Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth?

[Nicea325]

You want to discuss history, so there’s history. And you said that those who see it as symbolic most likely saw it as symbolic and literal; I’m giving evidence to the contrary.

But here is the bigger challenge for those who truly believe the early church taught the Eucharist was only symolic. If it was taught as only being symbolic from the beginning, then the CC teaching of the Real Presence would have been considered a novelty and foreign to the Apostles and the early church. Where are those protests against the Real Presence if it were false,heretical or novel to the Christian church?

On the contrary, all I ever read is on the Real Presence. This whole symolic meaning starts making noise until centuries later. How odd to believe the early church who was extremely conservative in its infancy wrote nothing in its defense of the eucharist only being symolic.

So much silence about a supposed orthodox teaching.

 

[benhur]

You want to discuss history, so there’s history. And you said that those who see it as symbolic most likely saw it as symbolic and literal; I’m giving evidence to the contrary.

"“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood,…The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes…preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?.. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise,” from Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 1) Sorry , I thought Martyr wrote this but it is Alexander

 

[dronald]

Provide more than one source as I have. Also explain why all apostolic churches across the globe, easy and west, near and far hold this teaching.

The other sources which I have posted already speak of an obviously symbolic meaning; which you say must mean both.

Regardless, Tertullian does clarify that it isn’t meant to be taken literally.

 

[Jon_S_1]

"“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood,…The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes…preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?.. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise,” from Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 1) Sorry , I thought Martyr wrote this but it is Alexander

If Clement of Alexandria meant ONLY symbolic…I wonder why he would say this???

“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”,

-“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,

-“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D… ,

 

[Jon_S_1]

Tertullian:

They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

If Tertullian meant only symbolic then why did he say this ???

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.)

Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar? When the Lord’s Body has been received and reserved each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty. (Tertullian Chapter 19 on Prayer)

 

[dronald]

But here is the bigger challenge for those who truly believe the early church taught the Eucharist was only symolic. If it was taught as only being symbolic from the beginning, then the CC teaching of the Real Presence would have been considered a novelty and foreign to the Apostles and the early church. Where are those protests against the Real Presence if it were false,heretical or novel to the Christian church?

On the contrary, all I ever read is on the Real Presence. This whole symolic meaning starts making noise until centuries later. How odd to believe the early church who was extremely conservative in its infancy wrote nothing in its defense of the eucharist only being symolic.

So much silence about a supposed orthodox teaching.

Different beliefs on the Eucharist and infant Baptism existed until Augustine. After him, the likelihood of hearing about baptism of children three or older, symbolic Eucharist, or the whole not persecuting heretics didn’t come around until the tenth century.

I would probably be quite alright with you baptizing infants and believing the true presence if it keeps me from being “turned over to the secular authorities” and burned.

See Barengar of Tours, Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe and Hus. The Waldenses and the Hussites.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The other sources which I have posted already speak of an obviously symbolic meaning; which you say must mean both.

Regardless, Tertullian does clarify that it isn’t meant to be taken literally.

Oh really?

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.)
More specifically, that quote comes from Chapter 40 of Book IV of Against Marcion. In context, it turns out that Tertullian is actually arguing that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and Christ’s Death on the Cross both disprove the Gnostics’ claim that Christ didn’t actually come in the Flesh (since, if they were right, we wouldn’t have the Eucharist or the Atonement). [Tertullian isn’t the first to make this particular argument, either: Ignatius of Antioch, one of the Apostle John’s students, made the same argument in the early 100s: the Gnostics’ beliefs lead them to deny the Eucharist, so we know that they’re wrong.] In the midst of this, Tertulilan explains why Christ chose to consecrate bread and wine, instead of a melon:

When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: “I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,” which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body.
He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed “in His blood,” affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. …]Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.
So let’s recap Tertullian’s arguments:
Marcion denied that Christ had a true Body of Flesh and Blood. If that were true, then we would have to believe that the Eucharist was just bread, and that Christ on the Cross was just bread.
He says that Christ explained exactly what He meant by “Bread” when He described it as His Body. According to Tertullian, the question now is why Christ referred to His Body as “Bread,” rather than something else (like a melon). He answers this by saying that Christ’s Body is referred to throughout Scripture as Bread.
He quotes a passage from the Septuagint version of Jeremiah to show that Christ’s Crucified Body is rightly called “Bread.”
The Eucharistic Bread and Wine affirm the reality of Christ’s Flesh, since He couldn’t give us His Body or Blood if He didn’t have actual Flesh. Christ’s Flesh, in turn, proves that He had a true Body.
Christ consecrates the wine, fulfilling the Old Testament typology.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2014/02/did-tertullian-deny-real-presence.html?m=1

 

[Jon_S_1]

Different beliefs on the Eucharist and infant Baptism existed until Augustine. After him, the likelihood of hearing about baptism of children three or older, symbolic Eucharist, or the whole not persecuting heretics didn’t come around until the tenth century.

