I just read an answer by a Roman Catholic, who wrote ...?
March 10th, 2010 by webmasterI believe the opposite is true. Roman Catholics, please take your time and read these late first century/early second century sources and tell me where ANY of them write about Mariology, transsubstantiation, or any other solely Roman Catholic doctrine:
1) The Epistle of Clement of Rome, written between 95 and 96 CE: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...
2) An Epistle from Ignatius to Polycarp, written some time prior to Ignatius' martyrdom in 117 CE: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...
3) An Epistle from Polycarp to the Philippians, written some time between 120 and 140 CE: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...
(continued)
http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/index....
St. Ignatius of Antioch was a student of St. John the apostle. That means he learned at the feet of someone who was in the room with Jesus at the Last Supper. If anyone would have a good idea if Jesus was speaking symbolically or literally, this is someone who would have better perspective that ANY modern scholar. He doesn't use the word 'transubstantiation' but then at that period of history nobody used the word 'Trinity' or 'Incarnation' either. Those words were coined later. This is what he has to say about the Real Presence:
St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Philadelphians 4
Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.ht...
St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Romans 7
I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.ht...
St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7,1
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. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.ht...
St Justin Martyr wrote in 150 AD:
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66).
St. Iraneus wrote in 190 AD
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33â “32 [A.D. 189]).
and
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal lifeâ ”flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).
I recommend the following books as a startng place for looking at what was those first Christians (the ones who faced martydom in the arena rather than deny these things) actually believed. Remember also, these were the men who ere so full of the Holy Spirit they decided what was and was not Scripture. The Table of Contents in your Bible was written by them. This is what they believed Sacred Scriptue said:
The Teachings of the Church Fathers (this book is nothing but cited excerpts from the Church Fathers arranged by topic. You can start here and cross-reference to the original documents) (http://www.amazon.com/Teachings-Church-F...
The Mass of the First Christians by Thomas Aquilina (http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Early-Christi...
Four Witnesses: the Early Church in Her Own Words by rod Bennett (http://www.amazon.com/Four-Witnesses-Ear...
By What Authority: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition by Mark Shea (http://www.amazon.com/What-Authority-Eva...
Edit: Suzanne, what words should they have used other than 'flesh' and 'blood' if they meant to speak literally? Are those the words you use to describe the bread and wine in your symbolic communion observances? Jesus spoke literally (http://postscripts.blog.com/1507064/), the Apostles and their immediate students spoke literally....where is the indication that it is symbolic. As for re-crucifying Jesus, the Catholic church **specifically** teaches that is NOT the case. Jesus is eternally present at the altar in heaven as both priest and lamb and it is THAT which is made present in the Mass (http://postscripts.blog.com/1121370/) You have set up something that you think Catholics teach so that you can reject it. If you want to reject Catholicism thatis your choice but at least reject what it actually teaches and not what some Protestant says they teach. Let Catholics speak for themselves on what they believe. That's why I referenced the books.
Edit: Suzanne, I am well aware of Iraneus's descent into heresy, but you are certainly welcome to dismiss his contributions that were accepted and quoted by the men who set the canon (even while they rightly rejected his heretical teaching) if you like. My points about Jesus literal teaching in Sacred Scripture (who leaves someone because his "symbolism" is too hard? John 6) and St. Ignatius of Antioch (who was taught by St. John the Apostle himself) stand.
God is not afraid of your questions. In fact, the Bible says that if anyone lacks wisdom, let them ask for it. The church at Berea was commended for searching the scriptures to see if what Paul had told them was the truth. For someone to say that the same God who gave you the free will to choose...and thus to question him...is afraid of, or not able to stand up to your scrutiny is, im my opinion, an unintelligent position.
Or did they mean more well read in christianity?
Speaking of reading, many years ago a friend who had studied for the priesthood (until he got cold feet at the very last minute) told me that throughout his entire study, he had never been allowed to have a Bible of his own to read. Everything in the Bible had to be filtered through his superiors and taught to him. I find that really odd and I hope they've long since changed this practice.
I, too, have no wish to stir up trouble against Catholics or offend anyone. Anyone with factual Biblical evidence that I am wrong is welcome to present it, publicly or privately.
Sister Spitfire: While Christians are not under Mosaic Law, Jesus was and He kpet the law perfectly. Mosaic Law absolutely forbids the drinking of blood. Jesus could not have endorsed this, without comitting a sin. Add that to the fact that transfiguration negates Christ's sacrifice, making it necessary to repeat it over and over, as Suzanne pointed out, and John 6:48 must be figurative, not literal.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
Posted in enart.gcgx.com | edit
