Why study of the fathers leads only to Catholicism and why I came Home to RCC

[Mountainmike]

And there is the problem, orthodox play with words -
or rather - they refuse to take the logical conclusion of what they already assert.

Substance is common english! Nothing mysterious.
Once it was bread, then it was flesh! In common english it changed substance or so Justin Martyr clearly states.

They remind me of teenagers. Many a parent will attest to the fact a teenager will argue about minute things, not because they fundamentally disagree with what was said, but because they want to assert their "right" to have their own opinion, even if it lines up with the parent - they do not want to admit it is so. Not the done thing for a teenager to agree. And so it is with orthodox after they split away.

So let us just agree. It really is our lord's flesh and blood.

And that is the opinion I would have liked you to share.
I return to the generic issue, unless someone truly believes that , they no longer have a valid christianity that lines up with the teaching of the apostles. Most protestant and reformation churches want to take the words of scripture, but throw out the meaning handed down, using their own opinion instead.

Now revert to the thread. At the time of this discourse there was just a catholic church, and that remained till the eastern bishops , moved east! So let us both agree what we jointly assert.

Really is the flesh and blood.

And That is all transubstantiation means - not that you will ever agree - sadly I am a scientist, so I cannot use metaphysical mumbo jumbo to avoid what logically must be true!

If it was one thing, now is another, it must have changed! So even if I do not understand how or why it happens, or even the nature of what happens, I can still give a word to the process of happening: transubstantiation.

Let us put our differences aside

And agree that a denomination is preaching falsehood unless it asserts that the eucharist really and truly is the flesh and blood of christ, and is only valid if performed by a bishop in succession or his appointee (quoting ignatius)

I am simply trying to drum up awareness of what the early church taught by the apostles believed. And that "own opinions" on what scripture means in respect of eucharist have no validity unless they line up with such tradition.

Which is EXACTLY what Orthodox say.

 

[prodromos]

Unbelievable

 

[disciple1]

In my view ALL should study history and the early fathers and catholics particularly so that they no longer on the back foot when asked to justify what they believe.

Lets take one doctrine that points at catholicism , and no other church.

Transubstantiation. Look at what the earliest fathers have to say: some even taught by the apostles and see what they handed down.


Justin Martyr writing in around 150 could not have been clearer... when he said of the eucharist, body and blood:

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both 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.” (First Apology, 65-66)

Consubstantiation even is simply not consistent with that.
Memorialism is not consistent with that.
Clearly not just spiritual! or figurative!
Only the catholic church is consistent with the early church.
Except of course the orthodox, who fudge the issue...by regarding it as a mystery rather than declare as Justin Martyr did.

So was Justin Martyr apostate?
Not a bit of it.

Go back to ignatius writing to the Smyrneans around the turn of the first century.
Only decades after Christ.

He and polycarp disciples of John the apostle.

He says.. "confess the Eucharist to BE the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ"

He also says "Let that be deemed a proper eucharist which is administered either by the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it"
So only valid if performed by a bishop in succession or his appointee.

And of the church itself " wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church"

So The early church was liturgical, sacramental, had a succcession priesthood, believed not just in real presence, but also transubstantiation, and believed in the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Councils said it. And it passed doctrine by tradition - handing down - the new testament came later.

It is also clearly consistent with such as corinthians 10:16 where Paul says that
"Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? "

The ONLY way you can accept ANY reformationist doctrine opposed to the catholic understanding of the eucharist is to suppose that Apostle John was apostate., and every one since, other than catholcis, .and do you really think our Lord would have permitted that, when promising us "the gates of hell will not prevail against it"?

The idea you can pick up a bible and interpret it your own way, is to deny christian history and the early church. It is also supreme arrogance on the part of those who think they know better than disciples of the apostles! Luther despaired of the monster he helped to create, founded on that belief.. Saying "there are now as many doctrines as heads" - and a little more insulting "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"

I started as an anglican, then later evangelical.
Study of early fathers, proved most of what I was taught by reformationists was simply wrong. That is why I came home...to RCC

I read your bible right up to here.
Matthew chapter 23 verse 9
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

 

[Mountainmike]

I read your bible right up to here.
Matthew chapter 23 verse 9
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

And you clearly don't know what it means.

I tire of responding to quotes from the ill researched anti catholic mythbook by proof texters who have yet to realise that even sola scriptura is provably false.

Or are apostle Paul , indeed such as Abraham apostate in your view?

 

[disciple1]

And you clearly don't know what it means.

