So both the Lutheran and the Roman views of the Eucharist are to be considered in error. Is that the conclusion we should reach?
nope, but it is twisting of other peoples words. wheres the honest people at?Is that really the point that Standing Up was trying to make?
albion what im trying to do, and what im succeeding at, is little by little, breaking down the false assumptions and lies that anti-catholics build their foundations upon.
Have you ever read the early church fathers?
have you read eusibeious, the didache, the writings of igatius of antioch and sooo many early church fathers?
Amazing. And what would make you think that? That being a "non-Catholic" I must ipso facto be what you call an "anti-Catholic," and all "anti-Catholics" are lying ignoramuses?Ill bet you cant honestly say that you have read those books.
Did you know that Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of the apostle John?
So how could John the apostle have taught this to ignatius? :
please dont twist words, for your own sake and for the sake of those who read what you type here. Approach this conversation with honesty.
Please do not join the paranoia club that gets off on thinking that the whole world exists only to lie about one Christian denomination. I really expect better from you than that.
Please do not join the paranoia club that gets off on thinking that the whole world exists only to lie about one Christian denomination. I really expect better from you than that.
Of coursel
Certainly.
Amazing. And what would make you think that? That being a "non-Catholic" I must ipso facto be what you call an "anti-Catholic" and all "anti-Catholics" are lying ignoramuses?
Of course.
It's common for the pupil to be deeply impressed by his tutor but to disagree with him on some matters. Aristotle was the pupil of Plato and yet the they have for over 2000 years been held up as advocates of two opposite worldviews. Besides, Ignatius upheld Real Presence BUT NOT the Lutheran or Catholic interpretations of it in particular, so I don't know how you think you are "succeeding" in proving anything with this approach.
Perhaps I spoke too soon when saying what I did in my first paragraph above.
okay so you just insulted me, by calling me pananoid.
then you say, i expected more from you. what kind of man are you?
Now how about the way you talked down to me, having no knowledge at all of my academic background?
No, I said I hoped you would NOT fall into that mindset that others display.
One who hoped you would not become that way. Why should the suggestion that I think better of you be taken as an insult?
Now how about the way you talked down to me, having no knowledge at all of my academic background?
Just a minute. You offered us Ignatius whose words affirm Real Presence all right but not the Catholic Church's POV which we both know is Transusbstantiation. How do you get "the whole early church" out of that?i wish I wouldnt have to talk this way, but man cmon! The whole early church believed this clearly, and you wont accept that.
But these aren't uniquely Catholic teachings. A half dozen other leading churches could point to the same statements and say "See. He was talking about what we believe." IThe same with baptism, and many catholic teachings
it really looks that you could not accept it
no matter how many early church fathers taught it,
There is NOT a lot of evidence, at least not that you've presented. That's honest. And what you have presented doesn't prove what you want the rest of us to think it does. That's also honest.show that you at least realize that you are avoiding alot of evidence. that would be honest.
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
"But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
"For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: 'I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,' which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).
"For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ...Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united." Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).
here is my first batch of verse from the ealry fathers. i will send more later. the truth is, false teachers are trying to either twist or ignore these words.
Just a minute. You offered us Ignatius whose words affirm Real Presence all right but not the Catholic Church's POV which we both know is Transusbstantiation. How do you get "the whole early church" out of that?
But these aren't uniquely Catholic teachings. A half dozen other leading churches could point to the same statements and say "See. He was talking about what we believe." I
Contrary to your imagination, I accept all of it. I also am pointing out to you that it doesn't prove what you are hoping it does.
How many and what's "it?" If you want to know, I do reject it when anyone presents one or two isolated quotes and then proclaims that they show what the whole church believed over a multi-century span of time. It's elementary in historical research that you don't presume like that.
There is NOT a lot of evidence, at least not that you've presented. That's honest. And what you have presented doesn't prove what you want the rest of us to think it does. That's also honest.
you say these quotes are not conclusive proof. well I think they are, if the question is "did the early church believe the bread becomes the body of Christ, truly and the wine becomes his bood truly. you play a game, fooling yourself and others, by saying "oh i do believe it truly becomes his body and blood. just not truly." LOL gimme a break. that is dishonesty it either is or it isnt jesus true body and blood.
you seem to think taking what someone says at face value is a bad idea, if it goes against what you want to believe. I know you cant help it, the Lord keeps telling me you cant help but not accept these teachings as catholic. ok so since you cant help it, which i believe is called invincible ignorance, then at least be quiet. honest seekers are reading the early church fathers and converting all over the world. seach youtube, for the reasons why so many people are converting to catholicism. they read the early church fathers.
Show us that:
1. the belief goes back to the Apostles (as opposed to being the norm only two or three or more centuries later),
2. the whole church agreed with whatever statements you produce from any Church Father, and
3. the beliefs discussed are the same as currently believed by the Roman Catholic Church but not by the rest of us.
If you do that, the evidence will speak for itself; and you will not need to help it along by accusing anyone who dares disagree with your interpretations of being false teachers or worse.
We're done here if you've decided that you can't produce any proof after all.
dont you get what I am saying? I said the Romans thought the christians were claiming to eat physical human flesh, you know like eating someones arm. Are you playing some kind of game? Think. you know that I am not saying what you are saying. You are now twisting my words too. isnt that obvious?