A little history please!

  • Thread starter Thread starter misti88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
very true yet very wrong!😦
how is this wrong? Please show me in Scripture where it says that when emotionalism takes over you can know you have read the truth. Our response to God is not an emotional response but it has to be deeper than the surface level of it makes me all warm inside, that equates to we know Him like the demons who shiver at the sound of His name. They get all emotional. If you will read your Bible it says over and over again that faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God…not by some emotional response to literature.

It is late and maybe the hour gets the best of me, but I am pretty sure that the Bible never tells us to get a warm and fuzzy…
 
I found this to be interesting reading, yet it is without proof. There is no proof anywhere that Jesus or the apostles held these books to be inspired. They had them at their disposal for use, but nothing shows that they were held as authoritative
Wrong RevG. Sorry, but you can take a look at the following which lists specific New Testament references that quotes the Deuterocanonicals and see that see for yourself. Deuterocanon
It is interesting that Jerome, Tertullian and Augustine are not held in much esteem in this conversation since they all rejected the authority of the Apocrypha. Augustine used the book of Wisdom greatly, but rejected all of the others. So are these early church fathers not part of the discussion?
Sorry but there are no “Apocryphal” writings in the Catholic Bible.

Jerome questioned them because he could not find copies in Hebrew, yet translated them anyway because the Church approved them in 382 AD. However, he was justified in doing so in the 1950’s when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and did indeed contain portions of the DCs in Hebrew.

Augustine? Augustine also made the very clear declaration that “I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397. So he did not reject the deuterocanonicals as you suggest. I don’t know about Tertullian, but you have to weigh him against many other ECF that can be found here. Old Testament Canon (Fathers* )
on a side note, someone made an earlier jab at Protestants not believing in transubstantitation, which is accurate, but I feel obligated to inform them that Augustine taught a symbolic Lord’s Supper…isn’t he one of the great minds in the church? Why is it that the church doesn’t follow his teachings?
Citation of source please for context?

And again I point out that Augustine accepted all church teachings. Moreover, as this Bible study article on my blog shows, the New Testament nowhere teaches a symbolic interpretation as held by modern n-Cs today and neither did the earliest church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch. The Eucharist IS Scriptural
Luther was a couple hundred years ago, and this is a misrepresented kindergarten version of the beginning of the Reformation. Luther actually wanted to reform the Catholic church since it was teaching doctrine not found in the canon, thus the name reformers.
That would be more like some 500 years ago Sir, and you need to check the facts of your history. Luther erred terribly since he began with the unscriptural premise that the Bible was the sole and ultimate authority for all that Christians believe and practice which is a teaching that is itself “not found in the canon”. Moreover, you fail in the context of historical facts again, in that there were already reforms underway within the Church long before Luther was even born. See Reform Came before the Reformation (This Rock: April 2006)
 
