Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[Anna_Scott]

The phrase “translated to fit doctrine” could start an interesting discussion. Don’t know if it will happen here, but it may.

Hey, Peter J,
I’ve been busy and just checked back. This thread really has taken a direction far from the OP’s question, “Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?”

I agree that “translated to fit doctrine” would make an interesting discussion. It would probably need a dedicated thread, though it might still be on topic for this one.

One thing I’ve noticed in comparing translations is that the Biblical text is manipulated by what is placed in the main body of the text and what is placed in the footnotes. Some translations don’t bother with a footnote showing a variant among manuscripts.

The translation of Luke 1:28 is especially important to Christians who pray for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, hailing her as “full of grace.” Many Protestant translations omit even a footnote speaking of Mary as “full of grace.”

The million dollar question is, “Among a sea of manuscripts with many variants, which translation is the most accurate?”

Hail Mary, full of grace.
Our Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

** Luke 1:28**
28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace,a] the Lord is with you!”**(“Luke 1:28 RSVCE - And he came to her and said, “Hail, - Bible Gateway”)]
Footnotes:

1. 
   *]Luke 1:28 Or O favored one
   *]Luke 1:28 Other ancient authorities add “Blessed are you among women!”
   
   Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) The Revised Standard Version of the Bible: Catholic Edition, copyright © 1965, 1966 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
   

   ---

   ** Luke 1:28**
   28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”a]
   Footnotes:
   
   1. 
      *]Luke 1:28 Other ancient authorities add “Blessed are you among women!”
      
      Revised Standard Version (RSV) Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, and 1971 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
      

      ---

      ** Luke 1:28**
      28 And he came in unto her, and said,** Hail, thou that art a]highly favored, the Lord is with thee(“Luke 1:28 ASV - And he came in unto her, and said, - Bible Gateway”)].
      
      Footnotes:
      
      1. 
         *]Luke 1:28 Or, endued with grace
         *]Luke 1:28 Many ancient authorities add blessed art thou among women. See verse 42.
         
         American Standard Version (ASV) Public Domain (Why are modern Bible translations copyrighted?)
         

         ---

         ** Luke 1:28**
         28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
         
         Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) Public Domain (Why are modern Bible translations copyrighted?)
         

         ---

         Luke 1:28 in all English translations
         
         I’m guessing the OP’s question pertains to the assembly of the Biblical Canon.
         
         However, the question can lead us to ask, "Where are Protestants getting their Bibles now? There are so many translations.
         
         The same question could be asked of all Christians, including Catholics.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Originally Posted by commenter View Post
Is there a visible human authority, identifiable in the 1800s or now, that can rule out the Mormon books as not being inspired Scripture? …

The reason I wrote “visible human authority, identifiable” is because every Christian religious movement says it is responding to the Holy Spirit, even though they often reach conclusions totally contradictory to other groups supposedly responding to the HS, and even contradicting what the HS taught their own church 10 years ago. Who is right? It doesn’t help to say “the Holy Spirit leads to consistency with Scripture” because these groups all claim to be following Scripture, too. For that matter, how do you know which books are in Scripture anyway?

Only a universal Magisterium can rule books out of Scripture. That’s why the NT has 27 books, rather than 270. God does not need the Magisterium - He does not need the Bible, either - but He chose to use them.

I accept the magisterium, I disagree as to your claim that it effectively created the scriptures

 

[MichaelP3]

I think your second sentence supports my argument. It does not support your first sentence. Actually, the Magisterium had been guiding the development of Trinitarian doctrine prior to Nicaea. I believe Protestants accept those developments, too. You might say "we respect the “Early Church Fathers” and avoid the “heretics”. But that is because the Magisterium designated certain scholars as “Early Church Fathers” and other scholars as “heretics”.
Protestants seem to accept those 2 crucial, Magisterium designations for the most part. Based on that, they accept certain (Catholic) development, and reject other (e. g. Gnostic) development.
.

Will answer this one quickly

I think I should focus on the one thing I meant there. I meant that the Catholic church and the universal church in the early centuries are not the same. Your phrase saying accepted Catholic doctrine is therefore not true as all mainstream Protestants accept all that was accepted in the first centuries. That’s where I mean Catholics can’t claim it. Thus we not only respect the early church fathers, we regard them in exactly the same way you would regarding their “development”.