I tire of responding to quotes from the ill researched anti catholic mythbook by proof texters who have yet to realise that even sola scriptura is provably false.

Or are apostle Paul , indeed such as Abraham apostate in your view?

The bible has nothing good to say about pastors, except Jesus, and Jesus showed he could forgive sins by healing people.

Matthew chapter 4 verse 4
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"
Romans chapter 1 verse 28
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

John chapter 8 verse 31,32
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, " If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
2 John
9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
Job chapter 23 verse 12
I have not departed from the commands of his lips; I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my daily bread.

Matthew 11
28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
Luke chapter 21
33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Romans chapter 10
17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.
Mark chapter 13
31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
James chapter 1
25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.
James chapter 4
8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Isaiah chapter 45 verse 19
I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob's descendants, 'Seek me in vain.' I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right.
Jeremiah chapter 9
24 but let the one who boasts boast about this:
that they have the understanding to know me,
that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,”
declares the Lord.
Jeremiah chapter 5 verse 1
5 “Go up and down the streets of Jerusalem,
look around and consider,
search through her squares.
If you can find but one person
who deals honestly and seeks the truth,
I will forgive this city.
Psalm 119 verse 114
You are my refuge and my shield; I have put my hope in your word.

 

[Mountainmike]

The bible has plenty to say about priests.

And...the first error is for you to hold as true and necessary for salvation (insert your own definition of sola scriptura) it must BE in the bible. Which is easily disproven by simple logic, nothing else. Because if you hold as a high truth that "all necessary truth is in the bible" that statement must be in the bible , which it is NOT, so you hold a self refuting belief which is sola scriptura!

In simple english - nowhere in the bible does it say it has to be in the bible to be true!

Worse...the bible does have something to say - it expressly opposes sola scriptura where it says "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" So the bible contradicts you.

Indeed study history: the first christians could not be bible christians as you understand it...the new testament did not exist for a couple of centuries. Jesus gave us apostles not a book to hand down the fatih by paradosis translated as "tradition". As paul says "stay true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter"

Now if I look at Ignatius to Smyrneans - disciple of John the apostle, we see what was handed down. He says: That to be a valid eucharist, it must be performed by (succession) bishops or their appointees. That is the true faith. And the succession is echoed throughout the church fathers.

And in addition to tradition you need authority for infallible interpretation.. Jesus gave the power to "bind and loose" on doctrine, and without that power exercised in (catholic) councils you would have neither canon ( new testament) nor creed.
You rely on the infallibility of the authority of councils to have a new testament.
The first canons were deemed heretical! It was only three centuries on it became the authorised collection.

Throw away the anticatholic myth play book - it is all demonstrable bunk:
It is easy to recognise badly educated christians when they trot out such as "call no man father" - failing to understand the true context of that, indeed , that if that is what they believe they declare apostle Paul apostate, and many others in bible history.

Study the early church and learn your faith instead. See how thousands of protestant pastors became catholic studying the early church in such as "reason to believe" series (madrid) or Journey Home network videos.

It is sad how such as you lead so many away from the truth, whilst not understanding christianity. I was a victim of such as you early in life, until I studied the early church.

The bible has nothing good to say about pastors, except Jesus, and Jesus showed he could forgive sins by healing people.

Matthew chapter 4 verse 4
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"
Romans chapter 1 verse 28
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

John chapter 8 verse 31,32
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, " If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
2 John
9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
Job chapter 23 verse 12
I have not departed from the commands of his lips; I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my daily bread.

Matthew 11
28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
Luke chapter 21
33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Romans chapter 10
17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.
Mark chapter 13
31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
James chapter 1
25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.
James chapter 4
8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Isaiah chapter 45 verse 19
I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob's descendants, 'Seek me in vain.' I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right.
Jeremiah chapter 9
24 but let the one who boasts boast about this:
that they have the understanding to know me,
that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,”
declares the Lord.
Jeremiah chapter 5 verse 1
5 “Go up and down the streets of Jerusalem,
look around and consider,
search through her squares.
If you can find but one person
who deals honestly and seeks the truth,
I will forgive this city.
Psalm 119 verse 114
You are my refuge and my shield; I have put my hope in your word.

 

[Tayla]

In my view ALL should study history and the early fathers and catholics particularly so that they no longer on the back foot when asked to justify what they believe.

Yes, I did this as you suggest and became Catholic. But with further study I concluded that the smooth development of ideas was not real, and that Catholic teaching proceeded far beyond anything the Early Church Fathers ever had in mind.