Here is a link for an English translation for you and I will give you references. For your question of where Augustine tells that the Apocrypha is rejected. He states that we reject any Manichaean book and the Apocrypha in Book X of Reply to Faustus the Manichaean
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.html
I found the book X, yet I do not see your support.
Code:
                              [BOOK X.](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140610.htm)
FAUSTUS INSISTS THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT PROMISES ARE RADICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF THE NEW. AUGUSTIN ADMITS A DIFFERENCE, BUT MAINTAINS THAT THE MORAL PRECEPTS ARE THE SAME IN BOTH.
Code:
 1. FAUSTUS said: Another reason for not receiving the Old Testament is, that both the Old   and the New teach us not to covet what belongs to others. Everything in the Old Testament is of   this kind. It promises riches, and plenty, and children, and children's children, and long life, and   withal the land of Canaan; but only to the circumcised, the Sabbath observers,those offering   sacrifices, and abstaining from swine's flesh. Now I, like every other Christian, pay no attention   to these things, as being trifling and useless for the salvation of the soul. I conclude, therefore,   that the promises do not belong to me. And mindful of the commandment, Thou shall not covet, I   gladly leave to the Jews their own property, and content myself with the gospel, and with the   bright inheritance of the kingdom of heaven. If a Jew were to claim part in the gospel, I should   justly reproach him with claiming what he had no right to, because he does not obey its precepts.   And a Jew might say the same to me if I professed to receive the Old Testament while I disregard   its requirements.
  1. AUGUSTIN replied: Faustus is not ashamed to repeat the same nonsense again and again. But it is tiresome to repeat the same answers, though it is to repeat truth. What Faustus says here has already been answered. (1) But if a Jew asks me why I profess to believe the Old Testament while I do not observe its precepts, my reply is this: The moral precepts of the law are observed by Christians; the symbolical precepts were properly observed during the time that the things now revealed were prefigured. Accordingly, those observances, which I regard as no longer binding, I still look upon as a testimony, as I do also the carnal promises from which the Old Testament derives its name. For although the gospel teaches me to hope for eternal blessings, I also find a confirmation of the gospel in those things which “happened to them for an example, and were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world are come.” So much for our answer to the Jews. And now we have something to say to the Manichaeans.
  2. By showing the way in which we regard the authority of the Old Testament we have answered the Jews, by whose question about our not observing the precepts Faustus thought we would be puzzled. But what answer can you give to the question, why you deceive simple-minded people by professing to believe in the New Testament, while you not only do not believe it, but assail it with all your force? It will be more difficult for you to answer this than it was for us to answer the Jews. We hold all that is written in the Old Testament to be true, and on joined by God for suitable times. But in your inability to find a reason for not receiving what is written in the New Testament, you are obliged, as a last resource, to pretend that the passages are not genuine. This is the last gasp of a heretic in the clutches of truth; or rather it is the breath of corruption itself. Faustus, however, confesses that the Old Testament as well as the New teaches him not to covet. His own God could never have taught him this. For if this God did not covet what belonged to another, why did he construct new worlds in the region of darkness? Perhaps the race of darkness first coveted his kingdom. But this would be to imitate their bad example. Perhaps the kingdom of light was previously of small extent, and war was desirable in order to enlarge it by conquest. In that case, no doubt, there was covetousness, though the hostile race was allowed to begin the wars to justify the conquest. If there had been no such desire, there was no necessity to extend the kingdom beyond its old limits into the region of the conquered foe. If the Manichaeans would only learn from these Scriptures the moral precepts, one of which is, Do not covet, instead of taking offence at the symbolical precept, they would acknowledge in meekness and candor that they suited the time then present. We do not covet what belongs to another, when we read in the Old Testament what “happened to them for examples, and was written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world are come.” It is surely not coveting when a man reads what is written for his benefit.
 
in the same link in the same Reply to Faustus the Manichaean in Book XX you will find

“It is not any bread and wine that we hold sacred as a natural production, as if Christ were confined in corn or in vines, as the Manicheans fancy, but what is truly consecrated as a symbol.”

there is my evidence.

I am sure you can argue that the website is a poor translation, not in good faith, but it might be argued, so you can check other translations if you like. I look forward to your future responses, as I know they will come.
Indeed they will, since you take Augustine out of the context of his other writings, particularly those concerning the Mass as shown below.
Only about Augustine (d. 430) must a word be said, since, in regard to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist he is cited as favouring the “symbolical” theory. Now it is precisely his teaching on sacrifice that best serves to clear away the suspicion that he inclined to a merely spiritual interpretation. For Augustine nothing is more certain than that every religion, whether true or false, must have an exterior form of celebration and worship (Reply to Faustus XIX.11). This applies as well to Christians (l. c., xx, 18), who “commemorate the sacrifice consummated (on the cross) by the holiest oblation and participation of the Body and Blood of Christ” (celebrant sacrosancta oblatione et participatione corporis et sanguinis Christi). The Mass is, in his eyes (City of God X.20), the “highest and true sacrifice” (summum verumque sacrificium), Christ being at once “priest and victim” (ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio) and he reminds the Jews (Adv. Jud, ix, 13) that the sacrifice of Malachias is now made in every place (in omni loco offerri sacrificium Christianorum). He relates of his mother Monica (Confess., ix, 13) that she had asked for prayers at the altar (ad altare) for her soul and had attended Mass daily. From Augustine onwards the current of the Church’s tradition flows smoothly along in a well-ordered channel, without check or disturbance, through the Middle Ages to our own time. Even the powerful attempt made to stem it through the Reformation had no effect.
 
