Fullness of the faith??????????

[simonthezealot]

See post 534 http://www.christianforums.com/t7359929-54/#post51470673.

Friend it is necessary to understand these writers by the whole of their writings, reading his dialogue with trypho you'll see that he explains that the eucharist is a sacrifice only in the sense of Hebrews 13:15, only in the sense of offering prayers and thanksgiving:
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

"Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, 'And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but ye profane it.' Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth. But these filthy garments, which have been put by you on all who have become Christians by the name of Jesus, God shows shall be taken away from us, when He shall raise all men from the dead, and appoint some to be incorruptible, immortal, and free from sorrow in the everlasting and imperishable kingdom; but shall send others away to the everlasting punishment of fire. But as to you and your teachers deceiving yourselves when you interpret what the Scripture says as referring to those of your nation then in dispersion, and maintain that their prayers and sacrifices offered in every place are pure and well-pleasing, learn that you are speaking falsely, and trying by all means to cheat yourselves: for, first of all, not even now does your nation extend from the rising to the setting of the sun, but there are nations among which none of your race ever dwelt. For there is not one single race of men, whether barbarians, or Greeks, or whatever they may be called, nomads, or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers and giving of thanks are not offered through the name of the crucified Jesus. And then, as the Scriptures show, at the time when Malachi wrote this, your dispersion over all the earth, which now exists, had not taken place." (Dialogue with Trypho, 117)

 

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by MamaZ

Nope for I do not lean to the understanding of other men. For I am told to study to show myself approved for the scripture cannot be broken.. I am not told to study other mens understanding..
​

You are leaning on your own understanding and rejecting those sent by Jesus.

No, we don't reject those sent by Jesus.

We reject those who claim to be sent by Jesus yet preach and teach doctrines of men as if they are doctrines of God.

That is a precarious position.

The opposite is true.

Bring me not human reasonings and syllogisms, for I rely on the divine Scripture alone. (Theodoret of Cyrus c. 393-466, Dial. I. Atrept.)

 

[Secundulus]

Friend it is necessary to understand these writers by the whole of their writings, reading his dialogue with trypho you'll see that he explains that the eucharist is a sacrifice only in the sense of Hebrews 13:15, only in the sense of offering prayers and thanksgiving:

Thanks for that and I agree that you have to take all of them in the entirely of what they wrote. I would contend that this is what you didn't do in that passage where he was discussing something entirely different in his apology to the Jew. The fact that he says remembrance and prayer in the context of the Eucharist is certainly appropriate since remembrance and prayer are inseperable parts of it. Secondly, he is addressing the sacrifice described in Malachi and describes the sacrifice of the Eucharist as spiritual (It is certainly a sacrifice and certainly spiritual since the sacrifice of Christ was completed once). He is not talking about the elements of bread and wine.

 

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by TraderJack

Is that an "infallible" decree from the Catechism?
​

Not exactly:

Then it is not reliable.

 

[TraderJack]

That was believed from the earliest times

No it wasn't, as I have demonstrated.

 

[Trento]

Actually, the principle of sola scriptura WAS taught and adhered to by the Church from the beginning and has been rejected by the church of the Romans in favor of it's doctrinal inventions.

Well Protestant scholars disagree with the inventions you are spewing out.


Philip Schaff, a major Protestant church historian from last century writes in his History of the Christian Church --

"The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects -- TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)

J.N.D. Kelly, a major Protestant church historian from this century writes in his Early Christian Doctrines -- (after many examples)

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (page 47-4

Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well Protestant scholars disagree with the inventions you are spewing out.

ACCCKKKKK!!!! Trento......why not just make that a sticky on GT as I can't count the number of times you bring that same cut and paste quote up

 

[Trento]

Firstly, the work you cited is a spurious document, one that is now generally accepted by historical scholars as being a medieval forgery.​

The romance of Lucian of Samosata, "De morte peregrini", written in 167AD, bears incontestable evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but even made use of them. Adolph Harnack,another Protestant Patristic scholar who was not always so minded along with Lightfoot another Protestant scholar describes these proofs as "testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that can be conceived of" (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11).

The evidence is overwhelming to the Patristic scholars and As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp writing shortly after the martyr's death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters.

 

[MamaZ]

Many of writings out there with many a voice.. This is why I stick to the scriptures and listen to the Good shepherd and follow none other.

 

[TraderJack]

A little too much "vehemence" in this thread - seems not conducive to reasonable discussion

Disagreeing with you and presenting evidence to the contrary of the transubstantiation invention is not "vehemence", it is reasonable discussion.

(welcome back, btw )

Thanks, I hope all is well with you and yours.

 

[Secundulus]

Many of writings out there with many a voice.. This is why I stick to the scriptures and listen to the Good shepherd and follow none other.

Don't you think those early guys did the same thing?

 

[TraderJack]

The romance of Lucian of Samosata, "De morte peregrini", written in 167AD, bears incontestable evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but even made use of them. Adolph Harnack,another Protestant Patristic scholar who was not always so minded along with Lightfoot another Protestant scholar describes these proofs as "testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that can be conceived of" (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11).

The evidence is overwhelming to the Patristic scholars and As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp writing shortly after the martyr's death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters.

Oh, but you are neglecting to mention that there are three versions of those Ignatian epistles, a short version, a long version and one in between.

The shorter version is accepted by most scholars as legitimate, the other two are not, and are medieval forgeries produced when Rome commonly produced forgeries, that had it's inventions written in to make them appear to be legitimate.

It is the long version that the quote given is from, and is a forgery.

 

[Trento]

Why do you quote men of old instead of the Apostles themselves? I have never really understood this..

To quote Martin Luther, "Scripture is like wax noses; it can be twisted to fit." Luther ought to know

2 Peter 3:15: "There are some things in them [St. Paul's letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

 

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by MamaZ

Many of writings out there with many a voice.. This is why I stick to the scriptures and listen to the Good shepherd and follow none other.
​

Don't you think those early guys did the same thing?

The early church did adhere to the principle of sola scriptura.

Keep that faith only which the Church is now giving to you and which is certificated out of the whole of Scripture. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech.)




How can we use those things, which we find not in the Scriptures! (St. Ambrose c. 339-397, Offic. Lib. 1, c. 23)

We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and measure of every tenet. (St. Gregory of Nyssa c. 335-395, "On the Soul and the Resurrection")


Bring me not human reasonings and syllogisms, for I rely on the divine Scripture alone. (Theodoret of Cyrus c. 393-466, Dial. I. Atrept.)


In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced-to which let no man add, from which let no man detract-which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth. (St. Athanasius, adv. Gentes init.)

Why don't you?

 

[TraderJack]

It changes because Jesus said it changes

No, Jesus did not say it changes at all.

All you do is back engineer the medieval Roman invention into a snippet where it does not exist.

Augustine, as I quoted, was quite clear, that those who take John 6, literally, to be the actual flesh and blood of Christ are foolish.

and it's necessary for salvation because Jesus said it's necessary for salvation.

Jesus was not talking of the Roman invention of transubstantiation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

To quote Martin Luther, "Scripture is like wax noses; it can be twisted to fit." Luther ought to know

2 Peter 3:15: "There are some things in them [St. Paul's letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

So who in your view is the one doing the twisting here?
I found this one post to be pretty well on the money concerning Christianity today and pray he doesn't come look at the GT board:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7347234/#post51387602

 

[Thekla]

Disagreeing with you and presenting evidence to the contrary of the transubstantiation invention is not "vehemence", it is reasonable discussion.

not the disagreement, the tone
As you know, the EO is not in agreement with the matter of "transubstantiation", but indeed does believe in the "real presence" of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.
On the latter point ("rp"), there are some on GT who certainly disagree with the "real presence".

A bit ago, I outlined the older understanding of the term "symbol" - when considering the quotations from early sources, it would be good to read the term "symbol" in its older sense (as opposed to, for example, the meaning of something that stands for something other than itself).

Thanks, I hope all is well with you and yours.

Likewise

 

[Secundulus]

Originally Posted by MamaZ

Many of writings out there with many a voice.. This is why I stick to the scriptures and listen to the Good shepherd and follow none other.

​

The early church did adhere to the principle of sola scriptura.

Then how did they end up with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, a position even Luther agreed with, while the other sola scripturists annihilated the sacrament by denying the same.

ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.) on the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass
source: Augustine on the Eucharist

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"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 [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)

"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)

"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." (City of God 10:20)

"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)
​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ahhh.......the Eucharist again.......

 

[simonthezealot]

source: Augustine on the Eucharist

Source?
Come on brother, using Dave Armstrong as a patristic source? that is beyond laughable...Your own research and linking is way more credible than the out of context snippets DA uses. I've come to expect more from you.

BTW i've already proven nearly all of these are out of context HERE.