Transubstantiation. Look at what the earliest fathers have to say: some even taught by the apostles and see what they handed down.

A perfect example. Transubstantiation is described in Catholic teaching assuming the philosophy of Aristotle, of form and substance. I reject Aristotle. Your quote from Justin Martyr is a good example:

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.”

Notice it is our blood and flesh which is transmuted via the flesh and blood of Jesus. This does not teach Transubstantiation at all! And merely saying the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Jesus is nothing like Transubstantiation.

 

[Tayla]

I read your bible right up to here.
Matthew chapter 23 verse 9
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

I think this is a very weak argument against Catholicism. Here's why:

(Matthew 23:9) And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

This does not specifically exclude parental fathers.​

(Matthew 23:10) Neither be ye called masters [teachers]: for one is your Master [teacher], even Christ.

This is the next verse and should be as important as verse 9 yet Protestants ignore it. Protestants calls each other "teacher" all the time. Even their public school teachers are called this.​

(1 John 2:14) I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

John calls fellow Christians "father".
​

(1 Corinthians 4:15) For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Paul refers to himself as their father.​

 

[samir]

Yes, I did this as you suggest and became Catholic. But with further study I concluded that the smooth development of ideas was not real, and that Catholic teaching proceeded far beyond anything the Early Church Fathers ever had in mind.

A person can take what is proven by science and use logic to expand upon it and learn more without rejecting what was previously believed.

A perfect example. Transubstantiation is described in Catholic teaching assuming the philosophy of Aristotle, of form and substance. I reject Aristotle. Your quote from Justin Martyr is a good example

Transubstantiation has nothing to do with the philosophy of Aristotle. The Catholic Church simply explained it's doctrine in a way people were able to understand at the time. The entirety of the doctrine as I understand it is basically that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ despite having the appearance and physical characteristics of bread and wine.

Notice it is our blood and flesh which is transmuted via the flesh and blood of Jesus. This does not teach Transubstantiation at all!

I think you misread or misunderstood the quote. It says, "the food... from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." which would mean Christians are nourished by the transmutation of the Eucharist.

And merely saying the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Jesus is nothing like Transubstantiation.

How is it different? If the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Jesus then the essence (aka substance) has changed while the appearance (aka "accidents") obviously remains. That's transubstantiation.

 

[prodromos]

I think you misread or misunderstood the quote. It says, "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." which would mean Christians are nourished by the transmutation of the Eucharist.

No he did not misread or misunderstand it at all.

 

[samir]

No he did not misread or misunderstand it at all.

Looks like you misread it too.

 

[prodromos]

Looks like you misread it too.

Is English your 1st language? I can assure you that it is you who is misreading it.

 

[Mountainmike]

I can only repeat what Justin Martyr (and many others) said.
"IS the flesh of Jesus"

Without pulling punches, this is my understanding: Orthodox are reluctant to state how the mystery of "Jesus truly present in the eucharist" occurs. It is less that they disagree with transubstantiation, but rather that they fail to agree with it, or any other alternative commitment.

It would be interesting to know how orthodox regard the eucharistic miracles in which the flesh becomes visible as heart myocardium. Do you reject them, despite the forensic evidence?

And I cannot reject form and substance. I am a scientist!
I have to accept that what our senses percieve is a lower dimensionsal projection of what is really there.. (think TV 2D is a lower dimensional projection on a 3D world in which a red ball, a red spiral end on, etc all appear to be a red circle - and red itself is only a perception of one property, whcih has as muc to say about the eye as it does about the substance, and increasingly science is modelling the world in higher dimensions (think superstring) which resolve into 3D on observation)

Yes, I did this as you suggest and became Catholic. But with further study I concluded that the smooth development of ideas was not real, and that Catholic teaching proceeded far beyond anything the Early Church Fathers ever had in mind.

A perfect example. Transubstantiation is described in Catholic teaching assuming the philosophy of Aristotle, of form and substance. I reject Aristotle. Your quote from Justin Martyr is a good example:

Notice it is our blood and flesh which is transmuted via the flesh and blood of Jesus. This does not teach Transubstantiation at all! And merely saying the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Jesus is nothing like Transubstantiation.

 

[prodromos]

I can only repeat what Justin Martyr (and many others) said.
"IS the flesh of Jesus"

Without pulling punches, this is my understanding: Orthodox are reluctant to state how the mystery of "Jesus truly present in the eucharist" occurs. It is less that they disagree with transubstantiation, but rather that they fail to agree with it, or any other alternative commitment.