this they did, but this is not the Roman Catholic Church which you are trying to defend that they held in high esteem,** it came later**.
Citation of historical proof please.
 
how is this wrong? Please show me in Scripture where it says that when emotionalism takes over you can know you have read the truth. Our response to God is not an emotional response but it has to be deeper than the surface level of it makes me all warm inside, that equates to we know Him like the demons who shiver at the sound of His name. They get all emotional. If you will read your Bible it says over and over again that faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God…not by some emotional response to literature.

It is late and maybe the hour gets the best of me, but I am pretty sure that the Bible never tells us to get a warm and fuzzy…
You are right the bible never say’s the words “WARM AND FUZZY” and I never did either.
FAITH COMES FROM GOD NOT WORDS…WE ARE HUMAN WE ARE GIVEN OUR EMOTIONS /FEELINGS BY THE LORD. WE WERE MEANT TO USE THEM. JUST BECAUSE I CRY DURING THE STATIONS OF THE CROSS DOES THAT MEAN IT NEVER HAPPENED? YOU CAN’T JUST READ THE WORDS YOU MUST ***FEEL ***THE WORDS!
 
I received a warning for my last post because it was in all caps. That was considered rude. I apologize I was not trying to be rude just trying to make what I was saying eye catching.
~ Misti Ann
 
You are correct reverend in your assertion on emotions. Emotions can mislead, our will is necessary to overcome emotions. I think you both mean the same thing just use different language. But pride is an emotion we must all be apprehensive about in seeking truth.
Here is a link for an English translation for you and I will give you references. For your question of where Augustine tells that the Apocrypha is rejected. He states that we reject any Manichaean book and the Apocrypha in Book X of Reply to Faustus the Manichaean
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.html

this they did, but this is not the Roman Catholic Church which you are trying to defend that they held in high esteem, it came later.

in the same link in the same Reply to Faustus the Manichaean in Book XX you will find

“It is not any bread and wine that we hold sacred as a natural production, as if Christ were confined in corn or in vines, as the Manicheans fancy, but what is truly consecrated as a symbol.”

there is my evidence.

I am sure you can argue that the website is a poor translation, not in good faith, but it might be argued, so you can check other translations if you like. I look forward to your future responses, as I know they will come.
I won’t waste time debating whether or not the Catholic Church has made mistakes, but you have acknowledged that the Catholic Church “was” the Church Augustine spoke of and the Church Jesus Christ founded. This being so, is it not your obligation to join this church? Even if it is led astray would not your obligation be to go to Rome and make a theological presentation of where and how the Catholic Church misinterpretted Sacred Scripture, to help the church our Lord founded, not start new ones. (Obviously our ultimate goal is to start new parishes, I merely challenge the notion of new churches, new doctrines). Many saints have challenged church authority, they did so within, not until the Reformation did men start making their own churches in groves. Only in America could anyone (Body Piercers, pot smokers, devil worshippers), I mean anyone start a church. There are currently about 40,000 Protestant denominations and one has to question whether the Reformation was successful? A mormon, a jehovah witness, a baptist, a lutheran, an anglican and a catholic are all on a porch knocking on a man’s door. No this is not a joke unfortunately, it is the said state of affairs of modern Christianity. What is the man inside the house to think of this division? We are called to be one body, “A house divided cannot stand”. Let us build unity through the Scriptures and these Early Fathers brother.

Your translation in Book XX is accurate though I’d question your interpretation of the word symbol. Here Augustine is answering accusations from Faustus, his answers are limited to Faustus’ challenges. Better references to actual teachings and instructions on the Eucharist may come from Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr who were both martyred shortly after the Apostles. Ignatius’ letter to Smyrnaeans 6,2 “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ… They abstain from the Eucharist and from Prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ…” Justin Martyr’s First Apology 66 (which was sent to the Roman Senate and cost him his life) “For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these…the Eucharist…is both the Flesh and the Blood of that incarnated Jesus.” These men preceded Augustine and it’s important to reference these documents in properly interpretting the words of Augustine.

