed to be carrying that man's child. Joseph knew Christ was not his child, and did not know He was the Son of God until the angel told him in a dream. That's why he considered putting her away privately. Tradition, which you laugh at, says that Joseph was very old, and not expected to be a father by anyone.

What is your source for this? The betrothal period of one year was PRECISELY for the reason of ensuring a woman was not carrying another man's child. It WAS custom. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrothal#Betrothal:

In Jewish weddings during Talmudic times (c.1st century BCE - 6th century CE), the two ceremonies of betrothal (erusin) and wedding usually took place up to a year apart; the bride lived with her parents until the actual marriage ceremony (nissuin), which would take place in a room or tent that the groom had set up for her. Since the Middle Ages the two ceremonies have taken place as a combined ceremony performed in public. The betrothal is now generally part of the Jewish wedding ceremony, accomplished when the groom gives the bride the ring or another object of at least nominal value.[5] As mentioned above, betrothal in Judaism is separate from engagement; breaking a betrothal requires a formal divorce, and violation of betrothal is considered adultery."

"After the marriage covenant had been established, the groom would leave the home of the bride and return to his father's house. There he would remain separate from his bride for a period of twelve months.7 This period of separation afforded the bride time to gather her trousseau and to prepare for married life.8 The groom occupied himself with the preparation of living accommodations in his father's house to which he could bring his bride." http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/jewish_marriage_customs.htm

Joseph, of course, knew the child was not his, but it took the angel in his dream to convince him why he should proceed with the marriage. As far as Joseph being an "old" man - that is NOT based upon anything but legend, myth, conjecture. He was obviously spry and strong enough to travel with a very pregnant Mary on a donkey the entire distance to Bethlehem, wasn't he?

I don't know why you accuse me of "laughing" at tradition. I certainly don't. As to Joseph being too old to father children, that is NOT a tradition in the true sense of the word. Besides, wasn't Abraham a hundred years old when Sarah conceived Isaac? And wasn't Jesus referred to many times as the "son of the carpenter"? Obviously, other people back then didn't think Joseph couldn't be his father. Poor arguments, JA.

139 posted on 12/09/2011 5:12:51 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
The groom occupied himself with the preparation of living accommodations in his father's house to which he could bring his bride

Amazing - isn't it? "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with Me that you also may be where I am".John 14:3

As to Joseph being too old to father children, that is NOT a tradition in the true sense of the word.

I never heard that before but I could see how the CC would teach it - to discount any thought of Joseph and Mary having other children. The CC makes up tradition as they go along to discount the TRUTH. In this case, the Truth is Mary and Joseph did have children together.
140 posted on 12/09/2011 7:43:48 PM 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 139 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

ST. AUGUSTINE (Alt)
“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. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

-”Sermons”, [227, 21]

“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen’”.

-”Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa

“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.

Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.

“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.

Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:

THIS IS WHAT AUGUSTINE BELIEVED ON THE REAL PRESENCE.

PLEASE READ IT AND MAYBE YOU WILL STOP TRYING TO PRETEND AUGUSTINE DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE REAL PRESENCE.

posted from therealpresence.org


141 posted on 12/09/2011 8:07:51 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

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

therealpresence.org

THIS IS WHAT TERTULLIAN HAD TO SAY ON THE EUCHARIST, TALKING ABOUT “RECEIVING THE BODY OF THE LORD AND THE SACRIFICE. SOUNDS LIKE A BAPTIST TO ME!


142 posted on 12/09/2011 8:14:25 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
THIS IS WHAT AUGUSTINE BELIEVED ON THE REAL PRESENCE. PLEASE READ IT AND MAYBE YOU WILL STOP TRYING TO PRETEND AUGUSTINE DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE REAL PRESENCE.

YOU NEED TO READ THEM AGAIN. AUGUSTINE DID NOT MAKE A HABIT OF CONTRADICTING HIMSELF

143 posted on 12/09/2011 8:16:21 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; boatbums

i had already destroyed the theory that Acts 10 taught the HolY Spirit regenerated BEFORE BAPTISM.

Neither Acts 10 nor 11 teaches any such doctrine and no one believed this heresy before the 16th century.

BB made a statement that i took almost word for word and asked for the “sola scriptura” backup for them.

NONE HAVE BEEN FORTHCOMING, JUST AS NONE WERE PROVIDED IN OUR PREVIOUS GO ROUND THAT YOU ENDED WHEN I PRESSED THE ISSUE.

SO IT IS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS THAT THE “BAPTIST” DOCTRINE ON BAPTISM IS A 16TH CENTURY TRADITION OF MAN.

Daniel and BB are still free to show me where :

1. baptism is called a symbol
2. where the Bible calls baptism “water baptism”
3. where anyone was told baptism is a testimony to others
4. where anyone was told baptism is a first act of obedience.

