Posted on 05/10/2013 10:47:38 AM PDT by NYer
classic, one followed by many, more or less....
Ping...
I haver never understood how some of our Protestant bretheren believe that stories like Noah’s Ark, Jonah, etc. are absolutely true, but reject the plain meaining of Jesus’s words concerning the Eucharist in John. The fact is that up until the Reformation, the orthodox teaching of Christianity was the Real Presence. By the time Martin Luther and John Calvin came along, this doctrine had been studied and decided upon for centuries.
“haver never understood how some of our Protestant bretheren believe that stories like Noah’s Ark, Jonah, etc. are absolutely true, but reject the plain meaining of Jesus’s words concerning the Eucharist in John.”
An over-reaction to then-legitimate beefs.
We (the Church) over-reacted to then-legitimate beefs re: our Jewish elder brothers, and are just now fixing some of our mistakes.
Human nature takes hold in such circumstances, almost encouraged by the Enemy.
He never lets a crisis go to waste, just like some of his recent followers.
>By the time Martin Luther and John Calvin came along, this doctrine had been studied and decided upon for centuries.<
.
I don’t know about John Calvin, but Martin Luther grew up believing in the Real Presence.
In fact, ML never denied it but his followers, over the years, started to drift away from that belief.
You don't even have to read these articles anymore ...
Have you actually read the Early Church Fathers? If not, why not?
Peace be with you
On occasion ... I find them merely interesting at best ... but they are not like reading a book ... there is no theological coherency among them.
Its like reading a commemorative volume where each contributor is saying something opposed to the person being honored.
“...but reject the plain meaining of Jesus’s words concerning the Eucharist in John...”
Please give the reference in John, chapter/verse...
“The fact is that up until the Reformation, the orthodox teaching of Christianity was the Real Presence.”
In actuality, there is no such consensus in “orthodox teaching” on the “Real Presence,” or more specifically on the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. In fact, the difference between “real presence” and transubstantiation is an important one to point out, since there are different views on the matter held by the church Fathers or the various churches across the planet who all claim to be “Apostolic.” And yet, the RCC claims that everyone was agreed on their specific doctrines.
Most of the time the Catholics are simply reading back into historical documents their own theology that exists today, even though they didn’t really exist back then. A good example of this is with Augustine.
Here are some Roman Catholic quotations of Augustine allegedly “proving” that Augustine believed in what the RCC holds to today.
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Exp. of the Psalms 33:1:10)
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Ser. 227)
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (Ser. 272)
To the unsuspecting reader, you would think that Augustine really does support your theology. But WAIT, how does Augustine actually define his own views?
“For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood. (Augustine, Letters, 98)
He speaks of the Eucharist as being “in a certain manner” the body of Christ, based on its bearing the name of the “reality” they resemble. Thus, when Augustine speaks of the Eucharist being the body of Christ, he means it from the standpoint of what it symbolizes, but not that it is actually a part of Christ’s real physical body placed on the altar. Here’s more:
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “œLabor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25.
“Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him.” NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 50, John 11:55-57, 12:1-11,
“It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.” NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98)
These are pretty firm refutations of the Catholic View. They even understand John 6 in the way Protestants do today. Augustine isn’t alone in this. Here’s from a Pope:
Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord´s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ´s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
And another Bishop:
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466): Orth. “” You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord. NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue II.””The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes.
The idea of a constant tradition on this matter is simply fiction. It stands only by reading into the Fathers the current theology of Rome today, and falsely claiming that all held the same view.
I thought it was obvious that Mary had not remained a virgin after Christ’s birth, since the Bible mentions the brothers of Jesus. I could see no basis for a belief in the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception. The view of Mary as Coredemptrix and Mediatrix seemed to lower the role of Christ as our sole redeemer and mediator.
Catholic prayers to saints and veneration of images and relics also seemed to impinge on the authority of Christ. The belief that our own works were involved in our salvation seemed to fly in the face of Bible verses I had memorized as a child. How could water baptism be essential to our regeneration? That seemed too physical, too superstitious, too medieval to be true.
Purgatory flew in the face of Christ’s finished work on the Cross, as did the sacrifice of the Mass. Everyone knew that indulgences had proved to be so susceptible to manipulation. The idea that a mere man, the pope, could be infallible — well, that idea was hardly worth addressing. The few Catholics that I did know did not even seem to believe that idea.
Purgatory flew in the face of Christ’s finished work on the Cross, as did the sacrifice of the Mass. Everyone knew that indulgences had proved to be so susceptible to manipulation. The idea that a mere man, the pope, could be infallible — well, that idea was hardly worth addressing. The few Catholics that I did know did not even seem to believe that idea.
So he rejected what was Scriptural for carnal religion that supposes eternal life requires physically eating the literal flesh of God, as so many RCs argue (while the metaphorical position is what is consistent with the NT gospel, and use of metaphorical language in John and many other places).
Meanwhile, while a few fundamental evangelicals go to Rome, far more leave Rome for evangelical chruches due to the spiritual lack they found therein. 68% of those raised Roman Catholic still are Catholic. 15% are now Protestant (9% evangelical); 14% are unaffiliated. Pew forum, Faith in Flux (April 27, 2009) http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/fullreport.pdf 80% of adults who were raised Protestant are still Protestant, but (analysis shows) 25% no longer self-identify with the Protestant denomination in which they were raised. ^
71% of converts from Catholicism to Protestant faith said that their spiritual needs were not being met in Catholicism, with 78% of Evangelical Protestants in particular concurring, versus 43% of those now unaffiliated. Over 75% of those who left Catholicism attended Mass at least once a week as children. Pew forum, Faith in Flux (April 27, 2009) http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/fullreport.pdf
55% of evangelical converts from Catholicism cited dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings about the Bible was a reason for leaving Catholicism, with 46% saying the Catholic Church did not view the Bible literally enough. Only 20% now evangelical were unhappy about Catholicism's teachings on abortion/homosexuality (versus 46% of those now unaffiliated); (12% were dissatisfied with teachings on birth control.
81% of all Protestant converts from Catholicism said they enjoyed the service and worship of Protestant faith as a reason for joining a Protestant denomination, with 62% of all Protestants and 74% Evangelicals also saying that they felt God's call to do so.
51% of Hispanic Evangelicals are converts, and 43% are former Catholics. http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=75
82% of Hispanics cite the desire for a more direct, personal experience with God as the main reason for adopting a new faith. Among those who have become evangelicals, 90% say it was a spiritual search for a more direct, personal experience with God was the main reason that drove their conversion. Negative views of Catholicism do not appear to be a major reason for their conversion. ^
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
How is one a “born fundamentalist”?
You can be born into a family that is fundamental that doe snot mean you are one automatically.
Doe snot? Hmmm, Kosta used to post that all the time...
You are constantly harping on this fiction. The Church Fathers did NOT all hold the same view on all things. The Magisterium is the harmonizing institution of the Church so that the Church holds the correct teachings in spite of any differences that any one or two individual theologists may propose.
I have differences between my impulses and Church teachings, such as capital punishment. I subject my theological beliefs to the Church. I do not pull a Martin Luther or Hans Kung and attempt to substitute my own theology for the Church's.
Really?
Fascinating, isn’t it?
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.