For those who say the Bible is "sufficient" for salvation

[stmaria]

And I can anticipate your response, “we’re the only ones that have been consistent doctrinally.” Well, that’s an opinion. And it is also based on the principle that the RCC can come up with new stuff as it “becomes more clear” and “more is revealed.” There are RCC doctrines that cannot be historically verified to the time of Jesus – e.g., the Immaculate Conception in the 390s. Protestants would call that belief – that only the RCC can receive divine revelation – unscriptural. So, again, doctrinal consistency is arguable.

How do you interpret this?

John 14:26 “The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will instruct you in everything, and remind you of all that I told you”

King James translation John 14: 26 “ But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have said unto you”

It is clear that Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit to instruct/teach us all things. How can it be possible that the Holy Spirit instructs all 33,000 denominations of Christianity. Alll have different beliefs. It can only be that the Holy Spirit intructs/teaches only ONE Church and this is accomplished thru Divine revelation thru the Pope who is the vicar of Christ and was given the " keys to the kingdom of heaven".

Mathew 16:18-10 “And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.** And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven**, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Keys of Heaven
members.aol.com/joyinliving7/keys2.html

 

[Metaron]

How do you interpret this?

John 14:26 “The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will instruct you in everything, and remind you of all that I told you”

King James translation John 14: 26 “ But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have said unto you”

It is clear that Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit to instruct/teach us all things. How can it be possible that the Holy Spirit instructs all 33,000 denominations of Christianity. Alll have different beliefs. It can only be that the Holy Spirit intructs/teaches only ONE Church and this is accomplished thru Divine revelation thru the Pope who is the vicar of Christ and was given the " keys to the kingdom of heaven".

Mathew 16:18-10 “And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.** And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven**, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Keys of Heaven
members.aol.com/joyinliving7/keys2.html

Awesome rebuttal, St.Maria. Christianity was never supposed to be an every-pastor-for-himself game.

 

[Fisher]

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, **and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: **

 

[justasking4]

How do you interpret this?

John 14:26 “The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will instruct you in everything, and remind you of all that I told you”

King James translation John 14: 26 “ But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have said unto you”

It is clear that Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit to instruct/teach us all things. How can it be possible that the Holy Spirit instructs all 33,000 denominations of Christianity. Alll have different beliefs. It can only be that the Holy Spirit intructs/teaches only ONE Church and this is accomplished thru Divine revelation thru the Pope who is the vicar of Christ and was given the " keys to the kingdom of heaven".

Mathew 16:18-10 “And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.** And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven**, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Keys of Heaven
members.aol.com/joyinliving7/keys2.html

Where is the offical-infallible interpretation of John 14:26 by the catholic church? I’d like to see it so i can know what this verse means.

For one i would like to know what Jesus meant by the Spirit would teach “them” i.e. **the apostles **“all things”.

 

[justinthemartyr]

All things necessary for salvation.(matters of faith and morals)

God has revealed the fullness of Truth to His one Church, in that you have all Truth concerning salvation available to you within this one Church, the body of Christ.

The church’s teachings concerning faith and morals are infallible. Any other faith that teaches any bit of Truth is a mere shadow of the Truth which the Church already holds.

 

[justasking4]

All things necessary for salvation.(matters of faith and morals)

God has revealed the fullness of Truth to His one Church, in that you have all Truth concerning salvation available to you within this one Church, the body of Christ.

The church’s teachings concerning faith and morals are infallible. Any other faith that teaches any bit of Truth is a mere shadow of the Truth which the Church already holds.

Must a person believe in the Marian doctrines i.e. conceived without sin, sinless life, assumned into heaven to be saved?

 

[mgrfin]

The inspired word of God is not “accurate”? I thought we were in agreement on that, I guess not. Also, I don’t have a problem with Tradition, I really don’t. The problem is equating Tradition with scripture. It cannot be done for the reasons I’ve stated repeatedly, for which I’ve begged a response, and have yet to get one. That is why I plead evasiveness … and not just you. But, I will give you a break since you called me out and everything.

I know I am coming in this discussion somewhat late, but you say the problem is equating Tradition with scripture. You say it cannot be done, for reasons you’ve stated repeatedly.

I have not found your reasons, and I would be interested to hear them.

As for me, the only certain guide as to the inspiration and canonicity of all the books of Sacred Scripture is the authorative prouncement of the Church. “I should not believe the gospel,”, says St. Augustine, maybe the greatest of the Doctors of the Church, “unless I were impelled thereto by the authority of the Catholic Church”.

Now if you have something that the Doctor of Grace didn’t have, I for one, would like to hear it.

