1500 years and nobody thought of it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mschrank
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mschrank said:
Let’s not play semantics, yes, Thomas Aquinas developed the idea of Transubstantion, but before that, nobody belived that the Eucharist was simply a memorial of something passed, or a piece of bread.

If you can find some, in all intellectual honesty, if anyone in the Early Christian Era saying that it is just bread, than I’d be surprised and would even start to take your protest a bit more seriously.
Click to expand...
Pope Gelasius
The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.-Gelasius (Philp Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, 95)
Click to expand...
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html
 
mschrank said:
Please do. If Prots are right, then I want to please God. No joke. Help me out.
Click to expand...
me too. i am open to TRUTH. i am not Catholic because of loyalty or any other superficial reason. Protestants have had 2000 years to try and formulate excuses, mostly in the past 500, and it seems they simply cannot do it. the RCC consistently and continually reveals TRUTH about Jesus to me beyond my imagination, and that is why i am Catholic.

by now i feel i would lay down my life to protect these truths. i don’t see too many Protestants confident enough in their churches to claim this. either i am completely delusional beyond reproach, or the truth is just so plainly clear it doesn’t need to defend itself…
 
johnnydigit said:
by now i feel i would lay down my life to protect these truths. i don’t see too many Protestants confident enough in their churches to claim this. either i am completely delusional beyond reproach, or the truth is just so plainly clear it doesn’t need to defend itself…
Click to expand...
Yes you are delusional beyond reproach.😃
As such you could not see the truth, although Orthodoxy:
the truth is just so plainly clear it doesn’t need to defend itslef.
Click to expand...
 
SyCarl said:
Pope Gelasius

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html
Click to expand...
cin.org/users/jgallegos/faq.htm
First, Pope Gelasius categorically affirms the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is denied by White. Second, Pope Gelasius was concerned in defending the nature of Christ not the Eucharist. So he was not so concerned in giving his understanding of the Eucharist as he was in explaining the mystery of the Incarnation.
Click to expand...
See question 12 … addresses Pope Gelasius’s statement.
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
Is there a list of those who thought of denying the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
The Docetics, a heretical group, abstained from the Eucharist because they didn’t believe that it was the flesh Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to them in his letter to the Smyrnaeans around 100 A.D.

I don’t know the names of other groups at that early time who didn’t believe in the concept of transubstantiation (even if the term had not been used yet).

It seems to me that I read a book called “Why do Catholics do that” that listed different types of heresies. That author may have come up with a list of those who thought of denying the Eucharist. I lent the book out so I unfortunately cannot look at the moment.
 
Ignatius said:
Who, for example? Please give us a citation of a writer for the declaration of the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura prior the the 16th century. I’m not talking about scripture being profitable for teaching, correction, etc. Give a citation which says that Scripture Alone is the Sole Rule of Faith.
Click to expand...
Ignatius, you seem to be asking me this question (since you quoted what I wrote which was ‘plenty of people thought of it… they were called heretics’) but I cannot answer you. That quote of mine that you used was written as the first response to the original question. Furthermore, the only example the original poster used was about the Eucharist and so the Eucharist is mainly what I had in mind when I wrote that. I was not even thinking about Sola Scriptura when I wrote that.

To be honest, I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura so I have never looked into who was the first person or group to preach it. But now my curiosity is peaked so hopefully somebody else can answer your question because now I want to know if there was anyone prior to the 16th Century teaching Sola Scriptura.
 
SyCarl said:
Pope Gelasius
Click to expand...
Hmm, yes it does seem like this Pope denied transubstantiation. So, I’ll concede half a point.

However, my main arguement still stands. This Pope seems to believe in something like the Anglican idea of consubstantion, and certainly he believed that the Eucharist was truly the body and blood of Christ, even though not in the same way modern Catholics believe it.

I don’t think you can stretch this one to anything like the modern Protestant idea that communion is just a memorial done with bread and wine.

I’d still like a basic answer, in a nutshell, how this ‘late arrival’ can be historically and theologically explained and thus integrated into Christianity as a whole.