Augustine does reprimand Faustus for not using wine. He challenges the notion from Faustus of worshipping pagan deities in the Eucharist but does not challenge the notion of worshipping Jesus Christ. He compares that foolish notion in that Christians also don’t worship saturn on the Sabbath. He states the bread and wine are Truly Consecrated, and he does use the word “symbol”, but not symbollically. This does seem to justify your claim without of course taking into consideration early language, other early fathers, the Old Testament, oh and in case I forgot the words of Jesus Christ.

Augustine was a bishop. The Old Testament priests were levites, and had solid understanding of what true consecration was with bread and wine, as would Augustine who clearly defended the Old Testament in X. This OT sacrifice was a pretext of the ultimate sacrifice at Calvary. Luther was a priest in the Augustinian order (strict followers of Augustine), and with all his faults, not once claimed a symbolic presence in the Eucharist. He actually claimed he could’ve laid a heavier blow to the papcay if he could claim symbolism, but he could not depart from this traditional teaching claiming the “text was too strong”. But if my words and these fathers are not enough let’s look at Jesus in John Ch. 6. “This is My Body”, not this is a representation, not this is a symbol, but “THIS IS”!!+++!!

Homo Ecce. Behold the Man!
 
You are right the bible never say’s the words “WARM AND FUZZY” and I never did either.
FAITH COMES FROM GOD NOT WORDS…WE ARE HUMAN WE ARE GIVEN OUR EMOTIONS /FEELINGS BY THE LORD. WE WERE MEANT TO USE THEM. JUST BECAUSE I CRY DURING THE STATIONS OF THE CROSS DOES THAT MEAN IT NEVER HAPPENED? YOU CAN’T JUST READ THE WORDS YOU MUST ***FEEL ***THE WORDS!
Typing in Caps means you are shouting or indicates anger. Try bolding or putting the text in color.

I responded to your private message to me and gave you answers. Hope those helps. Have you tried them?
 
I received a warning for my last post because it was in all caps. That was considered rude. I apologize I was not trying to be rude just trying to make what I was saying eye catching.
~ Misti Ann
** I like color.** And I understand, as it’s sometimes hard to get a thought in edgewise.

A lot of what you are asking has to do with the Hebrew Scripture all being translated into Greek about 200 years before Jesus was born. In fact, that translation, the Septuagint, was the standard form of Scripture all over including during the Incarnation. The book of Wisdom wasn’t written originally in Hebrew, it was a Greek book, as were the Maccabees, iirc.

I believe they found a copy of the Hebrew OT amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, hidden away, possibly by the Essenes, trying to maintain the traditions, and thank God. But we didn’t find it until the 1930s.

So, after the fall of Jerusalem, while everyone was trying to figure out why God had allowed this, some Rabbis decided it was punishment for abandoning the old traditions, especially the language He wrote the Commandments in: Hebrew. But they couldn’t find the original Hebrew anymore. After a couple hundred years, all the old parchments had pretty much disappeared.

Anyway, in what some call the “Council of Jamnia” - though no formal council has left an historical record that I know of, it was decided to only use Hebrew and so they retranslated from the bits and pieces they could find but mostly from the Septuagint and left out anything that was written originally in Greek.

When Jerome wanted to go back to the “original language” he abandoned the Septuagint which is actually older and closer to the original as shown by the Dead Sea Scrolls text, and translated from the “Masoretic” text of the Rabbis, which wasn’t completed until… 300 AD - ish, except for the parts the Jews left out, which were always part of their history and Christian history and by the time Jerome got to them, declared Canon, and translated them from Greek into Latin.

You will find various versions of this argued about just what happened raging all over scholarly circles and only confused by the mis-information purposely spread around to most particularly American nonCatholic Christians who have been told for the last 20 or so years, maybe only 15, that there were a bunch of “other churches” who never used the evil Apocrypha and that the RCC wiped them out to take control. They are also told the RCC changed the Scripture and put things into it that we not there originally to convince people of the evil lies like that we don’t enter “soul sleep” when we die or that Purgatory exists.