And I wouldn’t call it a Magisterium. Or if we do we can’t call the current one that. As they do not resemble each other in any way.

Thus like I said, If Luther or Calvin were present in those times, they would have had no problem, as none of those “developed” doctrine is a problem between Protestants or Catholics today. It is the later “developed” doctrine that sets us apart.

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

Etc.

Fwiw, although I’ve said before that Protestants need to “get their stories straight” concerning the word “Catholic”, I find that your way (ie allowing "Catholic to mean ICWR – thus avoiding the question of whether to say “Roman Catholic”) works best of any that I’ve encountered.

Although it does get awkward, as your post illustrates, to always say “small c” etc.

Didn’t really understand all you meant but I gathered that you agree I have my story straight.

Guess it got awkward. Just didn’t want people to get confused. Just afraid when I say catholic people would think I mean the Roman Church.

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

I’m guessing the OP’s question pertains to the assembly of the Biblical Canon.

However, the question can lead us to ask, "Where are Protestants getting their Bibles now? There are so many translations.

The same question could be asked of all Christians, including Catholics.

Referring to your last question. I would think okay, maybe for an average person who reads it everyday. But something doctrinal/dogmatic no. As in our case any person who studies theology still has to learn Hebrew and Greek and work from the original scripts. So that verse would have been studied in its original form to accept or deny the doctrine.

Regards

 

[Duane1966]

Your phrase saying accepted Catholic doctrine is therefore not true as all mainstream Protestants accept all that was accepted in the first centuries. That’s where I mean Catholics can’t claim it.

We know this is not true.

Can you name one mainstream Protestant denomination that accepts the Mass as a sacrifice? The early church clearly calls it a sacrifice.

How about Real Presence? Most Protestants do not accept that, but it was a clear teaching of the early Church?

How about justification by faith alone? According to the eminent Protestant historian Alistair McGrath, that concept was completely foreign to the Church for 1500 years.

How about indulgences? We see that before Nicaea.

And the list can go on and on, of things mainline Protestants reject that the early Church taught.

Your main argument fails on many points.

 

[MichaelP3]

We know this is not true.

Can you name one mainstream Protestant denomination that accepts the Mass as a sacrifice? The early church clearly calls it a sacrifice.

How about Real Presence? Most Protestants do not accept that, but it was a clear teaching of the early Church?

How about justification by faith alone? According to the eminent Protestant historian Alistair McGrath, that concept was completely foreign to the Church for 1500 years.

How about indulgences? We see that before Nicaea.

And the list can go on and on, of things mainline Protestants reject that the early Church taught.

Your main argument fails on many points.

Peace Brother

Your comment would have made sense if any of those you mentioned could be substantiated. And even if, was it a uniform agreed upon belief?

So all I can say is nope, Argument still stand and you will need to try again.
(And you understand me wrong, my arguments purpose isn’t saying Protestants are the early church. It’s to say the Roman Catholic church is not the same, Protestants are as far apart from the early church just as the Catholics)

Peace

 

[dawid]

I can’t say I agree at all.

Saying Protestants accepted the development of Catholic doctrine like the Trinity is not true. There is nothing one can point to at the time of the council of Nicaea that is not compatible with mainstream Protestants. We still confess the Nicene Creed on numerous occasions. I just think where we differ is that the doctrine of the Trinity is a catholic (small c) doctrine and the Roman Catholic church is overreaching by claiming it for themselves. In other words, If Luther or Calvin was present at the Council they would have stayed catholic (small c). It’s the “development” for example indulgences (in Luther’s case) much later that became the problem.

Further, I can’t understand how one could think (Mainline Protestants as I would not like to be associated with all of them) Protestants will change the NT. One of the biggest arguments for Protestants is that we have the true Bible as translated from St Jerome. And being the Septuagint. By adding or removing will be against one of the foundations. And again why would they, Most of Pauline verses are the very basis for the Reformation?

Also OP referred to the Council of Carthage as binding (Assuming it’s a Catholic council and not a regional catholic (small c) council). (Although the Apocrypha was a appendix as translated by Jerome). Explain to me the Carthage council in 418 which sounds very Protestant and apparently local and non-binding according to a reply I received a while back on some thread. Understand how we Protestants see the discrepancies and and sit back sometimes thinking “well this does not make sense”.