CUE THE CRICKETS...................

now, opposing this 16th century invention is the Biblical, historical, orthodox teaching of the Church taught and believed for 2,000 years that baptism :

1. is for the remission of sins
2. is for receiving the Holy Spirit
3. places one “into Christ”

rather than follow the tradition of men, why not following the Body of Christ and it’s authoritative teaching?

isn’t it amazing how the Catholic Faith is called “romanism”? LOL!


144 posted on 12/09/2011 8:27:21 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

OK, here’s Augustine:

“that bread, which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the Word of God, IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. the chalice, or rather what is in the chalice, having been sanctified by the Word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.”

Now, here is a simple yes or no question for you:

Do you agree with the above statement from Augustine?
YES OR NO??


145 posted on 12/09/2011 8:34:13 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; CynicalBear; Quix; metmom
Amazing - isn't it? "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with Me that you also may be where I am".John 14:3

So many comparisons! In that previous post, the link I gave goes further to explain the bride of Christ, the betrothal, the marriage, etc. It says:

JEWISH MARRIAGE CUSTOMS

Behold, The Bridegroom Comes!

Dr. Renald Showers, Chairman of the Pastoral Studies Dept. Philadelphia College of Bible (year unknown) Distributed by, The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., W. Collingswood, N.J.

The Comforting Promise

It was a night of destiny. Jesus had gathered with His disciples in the Upper Room. In a few more hours He would be crucified on a cross. Jesus had been warning His disciples concerning His coming death, resurrection and ascension to heaven. The prospect of these events caused the disciples to be greatly disturbed. In order to ease their fears, Jesus made the following comforting promise:

Let not your heart be troubled: you believe in God, Believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there you may be also. (John 14:1-3.)

Jewish Marriage Customs

Those who live in the modern western world do not catch the full significance of Jesus' promise. This is due to the fact that in His promise Jesus was drawing an analogy from Jewish marriage customs in biblical times. Since this is so, those marriage customs must be examined if one is to grasp the significance of the promise.

The first major step in a Jewish marriage was betrothal.1 Betrothal involved the establishment of a marriage covenant. By Jesus' time it was usual for such a covenant to be established as the result of the prospective bridegroom taking the initiative.2 The prospective bridegroom would travel from his father's house to the home of the prospective bride. There he would negotiate with the father of the young woman to determine the price (mohar) that he must pay to purchase his bride.3 Once the bridegroom paid the purchase price, the marriage covenant was thereby established, and the young man and woman were regarded to be husband and wife.4 From that moment on the bride was declared to be consecrated or sanctified, set apart exclusively for her bridegroom.5 As a symbol of the covenant relationship that had been established, the groom and bride would drink from a cup of wine over which a betrothal benediction had been pronounced.6

After the marriage covenant had been established, the groom would leave the home of the bride and return to his father's house. There he would remain separate from his bride for a period of twelve months.7 This period of separation afforded the bride time to gather her trousseau and to prepare for married life.8 The groom occupied himself with the preparation of living accommodations in his father's house to which he could bring his bride.

At the end of the period of separation the groom would come to take his bride to live with him. The taking of the bride usually took place at night. The groom, best man and other male escorts would leave the groom's father's house and conduct a torch light procession to the home of the bride.9 Although the bride was expecting her groom to come for her, she did not know the exact time of his coming.10 As a result the groom's arrival would be preceded by a shout.11 This shout would forewarn the bride to be prepared for the coming of the groom.

After the groom received his bride together with her female attendants, the enlarged wedding party would return from the bride's home to the groom's father's house.12 Upon arrival there the wedding party would find that the wedding guests had assembled already.

Shortly after arrival the bride and groom would be escorted by the other members of the wedding party to the bridal chamber (huppah). Prior to entering the chamber the bride remained veiled so that no one could see her face.13 While the groomsmen and bridesmaids would wait outside, the bride and groom would enter the bridal chamber alone. There in the privacy of that place they would enter into physical union for the first time, thereby consummating the marriage that had been covenanted earlier.14

After the marriage was consummated, the groom would announce the consummation to the other members of the wedding party waiting outside the chamber (John 3:29). These people would pass on the news of the marital union to the wedding guests.15 Upon receiving this good news the wedding guests would feast and make merry for the next seven days.16

During the seven days of the wedding festivities, which were sometimes called "the seven days of the huppah," the bride remained hidden in the bridal chamber.17 At the conclusion of these seven days the groom would bring his bride out of the bridal chamber, now with her veil removed, so that all could see who his bride was.

