ECF's did they follow current doctrine?

[HailMary]

Are you saying the priest himself doesn’t mystically perform the changing of bread to actual body? its by your faith?

I’m not going to ask how you arrived at the conclusion because no where is it even implied.

H-mary, I have read Auggie. Have you?
I always appreciate making the forum personal that shows great skill.

Yes.

Personal? I’m stating the reality of the situation that its takes dedication to come up anti-catholic arguments using the fathers. Only one with an agenda in mind will come up with the conclusion you suggest. Thats all.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

He believed Peter was Pope:

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

The succession Augustine is talking about has nothing to do with the claim of Rome’s to supreme rulership of the church.

Auggie didn’t, as is proved by his writings and his actions in the Pelagian controversy and his rebuffing Zosimus when he demanded that Augustine and the African Church rescind it’s charges and condemnation of Pelagius and his disciples as heretics, which Augustine staunchly refused and forced Zosimus to recant of his approval of Pelagius as “orthodox”.

If Augustine believed the pope of Rome was the supreme ruler to be submitted to and obeyed he sure had a funny way of showing it, for Augustine was ready, willing and more than able to charge Zosimus and condemn him for heresy while he was supporting and promoting Pelagius.

Quit quoting HIM OUT OF CONTEXT, as an attempt to make it look like He supported a Roman papal supremacy, you are trying to make it appear to be something it is not.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

JOHN 6
Augustine
When Jesus spoke the words of John 6, the eucharist hadn’t yet been instituted. He said that He is the bread of life, and that people are responsible for eating His flesh and drinking His blood, even though there was no eucharist yet. He identified the eating and drinking for us in verse 35, and it isn’t participation in a transubstantiated eucharist.

Some of the church fathers, even some who believed in a type of presence of Christ in the eucharist, rejected the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6. For example:

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Penitus,
Where’d ya go?
Doing a crash study on Pope Z?

 

[Truthstalker]

Hi guys! been awhile since i’ve been here, wanted to ask what you thought? I’ve been working my way through their writings, and I sure see a big difference between your current doctrines and theirs… It seems maybe ignatius and polycarp are the closest and the rest would seem to be considered heretical; by nowaday standards…
What say you???

I’m reading through the ECF as well. I work with what I call the “envelope”: what things possibly could be in the envelope, and what cannot be in it. Of particular interest are things that are emphatically refuted or affirmed, but side comments can be equally fascinating. Since they were unacquainted, naturally, with the theological arguments that developed long after they died, we cannot expect them to spit out the Catholic Catechism with numbered references. We can, however, get an idea as to what the sense of the church was at the time they were writing, and that from several perspectives.

One is that to take the time to write, they thought it was something important enough to take the time to write about. Clement of Alexandria spends much time on things in the Instructor no one bothers with today, yet you can find references to Mary and the Eucharist, as well as other issues. Does he lament the falling away of the church from the pure gospel? No. Does he mention in passing the ever-virginity of Mary as fact, not even a matter of debate? Yes. Does he state that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, and then turn around with a passage that could be symbolic or could be the literal? Yes. And so we see an envelope forming, one in which Mary is ever-virgin, which would mean some extraordinary went on in her life. He bought into that stuff early on that Protestants so earnestly detest. Many of his passages could be written by a Catholic today, and many could be written by say a Presbyterian, but then you find passages that could only be written by a Catholic or an Orthodox, but never by a Presbyterian. And so it goes, and as I read I find the envelope alarmingly Catholic. Some things can be taken as from a Presbyterian position, for example, but there always seems to be a way that it can be taken from a Catholic position as well. The exclusion of a Catholic position in a passage is a rarity; the exclusion of other positions is more a matter of course. And the drift, as I go on in my reading, that I expect to find, is a more and a more Catholic approach. More energy seems to be required to fit some things into a Protestant position than to take things as from a Catholic view, which seems very natural to some of the ECFs.

I can find sentences and paragraphs than may defend a particular Protestant viewpoint, but the majority of the paragraphs and writings seem to be more Catholic. Sentences can be used to justifiy a Protestant view, while others are out-and-out Catholic.

Heretical? No. Bear in mind that countless Catholic scholars have been reading the ECFs for centuries when they consider theological issues. They are aware of the consensus of the ECFs, and Catholic theology is formed not fraudulently but with regard to everything they can think of.

Bear in mind there is a LOT of ECF material, some of it hard to understand, and a lot of really smart people have been reading it, meditating about it, and praying about it ever since it was written. For you to say that you can find a contradiction between them and Catholic theology means you understand both better than the Catholic theologians who wrote theology and the ECFs, and that you have a grasp of the consensus of all the ECFs. I am not convinced that your humility is at such a deficit that you are willing to make that claim.

 

[4given]

Regardless of the fact that smart people have been reading and studying ECF material since it was written, does that mean someone else can’t have the opinion that the statements of at least some of them contradict Catholic theology? Have only Catholics been studying this material or other smart people who are non-Catholics and have come to different conclusions?