And also having a magisterium and that means being better never did it for me. Forgive me for this but in my opinion it is nothing more than a council of judges who “have” to work according to set rules of law. And we all know how faulty the justice system can be.

Regards

The Catholic Church through the pope at the time declared the canon of the New Testament at the end of the fourth century. The contents of the canon (Gospels and letters) were developed by the members of the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I have it from a protestant source that it was pope Damasus who declared the canon of the NT in about 385 AD though. There was much debate about the content of the NT canon, but it was Damasus’ authority that held sway.

Doctrines such as that of the Trinity were declared under the authority of the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter who received his authority from the Christ.
The Church as referred to as the Catholic Church - the evidence of this is in the letter of the bishop of Antioch in 107 AD. The faithful were therefore members of the Catholic Church.

The Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus and his apostles was the Septuagint which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some centuries earlier. The Septuagint was the standard for the Church. When the protestant reformers questioned the matter, the pope declared the Septuagint to be considered an integral part of the canon of Sacred Scripture.
Evidence of a magisterium is visible in Acts where the bishops discuss matters of faith and doctrine. Initially Peter held the authority to decide where there was uncertainty. This is in line with Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and that Peter could “bind and loose”. Thus the bishop of Rome would be guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and doctrine.

The reformation that you refer to is the protestant reformation. The Catholic Church has had many councils and reformations over the last 2000 years.

Catholic doctrine regards all who were validly baptised as Christians and brothers in the Faith albeit that they are separated by their interpretations of Scripture.

 

[Peter_J]

Didn’t really understand all you meant but I gathered that you agree I have my story straight.

Guess it got awkward. Just didn’t want people to get confused. Just afraid when I say catholic people would think I mean the Roman Church.

Regards

Indeed. I myself will often use an underline, i.e. write “catholic” or “Catholic”, to avoid misunderstanding.

 

[MichaelP3]

The Catholic Church through the pope at the time declared the canon of the New Testament at the end of the fourth century. The contents of the canon (Gospels and letters) were developed by the members of the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I have it from a protestant source that it was pope Damasus who declared the canon of the NT in about 385 AD though. There was much debate about the content of the NT canon, but it was Damasus’ authority that held sway.

Doctrines such as that of the Trinity were declared under the authority of the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter who received his authority from the Christ.
The Church as referred to as the Catholic Church - the evidence of this is in the letter of the bishop of Antioch in 107 AD. The faithful were therefore members of the Catholic Church.

The Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus and his apostles was the Septuagint which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some centuries earlier. The Septuagint was the standard for the Church. When the protestant reformers questioned the matter, the pope declared the Septuagint to be considered an integral part of the canon of Sacred Scripture.
Evidence of a magisterium is visible in Acts where the bishops discuss matters of faith and doctrine. Initially Peter held the authority to decide where there was uncertainty. This is in line with Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and that Peter could “bind and loose”. Thus the bishop of Rome would be guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and doctrine.

The reformation that you refer to is the protestant reformation. The Catholic Church has had many councils and reformations over the last 2000 years.

Catholic doctrine regards all who were validly baptised as Christians and brothers in the Faith albeit that they are separated by their interpretations of Scripture.

Good day

You are opening a whole different subject there as now we can argue the actual authority the Bishop of Rome (which is altogether a very vague non-conclusive one) had. I’d first have to agree there before any can hold weight.

Not sure from your Septuagint passage what I should take? And James was the main man in the Acts part. Peter can’t hold authority there because we want him to. James of Jerusalem was the authoritative figure strangely when Peter was present.

I will gladly agree with the last statement. Reason why I like this forum and people can have “mostly clean” debates.

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

I do think we are maybe a bit off topic. Maybe my fault for first replying to a post about “development” of doctrine.

What I have been trying to get to is that the answer to the main question in this forum cannot be a statements that is already a source for debate (For example it already assumes something).

One should understand certain answers will carry little weight for us in such instances.

Regards

 

[Moonboots]

I do think we are maybe a bit off topic. Maybe my fault for first replying to a post about “development” of doctrine.

What I have been trying to get to is that the answer to the main question in this forum cannot be a statements that is already a source for debate (For example it already assumes something).

One should understand certain answers will carry little weight for us in such instances.

Regards

Without having the time to advance the conversation a ton at this moment, I did want to share one observation. The barometer for whether or not a question assumes something or is a source for debate relies entirely on the perspective with which you approach it.