The Mormons and JW’s simply say there was a Great Apostasy about the year 100 and that the real Truth had to be brought back by a new prophet (the founder of their respective cults). Of course as a Catholic I disagree with this, but it’s at least coherent. Was Martin Luther a new prophet to raise Christianity from a great apostasy?
 
I must be the first person to ever think of this objection because the protestants have no objection. 😛 It’s been 2007 years since Jesus came, and, I, Matt, have come upon something so irrefutable and true that its plain evidence that I am a prophet.

Augustine?! Thomas Aquinas? Anshelm? IDIOTS!

I’m going to start a new religion now, because I must be a prophet. It’ll be WAY cooler than all the other heresies combined! 👍

LOL, it might seem absurd, but imagine there really was a guy with this attitude! His name was Martin Luther!
 
mschrank said:
I must be the first person to ever think of this objection because the protestants have no objection. 😛 It’s been 2007 years since Jesus came, and, I, Matt, have come upon something so irrefutable and true that its plain evidence that I am a prophet.

Augustine?! Thomas Aquinas? Anshelm? IDIOTS!

I’m going to start a new religion now, because I must be a prophet. It’ll be WAY cooler than all the other heresies combined! 👍

LOL, it might seem absurd, but imagine there really was a guy with this attitude! His name was Martin Luther!
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, from what I’ve read about him and from him, luther doesn’t seem to have thought he was actually a prophet and he didn’t originally intend to start a new religion. He started, much like others in the Catholic Church, to try and reform the problems with some individuals who weren’t acting very Catholic etc. It seems that when the reform wasn’t going fast enough for him, or conforming to his ideas, he then started drifting farther from the Church. This seems to be when he started thinking he knew better etc. and started formulating his own theology.

The claim that he discovered the bible and all these things that the Church wasn’t teaching is pure fiction. The Bible was plenty available before him and whilst he was a priest and of course was read and taught about during each and every Mass.
 
Ilroy said:
The Bible was plenty available before him and whilst he was a priest and of course was read and taught about during each and every Mass.
Click to expand...
Shhhh! Many Protestants believe Catholics were not allowed to read the Bible.😛
 
Ilroy said:
Well, to be fair, from what I’ve read about him and from him, luther doesn’t seem to have thought he was actually a prophet and he didn’t originally intend to start a new religion. He started, much like others in the Catholic Church, to try and reform the problems with some individuals who weren’t acting very Catholic etc. It seems that when the reform wasn’t going fast enough for him, or conforming to his ideas, he then started drifting farther from the Church. This seems to be when he started thinking he knew better etc. and started formulating his own theology.

The claim that he discovered the bible and all these things that the Church wasn’t teaching is pure fiction. The Bible was plenty available before him and whilst he was a priest and of course was read and taught about during each and every Mass.
Click to expand...
This is a perfect description of how satan leads us to doom. It always starts off small, with an honest heart and “good intention”. However, when sins against oneself or others is not or cannot be forgiven, the heart hardens. Then, slowly, the ego asserts itself until one is eventually consumed by it. It takes heroic strength and obedience to fight. Many had that strength. At least one did not.
 
surgei said:
Yes you are delusional beyond reproach.😃
As such you could not see the truth, although Orthodoxy:
Click to expand...
insane for Jesus and His Catholic Church and proud of it! :whacky:

Merry 1500th, 2000th, and until the end of time! :extrahappy:
 
Yeees. Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year!!!

Happy 2008 Yrs Of Catholicism All You Catholics Out There!!!
 
Let’s celebrate and praise our Heavenly Father for His wonderful love, for He our God has seen us through 2008 years and kept us so far. Praise God! :signofcross:

:harp:
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
There is far more to RCism than the RC distinctives - most RC doctrine is common to RCs & Protestantism & Orthodoxy: it is really “mere Christianity” - not peculiar to the RCC, or even to “Papal Catholicism” (so to call it).

So maybe RCs who ridicule Protestantism need to do some homework.
Click to expand...
I’ve done lots of homework, and I don’t know of even ONE Catholic doctrine which is accepted by all protestants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top