They have been told more recently that the Catholics want to take over the world and almost did but were saved by the heroic Protestant reformers, who the Church tried to stop by murdering them by the thousands - or millions, depends who you ask.

So the new nonCatholic position is that they toss out anything from Scripture they don’t like and only use what feeds their warped theology, including tossing out parts of the Gospels. They have several of their own Bible history books claimed to be “scholarly” and defy anyone to “prove” ours are more correct than theirs. And as that can only be proven by one scholar to another and theirs are all bogus propagandists and the people they are convincing uneducated - you cannot.

Having said all of that, not believing anyone will actually read all the way through: my best advice is - ignore the whole thing and love our Scripture. Otherwise, you just get a headache talkin’ to these folks.
 
Corrections:

Reverend I meant no disrespect earlier, I was just being fast and lazy in not capitalizing earlier, I beg your pardon.

John 6 is a great teaching from Jesus Himself on whether it is true Body and Blood or a symbolic presence, and is central to the Catholic Church’s doctrine on the Eucharist.

But “this is” was wrongly referenced as Jn. 6, but it is found in ALL 3 of the other Gospels, Mt. 26: 26-28, Mk. 14: 22-25, Lk. 22: 19-20.

My apologies, but hopefully these references will be helpful.
 
** I like color.**

Having said all of that, not believing anyone will actually read all the way through: my best advice is - ignore the whole thing and love our Scripture. Otherwise, you just get a headache talkin’ to these folks.
I would challenge this notion. Keep asking questions Misti, this is complicated history, but it is important for Catholics to know. Not understanding my faith allowed me to be led astray. But that is when I learned to seek the truth, that brought me back to Rome.

In regards to the Jews considering the Greek books as Apocrypha, this did not mean they were considered evil works from the devil. The Jews merely didn’t see them as inspired by God, just merely human works that were good for teaching and history. Jews would not have Hannukah without the book of Maccabees. This is one of the biggest Jewish holidays, celebrating the cleansing of the Temple, yet it is not found in their Scriptures. This would be like removing the Gospels and still celebrating Christmas & Easter. Why then would they remove it? One simple carpenter caused quite a rucus for the Jews, not to mention the Romans. Lines were drawn between Jews and Christians unfortunately, and the Greek books were removed that prophecied Christ extensively. Yet even without those 7 books there is still plenty within the rest of the Old Testament to predict Jesus as the Christ.
 
Typing in Caps means you are shouting or indicates anger. Try bolding or putting the text in color.

I responded to your private message to me and gave you answers. Hope those helps. Have you tried them?
I did and Thanx!
 
I would challenge this notion. Keep asking questions Misti, this is complicated history, but it is important for Catholics to know. Not understanding my faith allowed me to be led astray. But that is when I learned to seek the truth, that brought me back to Rome.

In regards to the Jews considering the Greek books as Apocrypha, this did not mean they were considered evil works from the devil. The Jews merely didn’t see them as inspired by God, just merely human works that were good for teaching and history. Jews would not have Hannukah without the book of Maccabees. This is one of the biggest Jewish holidays, celebrating the cleansing of the Temple, yet it is not found in their Scriptures. This would be like removing the Gospels and still celebrating Christmas & Easter. Why then would they remove it? One simple carpenter caused quite a rucus for the Jews, not to mention the Romans. Lines were drawn between Jews and Christians unfortunately, and the Greek books were removed that prophecied Christ extensively. Yet even without those 7 books there is still plenty within the rest of the Old Testament to predict Jesus as the Christ.
They have removed Jesus from our school system yet they still let the kids out for Christmas and Easter. Not arguing here just making the point that sometimes people follow tradition instead of understanding what they are doing. Atheists claim to not believe in God yet they strive daily to remove Him from schools and our money…interesting to spend so much energy on something they claim doesn’t exist.
 
They have removed Jesus from our school system yet they still let the kids out for Christmas and Easter. Not arguing here just making the point that sometimes people follow tradition instead of understanding what they are doing. Atheists claim to not believe in God yet they strive daily to remove Him from schools and our money…interesting to spend so much energy on something they claim doesn’t exist.
Good point. Holiday comes from “Holy Day”, which was an special day for Christians to go to Mass and celebrate a special day like Easter, Christmas etc.

Sorry it took a while but I did find a good quote from Augustine regarding the Eucharist which might be helpful.

“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through those accidents the Lord wished to entrust to us His Body and the Blood which He poured out for the remission of sins.”- Sermons, No. 227

Another one comes from Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan. He was fundamental in converting Augustine, and a great early Church Father. His teaching digs deeper into the Eucharist and explains it very precisely, because he is answering that very question of symbolism, he’s also using the word consecration very specifically. Augustine would likely use the same understanding of “consecration” as his mentor.

“Perhaps you will say ‘I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?’ And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make us of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.”- On The Mysteries, 9:50 bold emphasis added

Peace.
 
Good point. Holiday comes from “Holy Day”, which was an special day for Christians to go to Mass and celebrate a special day like Easter, Christmas etc.

Another one comes from Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan. He was fundamental in converting Augustine, and a great early Church Father. His teaching digs deeper into the Eucharist and explains it very precisely, because he is answering that very question of symbolism, he’s also using the word consecration very specifically. Augustine would likely use the same understanding of “consecration” as his mentor.

“Perhaps you will say ‘I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?’ And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make us of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.”- On The Mysteries, 9:50 bold emphasis added

Peace.
I have been quite busy myself, so i understand delay. About Ambrose of Milan, who was instrumental in the conversion of Augustine (so was Monica, his mother) Ambrose was an advocate of interpreting all of the parables allegorically. It is very clear to modern scholars that all of the parables are not allegorical in nature, so this being understood, one would be safe to assume that Ambrose was taking a mistaken hermeneutic in his approach to some Scripture, if he was incorrect on his understanding of the parables maybe he was incorrect of transubstantiation also.

As a side note, when Jesus said this is my body, what was He holding? was he holding a piece of bread or was he offering them a piece of Himself? Irenaeus argued against cannibalism which is what transubstantiation is arguing for since it argues that you are eating the flesh of Jesus. This was the argument made by heretics in the the early years of the church and Irenaeus wrote Against the Heresies** to argue against this notion. Maybe my reading of the church fathers isn’t as extent as yours, but I do look forward to the discussion that follows these thoughts.
 
As a side note, when Jesus said this is my body, what was He holding? was he holding a piece of bread or was he offering them a piece of Himself? Irenaeus argued against cannibalism which is what transubstantiation is arguing for since it argues that you are eating the flesh of Jesus. This was the argument made by heretics in the the early years of the church and Irenaeus wrote Against the Heresies** to argue against this notion. Maybe my reading of the church fathers isn’t as extent as yours, but I do look forward to the discussion that follows these thoughts.
He was holding His Body under the apperance of bread. It was His entire Body Blood Soul and Divinity. You find that unbelievable. No more unbelievable than feeding 1000’s with just a loaf of bread and some fish or raising from the dead and passing through a door.

Where exactly did Irenaeus call this a heresy? Can you give me the chapter?
 
Monica’s prayers and Ambrose’s theological/philosophical expertise worked hand in hand to bring this great theologian into the Church. I’m not familiar with Ambrose’s mistaken approach to parables, but will contend there is a possibility he could be mistaken. I would however be very apprehensive about correcting any of the Fathers with modern scholarship, they lived closer to the time of Christ, understood Judaism and the language far better than we know today. Today Jerome is still considered the greatest translator the Church ever had, and it probably isn’t feasible to understand the languages today like Jerome did then. Languages change so fast, even in my short lifetime lol.