The Examination of the Analogy

Earlier it was stated that in His promise in John 14 Jesus drew an analogy from Jewish marriage customs in biblical times. Now that the marriage customs have been considered, it is essential that the analogy be examined. In what ways was Jesus' promise analogous with Jewish marriage customs? In the examination of the analogy the first thing that should be noted is the fact that the Scriptures regard the Church to be the Bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22-23). In addition, just as the Jewish bridegroom took the initiative in marriage by leaving his father's house and travelling to the home of the prospective bride, so Jesus left His Father's house in heaven and travelled to earth, the home of His prospective Church, over 1900 years ago.

In the same manner as the Jewish bridegroom came to the bride's home for the purpose of obtaining her through the establishment of a marriage covenant, so Jesus came to earth for the purpose of obtaining the Church through the establishment of a covenant. On the same night in which Jesus made His promise in John 14 He instituted communion. As He passed the cup of wine to His disciples, He said: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Cor. 11:25). This was His way of saying that He would establish a new covenant through the shedding of His blood on the cross. Parallel to the custom of the Jewish groom paying a price to purchase his bride, Jesus paid a price to purchase His bride, the Church. The price that He paid was His own life blood. It was because of this purchase price that Paul wrote the following to members of the Church: "know ye not that...ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and your spirit, which are God's" (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

Analogous with the Jewish bride being declared to be sanctified or set apart exclusively for her groom once the marriage covenant was established, the Church has been declared to be sanctified or set apart exclusively for Christ (Eph. 5:25-27; 1Cor. 1:2; 6:11; Heb. 10:10; 13:12).

In the same way that a cup of wine served as a symbol of the marriage covenant through which the Jewish groom obtained his bride, so the cup of communion serves as the symbol of the covenant through which Christ has obtained the Church (1 Cor. 11:25).

Just as the Jewish groom left the home of his bride and returned to his father's house after the marriage covenant had been established, so Jesus left the earth, the home of the Church, and returned to His Father's house in heaven after He had established the new covenant and risen from the dead (John 6:62; 20:17).

Corresponding with the period of separation between the Jewish groom and bride, Christ has remained separate from the Church for over 1900 years. The Church is now living in that period of separation.

Parallel to the custom of the Jewish groom preparing living accommodations for his bride in his father's house during the time of separation, Christ has been preparing living accommodations for the Church in His Father's house in heaven during His separation from His Bride (John 14:2).

In the same manner as the Jewish groom came to take his bride to live with him at the end of the period of separation, so Christ will come to take His Church to live with Him at the end of His period of separation from the Church (John 14:3).

Just as the taking of the Jewish bride was accomplished by a procession of the groom and male escorts from the groom's father's house to the home of the bride, so the taking of the Church will be accomplished by a procession of Christ and an angelic escort from Christ's Father's house in heaven to the home of the Church (1 Thess. 4:16).

Analogous with the Jewish bride not knowing the exact time of the groom's coming for her, the Church does not know the exact time of Christ's coming for her.

In the same way that the Jewish groom's arrival was preceded by a shout, so Christ's arrival to take the Church will be preceded by a shout (1 Thess. 4:16).

Similar to the Jewish bride's return with the groom to his father's house after her departure from her home, the Church will return with Christ to His Father's house in heaven after she is snatched from the earth to meet Him in the air (1 Thess. 4:17; John 14:2-3).

In the same manner as the Jewish wedding party found wedding guests assembled in the groom's father's house when they arrived, so Christ and the Church will find the souls of Old Testament saints assembled in heaven when they arrive. These souls will serve as the wedding guests.

Parallel to the custom of the Jewish groom and bride entering into physical union after their arrival at the groom's father's house, thereby consummating the marriage that had been covenanted earlier, Christ and the Church will experience spiritual union after their arrival at His Father's house in heaven, thereby consummating their relationship that had been covenanted earlier.

Corresponding with the Jewish bride remaining hidden in the bridal chamber for a period of seven days after arrival at the groom's father's house, the Church will remain hidden for a period of seven after arrival at Christ's Father's house in heaven. While the seven year Tribulation Period is taking place on the earth, the Church will be in heaven totally hidden from the sight of those living on the earth.

Just as the Jewish groom brought his bride out of the bridal chamber at the conclusion of the seven days with her veil removed, so that all could see who his bride was, so Christ will bring His Church out of heaven in His Second Coming at the conclusion of the seven year Tribulation Period in full view of all who are alive, so that all can see who the true church is (Col. 3:4).

The Significance of the Analogy

This analogy between Jewish marriage customs and Christ's relationship to the Church is very beautiful, but what practical significance does it have for today?

The answer to this question is twofold. First, if you have never taken Jesus Christ personally to be your Saviour from sin, it has great significance for you. Christ came to this earth and died on a cross for the purpose of paying the penalty for your sins. Through the shedding of His blood He paid the price necessary to purchase you to be part of His Bride, the Church. He thereby established a new covenant through which you can enter into a special relationship with Him.

