dainel212:
All of those passages regarding breaking bread, you say do not relate to sacramental understanding of the Eucharist. I say they do. You reject the Eucharist, you were not the first. Judas had a hard time with the bread of life discourse in John Chapter 6. Again, the Eucharistic understanding of the those passages are well attested to in every Liturgical account written by the Fathers, starting with the Didache, Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr, just to start. There is no orthodox Father that did not have A Eucharistic Theology within the parameters of orthodoxy, some more developed than others, but it was all there. So when did these guys go off the rail. When did it happen? The Mormons say at the end of the 1st century. when do you say it went wrong. Are Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Saint Irenaeus all wrong on the Eucharist?
Your views of Baptism and the Catholic view are incorrect. Nothing about infused holiness coming from the person. It is God’s Grace infused into the human person.
And for the record, I agree Peter’s behavior was wrong. I clearly have stated that. What I have disagreed with is that somehow Peter’s behavior being wrong, and Saint Paul calling him on his lack of sharing communion with both Jewish and Gentile Christians was not fostering unity between those 2 different ethnic groups negated his role that Christ gave him in the Gospels [Mt 16:16-18, John 21:15-20, Luke 22:31-32] to be the Chief and leader of the Apostles, not to Lord it over them, but to guide them and keep the Apostles together united in one Church. That is where I disagree. The Point of citing Saint Jerome and Saint Chrystostem is that both of them reviewed the scriptures and the dispute between SS Peter and Paul and neither of them make conclusions that many of you FR Protestant make here and continue to make. Saint Augustine also in Letters with Saint Jerome discussed the same issue and while he clearly stated Peter had sinned, Jerome seemed a little more critical of Paul in this dispute, In his Sermon on why the Church of Rome celebrates the Feast of SS Peter and Paul together, he still recognized Peter as First Among the Apostles, while at the same time honoring the memory of both and stating in essence each were equal in dignity as Apostles. In other words, Jerome, Augustine and Chyrstostem in their commentaries on Galatians never made statements that Peter’s unique role among the Apostles was damaged or his primacy negated. Jerome and Augustine both had high view of hierarchical ecclesiology and each saw Rome as having a Primacy among the Churches.
And you challenge the Church Fathers interpretation of Scriptures and then give your commentary on them. Now, if you were me, who do believe I should take as more credible, the Church Fathers or You?
If I where in a court of law, I'd examine the EVIDENCE as well as weighing the words of witnesses.
Indeed, but as a faithful RC you cannot objectively examine Scripture to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, and allow that Rome could be wrong, but i can and do. So until you can act according to the basis for determining Truth that the NT church began under, further exchange is a meaningful as dealing with a cultist.
Your views of Baptism and the Catholic view are incorrect. Nothing about infused holiness coming from the person. It is God’s Grace infused into the human person. <
/p> Wrong. Though i should have been clearer in my brevity, I did not say it came from the person. I said Rome imagines souls become formally justified by their own "infused" holiness, meaning an infused "inherent holiness" via baptism, in opposition to imputed holiness. In baptism the soul is said to be "infused" with "sanctifying grace, which makes the subject holy," "which it is also a moral form of sanctification, which of itself makes baptized children just and holy in the sight of God."
The Catholic idea maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace, which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii; can. xi). Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis), with an "inherent holiness." Catholic Encyclopedia >Sanctifying Grace; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
This is set in opposition to that "God "justifies the UnGodly" as "his faith is counted for righteousness," "unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," (Rm. 4:5,7) by declaring the contrite believing soul righteousness on Christ's expense and credit, "purifying their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9) as Peter taught in the case of Gentiles being born again before baptism, saved by grace, "washed, sanctified and justified." (1Cor. 6:11) Which is all one event, so that the souls is both declared justified, as the penitent publican was in Lk. 18 though not regenerated, as well as Abraham, but is also regenerated after Pentecost.
And you challenge the Church Fathers interpretation of Scriptures and then give your commentary on them. Now, if you were me, who do believe I should take as more credible, the Church Fathers or You?
Either be consistent and always follow the judgment of the stewards of Scripture and historical magisterium, or be as the noble Bereans and others who judged Truth on the basis of Scriptural substantiation.
No protestant rejects "the Eucharist," which only means thanksgiving. Not even all protestants reject the "real presence," which, as Daniel can show, is itself even a Lutheran term. What Protestants universally reject is Transubstantiation and that it is through "teeth and stomach" that we procure salvation. And it is not only Protestants who reject this, but Church Fathers too who also reject transubstantiation and its related doctrines.
For example, Augustine on John 6:
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor 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. (Augustine, Tractate 25)