If Ambrose was grossly mistaken why would Augustine have not rebuked his mentor? But Augustine did back Ambrose’s thinking in sermon no. 227 (quoted earlier). I suppose we could contend that all the fathers were mistaken, but at some point we have to have faith. If they all were corrupted can we trust the books in the Bible they handed down to us? Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch (quoted earlier) were both martyred in Rome in the 2nd century shortly after the Apostles. Ignatius had been appointed by Peter. These men gladly died to preserve the faith. Many modern Christians have no comprehension of how bad the Roman Persecutions were. Rome was out to abolish the Church and they did a pretty good job. In 200 years they killed every pope but 1. Great risks were taken to preserve the writings about Christ and His Church. Lots of writings were lost, but the Church continued on. The Bible wasn’t officially canonized until after Christianity became legal in the 4th century. Only then could the Church gather safely to sort out a canon. Cannibalism was one of the accusations made by Rome during the persecutions. Justin Martyr rebuked this in his letter to the Senate, but firmly upheld the True Presence of the Body and the Blood.

This is a difficult teaching, cannibalism is forbidden in the Old Testament. In John chapter 6 Jesus explicitly says His Body is true food, and His Blood is true drink. To a Jew this was forbidden, it was hard for them to hear, as it is you and me. Many of these disciples there presumably saw Jesus heal the sick, cure the blind, walk on water, but still left. This is the only time in any of the Gospels his disciples left! Many of them left, and He didn’t stop them!! Rather he turned to His disciples and said “do you also want to leave”? To this Peter replied “to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life”. So do we choose the path of the disciples who left, or Peter? This is hard, but where else do we go, this Guy has the words of eternal life. Christ isn’t what I would’ve envisioned God as, but it is not my job to make Christ as I would have him, but rather to follow Him for Who He is. I certainly wouldn’t have picked Him to die for my sins, but that is another great mystery of God.

Ambrose explains the Eucharist as spiritual food in On The Mysteries, 9:58. It is a true mystery of faith, but we have blunt Sacred Scripture, and the Fathers spoke adamantly of the True Presence.

Irenaeus wrote “He {Jesus} 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 to our bodies.” Against Heresies V. 5 Ch. 2, 2 (italics added) I could also acknowledge Irenaeus was possibly wrong, but seeing how he was the first man to declare the tetramorph (All 4 Gospels we use today) as canonical, my soul would tremble. Before Irenaeus most theologians would only follow one Gospel. He is fundamental in all our faith.

Jerome was more blunt as only Jerome can be in his letter to Theophilus “I admire in your work its practical aim, designed as it is to instruct by the authority of Scripture ignorant persons in all the churches concerning reverence with which they must handle holy things and minister at Christ’s altar; and to impress upon them that the sacred chalices, veils, and other accessories used in the celebration of the Lord’s passion are not mere lifeless and senseless objects devoid of holiness, but that rather, from their association with the body and blood of the Lord, they are to be venerated with the same awe as the body and blood themselves.” Letter 114, 2

Jerome certainly takes it farther than I or most would, he’s talking about the mere bowl and cup deserving veneration and awe, but in his defense what they hold is unfathomable. And to actually partake of it is more so yet. Once again, where do we go?

The notion of symbolism is post reformation. Greek Orthodox (who schismed in 1054) believe in the Eucharist. Luther and Henry VIII were both believers in the Eucharist. Zwingli who broke from Luther was the first to pioneer a symbolic notion that I’m aware of, 1500 years after Christ. Zwingli didn’t believe Christ could be present at that many places at the same time. Luther was a theologian, and versed in the Fathers, but not versed enough. What Luther began quickly expanded and new doctrines abounded, hence the need for “new” denominations. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching” (Heb. 13, 8-9). Praise be Jesus Christ.
 
What were the reasons behind Luther omitting parts of Esther and parts of Daniel? I have read them over and over and can find nothing controversial. At least as far as I’m concerned but maybe I’m a little bias. Also if besides the fact that he didn’t think them divine why all of the other 7 books? 🤷

Thanx 👍
If I may, who is Luther, what book did he write, and what exactly was omitted?
 
If I may, who is Luther, what book did he write, and what exactly was omitted?
Martin Luther who initiated the Reformation that is the Protestant revolt.

The book that is mentioned is the Bible. The books missing from Protestant Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top