Every time the gospel of Jesus Christ is declared to you, Christ is proposing that you enter into this special relationship with Him. In essence He is saying to you:

"I, Jesus, take thee, sinner, to be My Bride. And I do promise and covenant before God The Father and these witnesses, to be thy loving and faithful Saviour and Bridegroom; in sickness and in health, in plenty and in want, in joy and in sorrow, in faithfulness and in waywardness, for time and for eternity.18"

Just as the proposal that the Jewish bridegroom made could be accepted or rejected, so Christ's proposal to you can be accepted or rejected. If you reject it throughout this lifetime, then you never will be rightly related to Jesus Christ. The tragic result will be that you will spend eternity separated from God and Christ in the eternal lake of fire (Rev.20:11-15).

If, however, you accept Christ's proposal, then your sins will be forgiven, and you will enter into that relationship that makes you part of His Bride, the Church. In addition, you will go to be with Him when He comes to take the Church, and you will remain with Him forever in great blessing. The way in which you can accept Christ's proposal is quite simple. If you sincerely believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He came to this earth, died for your sins and rose from the dead, then respond to Him as follows:

"I, sinner, take Thee, Jesus, to be my Saviour. . . And I do promise and covenant before God and these witnesses to be Thy loving and faithful Bride; in sickness and in health, in plenty and in want, in joy and in sorrow, for time and for eternity.19"

Second, the analogy is most significant also for those who have taken Christ to be Saviour. During the time of separation between the establishment of the marriage covenant and the coming of the bridegroom to take his bride, it was possible for the Jewish bride to commit adultery by giving herself to another man.20 In like manner it is possible for believers today to commit spiritual adultery against Christ before He returns to take His Church. Paul expressed concern over this possibility when he wrote the following to Christians:

"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor.11:2-3).

James expressed the same concern when he rebuked Christians as follows: "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4) The context of James' statement indicates that spiritual adultery is committed when a believer becomes more devoted to the godless world system and the things that please it than he is to Jesus Christ and the things that please Him.

If you are a believer, honestly evaluate your devotion to Jesus Christ. Do you love him as much now as when you took Him to be your Saviour? Is He truly the Centre of your existence, the One who gives your life its meaning and purpose? Is your every attitude, action and lifestyle motivated and controlled by your devotion to Jesus Christ, or by a desire to have the friendship of the world system in which you live?

If you have been unfaithful to your heavenly Bridegroom, confess this to Him and be assured that even "If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself." (11 Tim.2:13) Then trust the Holy Spirit to renew your devotion as you wait for your heavenly Bridegroom to come at any moment.

146 posted on 12/09/2011 8:41:11 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
THIS IS WHAT TERTULLIAN HAD TO SAY ON THE EUCHARIST, TALKING ABOUT “RECEIVING THE BODY OF THE LORD AND THE SACRIFICE. SOUNDS LIKE A BAPTIST TO ME!

TERTULLIAN WAS NOT AN APOSTLE. WHAT TERTULLIAN HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE SUBJECT WAS HIS OWN THOUGHTS AND MUSINGS. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IS WHAT MATTERS AND WHAT MUST BE OBEYED.

Was Augustine wrong when he spoke of receiving Christ by faith was eating and drinking of him? Was the Bible wrong when it says by grace we are saved through faith and that not of ourselves, not of works, lest any one should boast?

147 posted on 12/09/2011 8:50:40 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; daniel1212

You “destroyed” the theory that contradicted your own??? Sorry, if you hear any crickets, they are in your own delusional head.


148 posted on 12/09/2011 8:54:08 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Jesus Christ said “This is my Body”

that isn’t OLOFOB SPEAKING.

Paul asked isn’t the bread we break a sharing IN THE BODY OF CHRIST?

Every Church Father believed in baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

we are saved by grace, the mistake the 16th century tradition of men folks make is teaching baptism is a work.

the Bible teaches BAPTISM IS NOT A WORK. BAPTISM IS WHAT SAVES US. READ THE BIBLE, IT’S WHY CHRISTIANS HAVE BELIEVED IT FOR 2,000 YEARS.

YOU NEVER ANSWERED MY AUGUSTINE QUESTION, BUT WE ALL KNOW ONLY THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH BELIEVES JESUS, PAUL AND AUGUSTINE.


149 posted on 12/09/2011 8:57:33 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; daniel1212

four questions on your statement on baptism.

how many verses were provided to support the 16th tradition of men you so ably parroted?

THAT WOULD BE ZERO!!

WE ALL HEAR THE CRICKETS..................


150 posted on 12/09/2011 9:00:22 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-174 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