 

[Truthstalker]

Regardless of the fact that smart people have been reading and studying ECF material since it was written, does that mean someone else can’t have the opinion that the statements of at least some of them contradict Catholic theology? Have only Catholics been studying this material or other smart people who are non-Catholics and have come to different conclusions?

There are a lot of smart people out there, including some reading this, and there are ECF quotes that contradict Catholic theology. I will grant that.

 

[4given]

It’s nice that you admit that.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I’m reading through the ECF as well. I work with what I call the “envelope”: what things possibly could be in the envelope, and what cannot be in it. Of particular interest are things that are emphatically refuted or affirmed, but side comments can be equally fascinating. Since they were unacquainted, naturally, with the theological arguments that developed long after they died, we cannot expect them to spit out the Catholic Catechism with numbered references. We can, however, get an idea as to what the sense of the church was at the time they were writing, and that from several perspectives.

One is that to take the time to write, they thought it was something important enough to take the time to write about. Clement of Alexandria spends much time on things in the Instructor no one bothers with today, yet you can find references to Mary and the Eucharist, as well as other issues. Does he lament the falling away of the church from the pure gospel? No. Does he mention in passing the ever-virginity of Mary as fact, not even a matter of debate? Yes. Does he state that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, and then turn around with a passage that could be symbolic or could be the literal? Yes. And so we see an envelope forming, one in which Mary is ever-virgin, which would mean some extraordinary went on in her life. He bought into that stuff early on that Protestants so earnestly detest. Many of his passages could be written by a Catholic today, and many could be written by say a Presbyterian, but then you find passages that could only be written by a Catholic or an Orthodox, but never by a Presbyterian. And so it goes, and as I read I find the envelope alarmingly Catholic. Some things can be taken as from a Presbyterian position, for example, but there always seems to be a way that it can be taken from a Catholic position as well. The exclusion of a Catholic position in a passage is a rarity; the exclusion of other positions is more a matter of course. And the drift, as I go on in my reading, that I expect to find, is a more and a more Catholic approach. More energy seems to be required to fit some things into a Protestant position than to take things as from a Catholic view, which seems very natural to some of the ECFs.

I can find sentences and paragraphs than may defend a particular Protestant viewpoint, but the majority of the paragraphs and writings seem to be more Catholic. Sentences can be used to justifiy a Protestant view, while others are out-and-out Catholic.

Heretical? No. Bear in mind that countless Catholic scholars have been reading the ECFs for centuries when they consider theological issues. They are aware of the consensus of the ECFs, and Catholic theology is formed not fraudulently but with regard to everything they can think of.

Bear in mind there is a LOT of ECF material, some of it hard to understand, and a lot of really smart people have been reading it, meditating about it, and praying about it ever since it was written. For you to say that you can find a contradiction between them and Catholic theology means you understand both better than the Catholic theologians who wrote theology and the ECFs, and that you have a grasp of the consensus of all the ECFs. I am not convinced that your humility is at such a deficit that you are willing to make that claim.

Eloquently written, but the facts are this over and over the Roman catechism states things especially in trent that these are things that have been known for all time… It’s just not true.
And to say I see a contradiction isn’t putting myself above anything, they read it from a defending Catholocism lens. If they are a Catholic theologian chances are they are biased to that train of thought.
There are hundreds that outright contradict Catholocism… and for any apologist to pretend they don’t is downright deceit.

 

[Truthstalker]

Welcome to the forums.

Sometimes this place is more like a gladiatorial arena, but the people are really really nice. Mostly. And knowledgeable. And the mods are fair.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

It’s nice that you admit that.

truth is a lil more honest than many I see, but wiley with his wording giving ya a hard time truth, You seem cool like notworthy he’s a good man.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Welcome to the forums.

Sometimes this place is more like a gladiatorial arena, but the people are really really nice. Mostly. And knowledgeable. And the mods are fair.

I guess if speaking of Auggie, I can count at least 26 notes of him straight out or nearly straight out not following practicing or acknowledging RCC doctrines as we know it, yet the catechism claims it been practiced for all time. How does a catholic defend this?
I’ll grab some samples when I have a chance.

 

[alexaustralia]

Let me apologise for not providing references…I am at work and copied one of my previous responses…if any one asks I shall provide it.

This is from Agustine regarding the Eucharist

“For I promised you, who have been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. 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, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in the chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ”

“For he received earth from earth, because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless he first adores it; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; and not only do we not sin by adoring, we do sin by not adoring.”

Alex

 

[myfavoritmartin]

On the eucharist…
Augustine
Augustine believed in a eucharistic presence, but he defined that presence in a way that contradicts transubstantiation. For example:
“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, ‘Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,’ although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, ‘This day the Lord rose from the dead,’ although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood,’ in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.” (Letter 98:9)

Augustine compares the eucharist to a holiday in that it has some similarities to what it symbolizes, but it isn’t the same thing.