For instance, if an atheist were to read this conversation, they might consider it an assumption that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, died and rose from the dead, something you and I accept as an absolute truth.

A Protestant may make the underlying assumption that the Canon of Scripture was clear and required no authentication from a divinely commissioned, authoritative source on earth. Catholics would disagree.

In conversations with evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ, I’ve often heard that they approach Christianity “in its pure form, without the added traditions of men.” But we’re all going to approach the elements of Christianity with some measure of tradition - be it Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Baptist et al. It’s unavoidable. Our theology and worldview have to take a stand that either follows a tradition (the “democracy of the dead” as GK Chesterton so affectionately referred to it) or have it come from our own thoughts and feels and ideas.

As to the debate going on in this thread, one of my favorite teachers on it is a modern day philosopher by the name of Peter Kreeft. His full take on it can be found here, but I’ll give the reason that appears to carry the most impact in light of the last 8-10 replies –

Third, sola scriptura violates the principle of causality: that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Church (the apostles) wrote Scripture, and the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Church, decided on the canon, the list of books to be declared scriptural and infallible. If Scripture is infallible, then its cause, the Church, must also be infallible.

The prime source of both of these truths, of course, is God. But it follows that if one is to declare that the Church, under no circumstances, possesses infallibility, then neither can the scriptures possess infallibility (or inerrancy, to be more accurate) without also attributing it to the Church.

Peace,

DK

EDIT: I see as I scroll up that Duane1966 has the exact Chesterton quote I referenced in his signature.

 

[benjohnson]

About fifteen years ago, as a new Lutheran, I was told we got our bibles from Catholics.

Boy oh boy!

Bob sure was shocked when I snatched his Douay–Rheims Bible from his hands and ran away. Ripping out those weird chapters was way too hard - so I borrowed some safety scissors from my youngest.

 

[MichaelP3]

Without having the time to advance the conversation a ton at this moment, I did want to share one observation. The barometer for whether or not a question assumes something or is a source for debate relies entirely on the perspective with which you approach it.

For instance, if an atheist were to read this conversation, they might consider it an assumption that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, died and rose from the dead, something you and I accept as an absolute truth.

A Protestant may make the underlying assumption that the Canon of Scripture was clear and required no authentication from a divinely commissioned, authoritative source on earth. Catholics would disagree.

In conversations with evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ, I’ve often heard that they approach Christianity “in its pure form, without the added traditions of men.” But we’re all going to approach the elements of Christianity with some measure of tradition - be it Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Baptist et al. It’s unavoidable. Our theology and worldview have to take a stand that either follows a tradition (the “democracy of the dead” as GK Chesterton so affectionately referred to it) or have it come from our own thoughts and feels and ideas.

As to the debate going on in this thread, one of my favorite teachers on it is a modern day philosopher by the name of Peter Kreeft. His full take on it can be found here, but I’ll give the reason that appears to carry the most impact in light of the last 8-10 replies –

The prime source of both of these truths, of course, is God. But it follows that if one is to declare that the Church, under no circumstances, possesses infallibility, then neither can the scriptures possess infallibility (or inerrancy, to be more accurate) without also attributing it to the Church.

Peace,

DK

EDIT: I see as I scroll up that Duane1966 has the exact Chesterton quote I referenced in his signature.

I should say you have a point in your first sentence. But that’s exactly why you won’t approach an Atheist in the same way. You won’t convince him by saying he will go to heaven because Jesus died on the cross or whatever. He will think well so what, what makes Jesus so special?. Thus you assumed he already believe in Jesus like we do.

Just like trying to argue with me about the assumption of Mary by stating a reason would be that she was without sin. That would not be a reason for me and thus I guess we would move a step back to sort that one out first.

In your final quote, there is an assumption again. That the Catholic Church is the same one who wrote the scriptures. We won’t deny there is a Church but again that’s another one that sets us apart on what “Church” would mean.

Thanks for the response

 

[Duane1966]

Peace Brother

Your comment would have made sense if any of those you mentioned could be substantiated. And even if, was it a uniform agreed upon belief?

So all I can say is nope, Argument still stand and you will need to try again.
(And you understand me wrong, my arguments purpose isn’t saying Protestants are the early church. It’s to say the Roman Catholic church is not the same, Protestants are as far apart from the early church just as the Catholics)

Peace

And you would be wrong again.