Gaudete

 

[RomanPL]

I’m not sure if I should be flattered or upset that you compared me to the devil You’re starting to sound like some of my southern baptist relatives.

It wasn’t meant to be at you or anybody personally. It is a simple observation of facts. Reforming the church in places that the reform is needed is a good thing - it has been done many times. It started with Jesus forming his Apostles that were fighting for example for a place on His right and left, selling Him out, denying Him, etc.
Dividing the Jesus’ Church was never a good thing and Jesus spoke about it very clearly. It is “legal” to start a church in your garage and “register” it when you have 100 people or more but how can people who do that keep claiming that this is Jesus’ Church? Most things look good and yet somebody is denied the crucial parts - SACRAMENTS. Jesus spoke about those coming in the skin of the sheep. Simple biblical observations.

 

[mgrfin]

You’re assuming the RCC was the first church. That’s a big assumption. I’m saying the Christian Church existed, but it’s no more provable that this church was the current version of the RCC than any current Protestant denomination. We all trace our history to Jesus. Our interpretation of history is obviously skewed to suit our own doctrinal beliefs. I’m sure there are other threads discussing this topic.

And I can anticipate your response, “we’re the only ones that have been consistent doctrinally.” Well, that’s an opinion. And it is also based on the principle that the RCC can come up with new stuff as it “becomes more clear” and “more is revealed.” There are RCC doctrines that cannot be historically verified to the time of Jesus – e.g., the Immaculate Conception in the 390s. Protestants would call that belief – that only the RCC can receive divine revelation – unscriptural. So, again, doctrinal consistency is arguable.

You seem to want to say that the Christian Church existed before the Catholic Church?

I don’t know who these Christians were if they were not Catholics.
It is Catholics and who else?

It makes you feel good that your christian community was included in this grouping of Christians in these earliest of centuries of church history.

I have no problem with you trying to belong to our church at that time, after all, saying that your grouping was man-made is not very consoling.

Keep saying it, but that won’t make it true. Catholics were the only ones around in the first five centuries. Other christian communities we have today just weren’t there.

It is not an assumption that the Catholic Church was the first church. It was. Maybe I’ve missed out on your proofs about your church or some of the other protestant churches. Just list them for me, please.

Gaudete

 

[justinthemartyr]

Krocker has yet to prove anything concerning another church in the first 10 centuries that remotely resembles what he/she believes.

I have asked for their writings concerning the scriptures, their sermons, their theologians names, their doctors names, their opponenets writings concerning them.

Krocker claims much yet shows little.

 

[revelations]

FOR ALL THE BIBLE CHRISTIANS AND ANTI-CATHS OUT THERE:

Hi, this must be the umpt-millionth conversation about this and I think it needs to be settled. There are two key things that have to be agreed upon:

1. You don’t need a bible to get to heaven. I think personally if the ECF had known the divisions the Bible would cause in the future they would have abstained from writing it. Do the people who can’t read in Africa need a bible to be saved? If I have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, and heard the good news that he is risen and i have him in my heart, am i still going to hell if i don’t have a KJV on the night stand? NO. Where in the bible is it obligated of anyone to read the whole thing.
2. The bible is a catholic book no matter which way you cut it. I challenge anyone to trace back the roots of their translation and they will find that it goes directly back to the Vatican. Now, what is unique about the Catholic church is that we put our Dogma out on the line. If one teaching, even the smallest non-significant one, is shown to be false the whole house of cards comes toppling down.

Now, #2 especially has interesting results. Some of the non-biblical teachings of the Catholic church are: the divinity of Christ, the trinity, purgatory, and Hell. These things are never fully hashed out in the bible, only alluded to. Without the revelation of the Vatican no one would have ever reasoned the trinity. The interesting thing is that the bible also is a teaching of the Catholic church.

So, now all of you who attack the Eucharist saying it is invalid, or that the Papacy is invalid, well i say to you that you had better throw away your bibles too. BECAUSE if any one teaching is wrong (the Eucharist, the popes primacy, etc) then the BIBLE IS WRONG TOO. Which makes no sense.

-revelations

 

[Krocker]

Holy smokes. I unsubscribed to this thread, but accidentally hit it on my website history. You guys have gotten awfully nasty since my last post. I applaud your dedication to your particular faith, but I still struggle with the fervor you have toward anything that isn’t Catholic to a tee. And, I know some protestants do it too, but for crying out loud let it go just a little bit. People disagree with you, that’s all there is to it. If you could “prove” any of this stuff, there wouldn’t be disagreement would there? That’s the whole point. It can’t be proven without extreme faith in your particular beliefs, and that goes for Protestants and Catholics.

Revelations, I think you oversimplify to say the Bible is a Catholic book. In a best case scenario, Catholics may have decided what books would be in what we now call the Bible, but there is no possible way of proving that the authors ascribed to what modern-day Catholocism has become. And you know what, I know you’ll disagree and that’s fine, but until you can prove this sweeping generalization – which can only be done if you know the individual thoughts and beliefs of Paul, Peter, and all Christ followers of the time, you should give it a rest. Believe what you want, but you’re not going to convince anybody by claiming the starting point is ALL CATHOLIC ALL THE TIME.

And, you’re right about the house of cards analogy. If one thing is “wrong,” it all topples down. This is why I think it’s interesting that “we’re only infallible sometimes,” “some of our clear teachings are not ‘official’ teachings,” and “we only have the Truth revealed, not all the Truth.” To me, these are cop-outs, and ways to get around what inevitably happens when the human condition is compared to our flawless God – error. You can believe you’re without error, but I assure you that you’re the only ones.

How would you respond if a Protestant said he or she is without error, by the power of God? You wouldn’t like it, and you would ask for proof.

How would you respond if a Protestant said, with sweeping generalities, Peter and Paul ascribed to beliefs more aking to current-day protestantism than current-day catholocism? You wouldn’t like it, and you would ask for proof.

How would you respond if you accuse a protestant that – the Bible doesn’t say you shouldn’t drink, and the protestant’s response is, “well my faith builds over time and I’ve had enough revelation to discern that ‘wine’ really meant ‘grape juice’”? You wouldn’t like it, and you would ask for proof.

How would you respond if every “hole” you punctured in the protestant belief was simply addressed with “but you don’t understand our Holy tradition”? You wouldn’t like it, and you would ask for proof.

How would you like it if a protestant taught something for 1600 years, then stresses that those teachings weren’t necessarily right and said we never “officially” taught that anyway? You wouldn’t like it, and you would ask for proof.

How would you like it if a protestant belief could be factually proven inaccurate, but protestants simply said “you have to have faith to overcome that factual incapability?” You wouldn’t like, and you would ask for proof.

How would you like it if a protestant said its writings were “proof” of interpretations that existed since the time of Jesus, despite being centuries after Christ even lived? You wouldn’t like it, and you would ask for proof.

I can go on and on. The bottom line is, nobody’s Christian beliefs can be entirely proven factually. If that were the case, everybody on the face of the earth would be Christian. If that were the case, every Christian would be Catholic. Do you think Protestants are evil? Do you think they aren’t struggling to do God’s word just as Catholics are? Do you think they’re just trying to be a big pain in your side? Of course not. They just need more “proof” than you’ve been willing to accept as sufficient.

In my opinion, the biggest difference between Catholics and Protestants is that protestants know they’re human and will falter. Catholics claim divinity (in the only area that matters – faith and morals). Since this divinity cannot be proven, I’ll choose to disagree. And you know what, if you disagree, PROVE me wrong. Otherwise, get over it.

 

[stmaria]

Where is the offical-infallible interpretation of John 14:26 by the catholic church? I’d like to see it so i can know what this verse means.

For one i would like to know what Jesus meant by the Spirit would teach “them” i.e. **the apostles **“all things”.

John 14:26 “The Paraclete, **the Holy Spirit **whom the Father will send in my name, **will instruct you **in everything, and remind you of all that I told you”

King James translation John 14: 26 “ But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom **the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, **and bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have said unto you”

Jesus knew that he would soon be leaving this world so he established His Church. He established it with a heirarchy. He gave Peter and therfore all of his successors {later called Pontiff or Pope which means bridge as in a bridge between this world and the next] the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
He promised that he would send His Church the Holy Spirit to guide, instruct, to teach. He knew that in the future there would be questions that needed to be answered by someone with authority. He knew that someone in authority would be needed to interpret His words that would be recorded in the Bible.
Only the Catholic Church has the Keys to the Kindgom of Heaven. Her teachings are Christ’s teachings. Only the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret the Bible. The Catholic Church is the only Divinely revealed religion.
The Holy Spirit DOES NOT instruct any other denomination or person. THis would go against the words of Christ. The Pope and the Bishops have Apostolic Succession.
Here are a few writings of different Popes, as successors of Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit have said on this matter. I know you will reject these words because as a protestant you must. IIf you accept them as being guided by the Holy Spirt then you should accept them

.
*ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH *
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
JUNE 29, 1896

1. …. Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: “I believe in one Church.” "The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts…We say, therefore, that the Catholic Church is unique in its essence, in its doctrine, in its origin, and in its excellence… For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, mentions only one Church, which he calls His own - "I will build my church; " any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ, cannot be the true Church.
   *UBI PRIMUM *
   ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XII
   ON HIS ASSUMING THE PONTIFICATE
   MAY 5, 1824
   14……. It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members”
   Pius IX’s encyclical
   *Quanto Conficiamur Moerore *
2. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Again, Krocker has said a lot of words that sound good on the surface but cannot back up anything he/she said.

We simply asked where are the churches preaching your beliefs in the first 10 centuries? the first 15.25 centuries?

Did God mislead the entire world into believing the One Church was Catholic for the first 1521 years?

Show me your church and their teachings in every century as it applies to their interpretation of scripture.

The Bible did not exist until 382ad.
The Nt was not even brought together to be studied as a whole until 179 ad.

what did Christians do before this? Do you have any historical proofs to show us that can give us an idea of what the church did during this time to spread the gospel and WHO did the spreading of the Gospel?

why would God utilize the one church to write the NT, protect it, canonize it and the canonize the OT if it were not the One True Church that He led into all Truth by the Power of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Krocker]

Again, Krocker has said a lot of words that sound good on the surface but cannot back up anything he/she said.

We simply asked where are the churches preaching your beliefs in the first 10 centuries? the first 15.25 centuries?

Did God mislead the entire world into believing the One Church was Catholic for the first 1521 years?

Show me your church and their teachings in every century as it applies to their interpretation of scripture.

The Bible did not exist until 382ad.
The Nt was not even brought together to be studied as a whole until 179 ad.

what did Christians do before this? Do you have any historical proofs to show us that can give us an idea of what the church did during this time to spread the gospel and WHO did the spreading of the Gospel?

why would God utilize the one church to write the NT, protect it, canonize it and the canonize the OT if it were not the One True Church that He led into all Truth by the Power of the Holy Spirit?

Okay, okay, it’s been addressed before, BUT, for the sake of argument, “the only church that existed before the reformation was the Catholic church.” So now what? Your belief in the eucharist can be scientifically disproven since the reformation (despite the “test” you provided; give me a recent DNA test, or a recent Blood Alcohol Test.) If your test says the bread is bread, not DNA-laden flesh, then what? And if your test says the wine is wine, triggering a blood alcohol increase and not showing DNA-laden blood, then what? Are you so scared that the Catholic Church (and others) might have gotten this one wrong that you ignore verifiable science? The answer is right there for you to prove to everyone and, by doing so neutrally and scientifically, you would have a mass exodus from the protestant church, so why don’t you prove it?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Thanks all. I think I’m all done for now. I enjoy these types of discussions (so long as they’re civil).

Just one point before I go though, there are 5 billion non-Christians in this world, recent neurological research has allegedly discovered a “God” part of our brain (biologically nurtured to ensure survival – those who believe are less likely to kill others, kill themselves and lead unproductive lives), and our society seems to be as divided now (especially politically) as it ever has been.

Maybe this isn’t a bad time to find our substantial collective ground and start having discussions with nonbelievers?

We are commanded to have discussions with nonbelievers about our “substantial collective [common]ground”, or didn’t you get that memo?

The “collective [common]ground” is God, as most fully knowable. What would you have us discuss, but how “the good news” applies to their (unbelievers) incredibly diverse situations?

We are to reinforce their “natural knowledge” of God, via reminding them of why their conscience is telling them what it is telling them. Then, after gaining much credibility by “linking to them” (rapport) in that way, we can gradually inform them of the “intricacies” of the TRUE God.

That’s what Christians have been doing for 2000 years! The fact that people can be VERY stubborn just tells me that being stubborn is often a short term “benefit”, but those who have been “stubborn” have been shown by history to be “backward”, shall we say.

“Recent neurological research” hasn’t told any Christian anything he didn’t already know, any more than Christians have told any “unbeliever” anything he didn’t already know by “nature”, except in terms of the depth of that knowledge. Natural Law tells us all we NEED to know of God to “behave”, but revelation tells us WHY we need to believe it.

One thing I’ve learned pretty well over the past few years is that there are great Protestant and Catholic christians … and there are terrible Protestant and Catholic christians. Labeling youself one or the other doesn’t ensure your rightness or wrongness. Onward.

Amen! Simply label yourself as you are, and live that label.

Advising against hypocracy has very little to do with why one believes what one believes, and by belief I mean “hold true and act on”.

To say that a part of the deposit of faith is “enough” is to turn away from some of God’s gifts. It IS possible to be fully Godly with any subset of the deposit of faith, but to do so is to not-maximize our probability of success.

How do we know where the full, or at least largest, deposit of faith is located? Consider the sources, and consider what is “internally coherently larger” while including that which is supposedly “sufficient”.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Okay, okay, it’s been addressed before, BUT, for the sake of argument, “the only church that existed before the reformation was the Catholic church.” So now what? Your belief in the eucharist can be scientifically disproven since the reformation (despite the “test” you provided; give me a recent DNA test, or a recent Blood Alcohol Test.) If your test says the bread is bread, not DNA-laden flesh, then what? And if your test says the wine is wine, triggering a blood alcohol increase and not showing DNA-laden blood, then what?

Are you so scared that the Catholic Church (and others) might have gotten this one wrong that you ignore verifiable science?

The answer is right there for you to prove to everyone and, by doing so neutrally and scientifically, you would have a mass exodus from the protestant church, so why don’t you prove it?

You apparently don’t know what the “under the appearance” means. It means it appears to all human/scientific apparatus to be what it looks/is-sensed like.

You see bread and wine. We see bread and wine. We also see body and blood. You don’t see Body and Blood.

We see Jesus as man AND God. Do you see Jesus as man AND God?

Why do you see Jesus as man AND God? The source of the knowledge that Jesus is man and God is the same which says that the bread and wine are REALLY, though not in appearence, the Body and Blood.

Why accept one instance but not another from an acknowledged authoritative source?

Many say we accept the authority of men, and they don’t. That’s an easy thing to say, but an impossible thing to support in the way that they claim that WE NEED TO SUPPORT the obverse.

It would be rather nice if “they” would play by their own rules.

 

[Krocker]

You apparently don’t know what the “under the appearance” means. It means it appears to all human/scientific apparatus to be what it looks/is-sensed like.

You see bread and wine. We see bread and wine. We also see body and blood. You don’t see Body and Blood.

We see Jesus as man AND God. Do you see Jesus as man AND God?

Why do you see Jesus as man AND God? The source of the knowledge that Jesus is man and God is the same which says that the bread and wine are REALLY, though not in appearence, the Body and Blood.

Why accept one instance but not another from an acknowledged authoritative source?

Many say we accept the authority of men, and they don’t. That’s an easy thing to say, but an impossible thing to support in the way that they claim that WE NEED TO SUPPORT the obverse.

It would be rather nice if “they” would play by their own rules.

So “it really is, but it really isn’t”? Awfully convenient don’t you think? That seems like yet another way to just ensure you can’t be wrong under any circumstances. That’s not faith, my friends, that’s clever wordsmithing.

Honest questions:

Is this what your ECF’s believed? And, if so, can you point me to early writings?

Why were so many people freaked out about having to eat flesh and drink wine, when it really wasn’t flesh or wine – at least as far as we could tell? (I often hear this retort when discussing transubstantiation – “well, if it wasn’t really flesh and blood, why did so many people freak out?” – you can’t have it both ways.)

And why would a previous poster (I don’t believe it was you) attempt to show me “proof” that the bread and wine were actually scientifically determined to be blood and flesh if this was never the church’s interpretation? Is he (and certainly many other Catholics) completely unaware of this “official” stance? And, if so, why? You’ve only been practicing it for 2000 years, you would think you could make one of your most basic beliefs clear by now.

And (inside joke) why does my father in law give up alcohol for lent, yet continue taking the eucharist if it’s REALLY still just wine (at least both wine and Jesus simultaneously)?

And as far as the proof issues go, Catholics bring that upon themselves by claiming infallibility. If you claim to have all the answers, people will certainly want more than just your word for it. The same does not go for Protestantism, which fully realizes its fallibility. As I mentioned before, if I simply answered all of your questions “because that’s just the way it is, and you can’t prove me wrong because God speaks only through me,” you’d call me crazy and say “prove it”. You’ve put yourself in that position, don’t lament it and don’t try to impose your burden of proof on others who don’t share your “infallibility” beliefs.

 

[flyersfan1088]

Hey guys, take it easy on Krocker. He’s a good dude.

 

[flyersfan1088]

Is this what your ECF’s believed? And, if so, can you point me to early writings?

Yes, they did. Quotes to follow

And why would a previous poster (I don’t believe it was you) attempt to show me “proof” that the bread and wine were actually scientifically determined to be blood and flesh if this was never the church’s interpretation? Is he (and certainly many other Catholics) completely unaware of this “official” stance?

**You may be referring to me. I know it’s easy to get confused when you’ve got multiple people attacking you, but I do know the Church’s doctrine. **

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

cont…*