He says elsewhere:
“But He instructed them, and saith unto them, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.” (Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8)

Elsewhere, Augustine denies that there is any bodily presence of Christ in the church today:

“It may be also understood in this way: ‘The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.’ The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, ‘Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.’ But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, ‘ye will not have Him always.’ And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, ‘Me ye will not have always.’ In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes.” (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)

Sounds a lil like the lutherans?

Here’s a lil more he said on the eucharist, doesn’t quite jive with Rome

 

[myfavoritmartin]

JOHN 6
Augustine
When Jesus spoke the words of John 6, the eucharist hadn’t yet been instituted. He said that He is the bread of life, and that people are responsible for eating His flesh and drinking His blood, even though there was no eucharist yet. He identified the eating and drinking for us in verse 35, and it isn’t participation in a transubstantiated eucharist.

Some of the church fathers, even some who believed in a type of presence of Christ in the eucharist, rejected the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6. For example:

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

And read here how Auggie says its figurative.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Let me apologise for not providing references…I am at work and copied one of my previous responses…if any one asks I shall provide it.

This is from Agustine regarding the Eucharist

Alex

Re-read the quotes you left, replace your thought process from it meaning literal to it being figurative… Surprisingly to you it works well,right? especially if understand how Christ meant it figuratively.

 

[Truthstalker]

Very simply, Augustine is not regarded on par with Scripture or Tradition. He is one writer, and however authoritative, he is still below the level of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. For this reason these quotes don’t bother the Catholics a bit. They also need to be looked at in context, not only their immediate context, but in the context of all that Augustine wrote and in the context of all the ECFs and what the Church said about them authoritatively.

So even if you provide a quote that says Augustine advocated devil-worship, and showed how the Catholic Church is against it, it wouldn’t change a thing.

You would probably do better to examine the councilar and papal decrees and come up with some contradictions that Catholics cannot answer, if you can. I think that would be a more profitable discussion than the current one.

 

[Atreyu]

On the eucharist…
Augustine
Augustine believed in a eucharistic presence, but he defined that presence in a way that contradicts transubstantiation. For example:
“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, ‘Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,’ although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, ‘This day the Lord rose from the dead,’ although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood,’ in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.” (Letter 98:9)

snip

“It may be also understood in this way: ‘The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.’ The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, ‘Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.’ But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, ‘ye will not have Him always.’ And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, ‘Me ye will not have always.’ In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes.” (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)

Sounds a lil like the lutherans?

Did you get all this from this page Martin?

Now you admit that the writings you have quoted of Augustine’s sounds like the theology of Lutheranism. I find that quite interesting. You do know that Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, correct? The only difference is that they believe that Christ is present along with the substance of the bread and wine, whereas Catholics believe that Christ’s presence replaces the substance of the bread and wine. I don’t see anything in Augustine’s writings above that addresses transubstantiation versus consubstantiation.

In fact if you take these three quotes of Augustine’s together, to me it sounds like he is saying something like the following:

Christ is present in the Eucharist but not in the same way that he was present when he was bodily here on Earth

Do you agree with this interpretation? If so, how does this contradict transubstantiation?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Very simply, Augustine is not regarded on par with Scripture or Tradition. He is one writer, and however authoritative, he is still below the level of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.

So its agreed you guys will quit quoting him?

For this reason these quotes don’t bother the Catholics a bit.

Ya gotta be kidding me if I thought ML all this time thought faith alone saved and then came to realize he believed he could do things to get himself a better chance to be saved I’d be devastated. C’MON

They also need to be looked at in context, not only their immediate context, but in the context of all that Augustine wrote and in the context of all the ECFs and what the Church said about them authoritatively.

The point is that the church said these things have always been so you based on that premise should be able to take Auggie at his word, right?

So even if you provide a quote that says Augustine advocated devil-worship, and showed how the Catholic Church is against it, it wouldn’t change a thing.

That is an unfair comparison as you all value the words of auggie, and even use him to defend your faith… You willing to quit using him and other ecf’s as a defense of faith?

You would probably do better to examine the councilar and papal decrees and come up with some contradictions that Catholics cannot answer, if you can. I think that would be a more profitable discussion than the current one.

If this thread plays out long enough b4 Michael locks it up we’ll go through this too.

 

[Atreyu]

Let’s look a little bit more at Augustine’s Exposition on Psalm 99, chapter 8, quoted by you in post #76. Here is some context:

Augustine:

And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But doth the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.” . . . But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, “Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him.” Some disciples of His, about seventy? were offended, and said, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritu ally [sic] what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.

The emphasis is the error that Augustine is refuting here, and is contrary to Catholic doctrine on transubstantiation. It is interesting that some Protestant theologians bring up the exact same argument against the Catholic teaching today.