We can easily see the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Didache. Just as important many early church fathers write about the Mass as sacrifice. Can you show me one early Christian document that disputes the sacrificial nature of the Mass? You will be hard pressed to find one. Your argument fails here.

The Real Presence? The Protestant historians Kelly and Stone admit that belief in the Real Presence was universally held in the Church, with no challenges to the doctrine for a 1000 years. Can you show me any non-Gnostic writings that deny the Real Presence? I can tell you, Kelly said you will not find one. Your argument also fails here.

Justification by faith alone? As I said earlier, the Protestant historian McGrath admitted that the concept was totally foreign to Christianity for 1500 years. While some early fathers do use the term faith alone, McGrath states that it is never in the faith alone sense that the Reformers had.

Indulgences? Look at the writings of St. Cyprian, predating Nicaea by at least 75 years. And other early church fathers. Can you show me writings from early Christianity against the doctrine of indulgences?

I can list more.

Peace Brother.

 

[MichaelP3]

And you would be wrong again.

We can easily see the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Didache. Just as important many early church fathers write about the Mass as sacrifice. Can you show me one early Christian document that disputes the sacrificial nature of the Mass? You will be hard pressed to find one. Your argument fails here.

The Real Presence? The Protestant historians Kelly and Stone admit that belief in the Real Presence was universally held in the Church, with no challenges to the doctrine for a 1000 years. Can you show me any non-Gnostic writings that deny the Real Presence? I can tell you, Kelly said you will not find one. Your argument also fails here.

Justification by faith alone? As I said earlier, the Protestant historian McGrath admitted that the concept was totally foreign to Christianity for 1500 years. While some early fathers do use the term faith alone, McGrath states that it is never in the faith alone sense that the Reformers had.

Indulgences? Look at the writings of St. Cyprian, predating Nicaea by at least 75 years. And other early church fathers. Can you show me writings from early Christianity against the doctrine of indulgences?

I can list more.

Peace Brother.

You make it sound like I want to convince you or something. Anyway, I was the one making the statement first, you will need to come with the affirmative, and not just state things and ask me to refute them. So you show me the early fathers and we work from there. So yea, try again.

Anyhow, I was on a thread earlier can’t really remember the name where they had a debate on what Augustine meant. Seemed Catholics where hard pressed to prove he believed in the real presence without reading into things.

Sorry, got to run. Seems you have some research to do

Peace out

 

[MichaelP3]

And you would be wrong again.

We can easily see the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Didache. Just as important many early church fathers write about the Mass as sacrifice. Can you show me one early Christian document that disputes the sacrificial nature of the Mass? You will be hard pressed to find one. Your argument fails here.

The Real Presence? The Protestant historians Kelly and Stone admit that belief in the Real Presence was universally held in the Church, with no challenges to the doctrine for a 1000 years. Can you show me any non-Gnostic writings that deny the Real Presence? I can tell you, Kelly said you will not find one. Your argument also fails here.

Justification by faith alone? As I said earlier, the Protestant historian McGrath admitted that the concept was totally foreign to Christianity for 1500 years. While some early fathers do use the term faith alone, McGrath states that it is never in the faith alone sense that the Reformers had.

Indulgences? Look at the writings of St. Cyprian, predating Nicaea by at least 75 years. And other early church fathers. Can you show me writings from early Christianity against the doctrine of indulgences?

I can list more.

Peace Brother.

I had a look at the Didache and St Cyrpian. Please direct me to the parts you refer to.

 

[Duane1966]

You make it sound like I want to convince you or something. Anyway, I was the one making the statement first, you will need to come with the affirmative, and not just state things and ask me to refute them. So you show me the early fathers and we work from there. So yea, try again.

Anyhow, I was on a thread earlier can’t really remember the name where they had a debate on what Augustine meant. Seemed Catholics where hard pressed to prove he believed in the real presence without reading into things.

Sorry, got to run. Seems you have some research to do

Peace out

No problem. Research done already. I will address the Augustine one first.

PROGRESS IN EUCHARISTIC DOCTRINE from Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

"In the third century the early Christian identification of the eucharistic bread and wine with the Lord’s body and blood continued unchanged, although a difference of approach can be detected in East and West. The outline, too, of a** more considered theology of the eucharistic sacrifice begins to appear ****. In the West the equation of the consecrated elements with the body and blood was quite straightforward, although the fact that the presence is sacramental was never forgotten. Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes [E.g. de orat. 19; de idol. 7] the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks [De pud. 9], ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the eucharist.’ The REALISM of his theology comes to light in the argument [De res. carn. 8], based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the eucharist ‘the flesh feeds on Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s BODY and BLOOD are as REAL as the baptismal WATER." (Kelly, pg 211)

So says J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford scholar and one of the greatest Protestant patristic scholars of the 20th century. Schaff may have been good last century, but his accounts on the Eucharist are incomplete and misleading. Further, Kelly goes on to say concerning -figura- –

"Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms ‘body’ and ‘blood’ may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [E.g. C. Marc. 3,19; 4,40] to the bread as ‘a figure’ (figura) of Christ’s body, and once speaks [Ibid I,14: cf. Hippolytus, apost. trad. 32,3] of ‘the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.’

**"YET WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT INTERPRETING SUCH EXPRESSIONS IN A MODERN FASHION. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense WAS the thing symbolized. Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian’s vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of ‘to make PRESENT.’

"All that his language really suggests is that, while accepting the EQUATION of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them [as do Catholics today – see the Catechism, paragraphs 1333ff].**

“In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of -figura-, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are NOW Christ’s body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine.” (JND Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, page 212) Stone:

"As regards the early Church it may be confidently stated that the notions suggested by words meaning ‘symbol’ would differ in important respects from those which like words would suggest to an ordinary Englishman or German of today. Dr. Harnack has stated a crucial difference with great clearness.

’What we nowadays,’ he writes, ‘understand by “symbol” is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time “symbol” denoted a thing which in some kind of way REALLY IS what it signifies…What we now call “symbol” is something wholly different from what was so called by the ancient Church.’ [HISTORY OF DOGMA, ii,144;iv,289]

So now we know from two leading Protestant scholars that the word figure in the early Church is not how we use figurative today, but more nearly to actual and distinctive nature. This now puts St. Augustine’s passage in a new light.

And this is easy to see that St. Augustine believes in the concept of transubstantiation, when he commands adoration of the Eucharist. Adoration is a form of worship. Unless St. Augustine believes the Eucharist has fully changed and become God, **HE WOULD BE COMMANDING IDOLATRY. **

 

[Duane1966]

I had a look at the Didache and St Cyrpian. Please direct me to the parts you refer to.

The Didache

Assemble on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist: but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23—24].** For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, “Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled**6, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations” [Mal. 1:11, 14] (Didache 14 [A.D. 70).

Clement of Rome

Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4-5 [A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his blood, and one single altar of sacrifice —even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: “I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles” [Mal. 1:10-11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist (Dialogue with Trypho 41 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, “This is my body.” The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: “You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will no accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty” [Mal. 1:10-11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. I89]).

Cyprian

If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ (Letters 63:14 [A.D 253]).

 

[Duane1966]

I had a look at the Didache and St Cyrpian. Please direct me to the parts you refer to.

250 A.D. - St. Cyprian - “[A]ccording to your diligence…designate those by name to whom you desire that peace should be granted. For I hear that certificates [of indulgence] are [too freely] given.” (Letter 10 or 15 Paragraph 4)

And (250 A.D.): “[W]hen some of the lapsed…[demanded] the peace that had been promised to them by the martyrs and confessors…I wrote twice to the clergy…[that] if any who had received a certificate [of indulgence] from the martyrs were departing from this life, having made confession, and received the imposition of hands on them for repentance, they should be remitted to the Lord with the peace promised them by the martyrs.” (Letter 14 or 20 Paragraph 3)

251 A.D. - St. Cyprian - “…Certainly we believe that the merits of the martyrs and the works of the just will be of great avail with the Judge…” (The Lapsed, 17)

314 A.D. - Council of Ancyra - “[T]he bishops have the right, after considering the character of [a sinner’s] conversion, either to deal with them more leniently, or to extend the time [of penance]. But, first of all, let their life before and since be thoroughly examined, and let the indulgence be determined accordingly.” (Canon 5)

314 A.D. - Council of Arles - “Concerning those who carry letters from the confessors, be it resolved that, when they have handed over those letters, they receive other letters of reference.” (Canon 10 or 9)

325 A.D. - The First Ecumenical Council - “[Some sinners], after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, [must] be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds…when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine yet more favourably concerning them.” (Canon 12)