It seems amajor point of this thread is to denigrate the Orthodox faith.

It would be interesting to know how orthodox regard the eucharistic miracles in which the flesh becomes visible as heart myocardium. Do you reject them, despite the forensic evidence?

Firstly, such miracles are not examples of "transubstantiation" as defined by the Catholic Church as there is nothing remaining that resembles bread and wine.
Secondly, when such miracles have occurred in the Orthodox Church they have always been seen as something negative, occurring due to a person's doubt or lack of faith. If the bread and wine visibly become flesh and blood then they cannot be consumed and this is considered to be a very bad situation. The flesh and blood have to be hidden somewhere where there is no chance of it being desecrated.

And I cannot reject form and substance. I am a scientist!
I have to accept that what our senses percieve is a lower dimensionsal projection of what is really there.. (think TV 2D is a lower dimensional projection on a 3D world in which a red ball, a red spiral end on, etc all appear to be a red circle - and red itself is only a perception of one property, whcih has as muc to say about the eye as it does about the substance, and increasingly science is modelling the world in higher dimensions (think superstring) which resolve into 3D on observation)

So because you live in a world of scientific terminology and methodology you expect everybody else to do the same, and when they don't you put them down and accuse them of pride.

 

[Tayla]

A person can take what is proven by science and use logic to expand upon it and learn more without rejecting what was previously believed.

Transubstantiation has nothing to do with the philosophy of Aristotle.

How is it different? If the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Jesus then the essence (aka substance) has changed while the appearance (aka "accidents") obviously remains. That's transubstantiation.

You have stated my objection perfectly. The notion of a distinction between essence (aka substance) and appearance (aka "accidents") is from Aristotle; science has no such concept. The bread and wine are merely atoms swirling around. Our mental processes in the brain construct the notion of distinct objects. In accepting science you are forced to reject
Transubstantiation.

 

[Tayla]

No he did not misread or misunderstand it at all.

Thank you.

 

[tz620q]

That sounds like consubstantiation. "the doctrine, especially in Lutheran belief, that the substance of the bread and wine coexists with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. (Oxford dictionary)"

I don't think Gelasius was trying to state precisely how the Eucharist is changed from bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ. I think his argument was against Nestorianism, which was seen as splitting the divine and human nature of Christ. So if we can draw anything from his argument it was that he believed that the Incarnation of Christ was paralleled in the Eucharist.

 

[Tayla]

It seems amajor point of this thread is to denigrate the Orthodox faith.

Purgatory also incorporates a number of things we do not accept such as the so called "Treasury of Merits" and created grace.

In supporting and defending Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and other Catholic doctrines, Catholics must add verbiage and ideas from Aristotle, from so-called doctrinal developments, and from various other sources. Better to stick with the original words of Christ: "This is my body, this is my blood".

I think it is OK to ponder how this works, but it must be done in accordance with modern science (but rejecting their assumption of no spiritual realm).

For example, I agree with the general idea of Purgatory, that our soul must be made clean (while in this life and after) before entering the eternal utopia of the new heavens and new earth. But Catholic teaching adds unneeded, confusing, and just-plain-wrong verbiage.

 

[Geralt]

its not understanding tradition, but understanding the source of ‘authority’.

You see in your mindset, already you have a hidden premise that tradition outside scripture has authority in itself, rather than merely a subset of scripture – which means if it is not supported in scripture, then it has no relevance.

With your regards to your ‘the way the faith’.. – you and I have different definitions of faith. You think it’s like a commodity being passed on. Not so, you just like to sound religious in this case.

You don't understand tradition clearly, and how paradosis was the way the faith was passed on in the early church.

 

[Tayla]

And I cannot reject form and substance. I am a scientist!
I have to accept that what our senses percieve is a lower dimensionsal projection of what is really there.. (think TV 2D is a lower dimensional projection on a 3D world in which a red ball, a red spiral end on, etc all appear to be a red circle - and red itself is only a perception of one property, whcih has as muc to say about the eye as it does about the substance, and increasingly science is modelling the world in higher dimensions (think superstring) which resolve into 3D on observation)

I agree our conscious perception of the physical world is based on imperfect data from the senses further processed by the brain then finally presented to whatever it is that consciously perceives it (our soul in the spiritual realm). The philosophical "form" part of this would have to be the processing by the brain, meaning, during the Eucharist, Jesus is our physical brain. I don't think Catholics would want to say this.