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
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
Last edited: