C
Calvinator
Guest
Since you asked very specific questions I was just curious as to what your church had to say on these matters.
Thanks for your reply.
- Status
Thanks for your reply.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
I’ve quoted nothing similar to the heretical SDA. I am a born again fundamental evangelical Christian.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I may be wrong but I think that the Catholic teaching is that the longer ending of Mark is the correct one.
J
Janet_S
Guest
Historical Christians were not Protestants. There is no version of history that says they were.
P
PinoyCatholic
Guest
“Versions” of history? There are no “versions” of history.
There is either history, objective, verifiable and corroborative, and “history” which is subjective, inconsistent and self-serving. You either ascribe to the former and go where the truth leads you, or the latter and keep deluding yourself.
Oh, and one issue that the ECF’s were unanimous on? This is just a wild guess, but for you to become an ECF, you must have at least believed that Jesus was the Christ, Savior of Mankind and the Son of God, right?
There is either history, objective, verifiable and corroborative, and “history” which is subjective, inconsistent and self-serving. You either ascribe to the former and go where the truth leads you, or the latter and keep deluding yourself.
Oh, and one issue that the ECF’s were unanimous on? This is just a wild guess, but for you to become an ECF, you must have at least believed that Jesus was the Christ, Savior of Mankind and the Son of God, right?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
And the nicean councel was not Roman Catholic any more than it was straightforward Christian. And no version of history will say differently just ask the pope whom wasn’t…
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
Really, now, myfavoritemartin, you need to do a little research before throwing out these silly statements.
Roman Catholic is post Great Schism. The major rite, among a score or so, is the Latin (or Roman to us Americans-Anglos) Rite. That’s why so many non-Catholic Americans get confused about the Church: their view is myopic to Rome only.
The Church is the Catholic Church.
In fact, the Creed which you so flippantly throw out uses the term “the Catholic Church” in the last line concerning Arianism (the primary reason the Emperor called the council).
To wit, “…or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, the Catholic Church anathematizes.”
That’s history, mfm, and a fact.
The Council president (chosen by the Emperor) was Hosius of Cordova (a bishop) and he was assisted by Pope Sylvester I’s two priest legates: Victor and Vincentius.
The canons produced (I think there were 20) were sent to Rome for approval. And they were approved. This is something many non-Catholics have trouble getting their brains around: the Pope does not act INDEPENDENTLY like a Baptist minister or corner worship center pastor on matters of faith and morals.
He always seeks consensus among the other Bishops before promulgating a doctrine or defining a dogma.
That’s history and a fact, too.
It seems “straightforward Christian” is anything which you disagree with. Fair enough. At least try to answer Jane’s questions directly.
Robert
C
captaincoog
Guest
Martian, you will not find any disagreement on two things for the first 1200 or so years:
1.Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.
2.The Mass is the one and same Sacrifice of Calvary.
When any of the fathers refers to the Real Prescence in a sybolic manner, he also makes it clear that the symbolic nature is secondary to the reality.
None of the Early Church Fathers were Evangelical Fundamentalists. Not one would call you a Christian based upon the doctrines that you hold. You would be a heretic to them.
I hope this is helpful! I really do.
1.Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.
2.The Mass is the one and same Sacrifice of Calvary.
When any of the fathers refers to the Real Prescence in a sybolic manner, he also makes it clear that the symbolic nature is secondary to the reality.
None of the Early Church Fathers were Evangelical Fundamentalists. Not one would call you a Christian based upon the doctrines that you hold. You would be a heretic to them.
I hope this is helpful! I really do.
J
Janet_S
Guest
First I’d like to know what you mean by “straightforward Christian?” Does that mean a fundamentalist, like you?
The fundamentalist movement has a history. It can be traced back to the 1800’s. It was not a clandestine movement that can be traced back to the Apostles. Nor was it a movement that jumped out of the pages of Scripture thus restoring the original “true” Church. The fundamentalist movement started as a reaction to the liberalizing and secularizing trends in Protestanism. This isn’t a bad thing–Catholics are concerned about these trends too. But keep in mind you, as a fundamentalist, do have a history, and that history has shaped the particular doctrines you embrace.
As far as the Council of Nicaea goes, its very purpose is Catholic. Sola Scriptura Protestants today would never convoke a meeting of the universal Church to settle a doctrinal dispute–and why should they when they accept neither the authority of the Church nor her Councils. Would “straightforward Christians” (whatever your definition of that is) accept a Church decision or Council decision?
Were there Baptists, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, etc. at the Council of Nicaea? Here’s an article by a patristics scholar that looks at this issue:
catholic-convert.com/Portals/0/Documents/BaptistsAtNicea.doc
J
Janet_S
Guest
An all-male priesthood (no women priests.)
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Augustine, Tertullian and Cyprian, held a symbolical theory of the Supper…
Which however includes a real spiritual participation of the Lord by faith similar to the Calvinist or Reformed doctrine.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Noticed you didn’t go with celibacy!
M
mikeledes
Guest
So is it settled that baptismal regeneration was unanimously held by the ECFs? 
God Bless,
Michael
God Bless,
Michael
D
DJim
Guest
Saying that some Fathers viewed the Eucharist “symbolically” is not sufficient to demonstrate lack of unanimity among the Fathers. The Catholic view is both “symbolic” and “real”.
Can you show actual disgreement among the Fathers regarding whether Christ is present in the Eucharist? Just curious…
DJim
J
JaneFrances
Guest
No, Janet didn’t mention celibacy in citing that the Fathers all agreed on an ordained all-male priesthood, but I will.
One could easily consider that the Church Fathers were in line with St. Paul in recognizing the veracity of the Scripture which clearly states:
**It is good for a man not to marry. . .
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. . .I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
36If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better. (1 Corinthians 7)**
This, of course, beyond the example of Jesus Christ Himself, is the basis for the Western discipline of celibacy. I think the ECFs would all agree, regardless of their particular practice.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
from Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
from Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
from Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
…
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
J
Janet_S
Guest
Some rites of the Catholic Church do not require priestly celibacy. Also, some Latin rite priests are married because of a dispensation. That’s why I didn’t mention it.
However, priestly celibacy is an Apostolic institution. You might be interested in this article by Fr Ray Ryland, a married priest:
holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/rayryland/thegift.asp
J
Janet_S
Guest
Regarding the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we also have Paul’s words. Pretty serious consequences for a disrespecting a “symbol.”
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
JanetS
You might be confusing our friend, myfavoritemartin, with a quotation longer than one verse
He might not respond until next week.
Robert
You might be confusing our friend, myfavoritemartin, with a quotation longer than one verse
He might not respond until next week.
Robert
C
captaincoog
Guest
I saw that coming, which is why I said that any symbolic view referred to by a Father is always secondary to each and every one’s belief that the Real Prescence is the primary issue.
I know several used the symbolic view in their teachings as a sceondary means of instruction, but ALL of them held to the belief in the Real Prescence first and foremost, just as the catholic Church does today, unlike you.
They were not calvinists or reformed, nor were they evangelical fundamentalists. They were Catholics. Why aren’t you?
- Status