I would probably be quite alright with you baptizing infants and believing the true presence if it keeps me from being “turned over to the secular authorities” and burned.

See Barengar of Tours, Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe and Hus. The Waldenses and the Hussites.

That’s a wonderful fantasy.

 

[dronald]

If Clement of Alexandria meant ONLY symbolic…I wonder why he would say this???

“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”,

-“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

Huh?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.

And the mixture of both— of the water and of the Word— is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.

“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,

-“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D… ,

Seeing as Clement is pretty clear that he’s speaking figuratively, and he believed John 6 was symbolic; it’s hard to change exactly what Clement said and take bits and pieces to fit your Theology. Either Clement believed they were symbolic or he was a mad man:

Paedagogus Book 1, chapter 6
“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”

 

[dronald]

If Tertullian meant only symbolic then why did he say this ???

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.)

Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar? When the Lord’s Body has been received and reserved each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty. (Tertullian Chapter 19 on Prayer)

This was in response proving that Jesus was in fact a real person and not a phantom.

 

[Jon_S_1]

dronald:

Seeing as Clement is pretty clear that he’s speaking figuratively, and he believed John 6 was symbolic; it’s hard to change exactly what Clement said and take bits and pieces to fit your Theology. Either Clement believed they were symbolic or he was a mad man:

No he is not a madman. He is extrapolating teachings and depth. Comparing blood of Christ to the milk of nurturing for example. He is trying to teach deeper truth. Pastors do this all the time.

Do you believe that wine could be substituted for milk? If you believe this passage explicitly depicts how the Eucharist should be performed I say why not.

So again? Why would he say this?

‘The Lord expressed this by means of symbols in the Gospel according to John when He said, “Eat My flesh and drink My blood,” depicting [Greek word given] plainly the drinkable character of FAITH and the promise by means of which the Church, as a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows and is welded together and compacted of both, of FAITH as the body and of HOPE as the soul, as also the Lord of flesh and blood.’ [Clement of Alexandria, Paed I:vi:38]

‘[After the more explicit passage cited above] But you are unwilling to understand it thus [referring to John 6:51ff], but perhaps more generally [Greek given]. Hear it also as follows: The Holy Ghost uses flesh as a picture [Greek given] for us, for by Him was the flesh created. Blood signifies [Greek given] for us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been poured into our life.’ [Clement of Alexandria, ibid 43]

**'The blood of the Lord is twofold. In one sense it is fleshly, **that by which we have been redeemed from corruption; in another sense it is spiritual, that by which we have been anointed. To drink the blood of Jesus is to partake of the Lord’s immortality; and the Spirit is the strength of the Word, as blood of flesh.

'As then wine is mixed with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture, nourishes to faith; and the other, the Spirit, guides to immortality. And the mingling of both – of the drink and the Word – is called Eucharist, renowned and beauteous grace; and those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in both body and soul, since the will of the Father has mystically united the divine mixture, man, by the Spirit and the Word.

‘For in truth the Spirit is joined to the soul that is moved by it, and the flesh, for the sake of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.’" [Clement of Alexandria, Paed II:ii:19,20] (Stone, volume 1, page 25-26)

And again. Why did no apostolic church come out with the truth of pure symbol?

 

[Jon_S_1]

This was in response proving that Jesus was in fact a real person and not a phantom.

It says taking the bread HE MADE IT HIS OWN BODY!

Why again did no one come up with this symbolism before surely with all the division in apostolic churches one of them would have held the truth of symbolism.

And yet the real presence is a teaching that united us despite our differences.

Why are you so opposed to it? Because the church you attend has it wrong so you have to do mental gymnastics to conform? Or is it because you believe God is incapable of performing miracles?

I see no other logical choice.

 

[dronald]

It says taking the bread HE MADE IT HIS OWN BODY!

Why again did no one come up with this symbolism before surely with all the division in apostolic churches one of them would have held the truth of symbolism.

And yet the real presence is a teaching that united us despite our differences.

Why are you so opposed to it? Because the church you attend has it wrong so you have to do mental gymnastics to conform? Or is it because you believe God is incapable of performing miracles?

I see no other logical choice.

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure.

 

[dronald]

Also, in case you missed it:

They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

Just in case you wanted to know what Tertullian thought on this.

 

[Jon_S_1]

So, we disagree in Tertullian, but let’s just say that you are right about him. It does not mean he was correct. In fact the church has spoken clearly that he was likely wrong since he is not canonized. We have plenty of “early Christian writings” from Gnostics and other heretics but I do not see you advocating their positions.

Why?

Because your tradition rejects them. But if your tradition taught that Jesus was just a spirit you might point the Gnostics out as an authority.

So how do we read the early church fathers? I’d say by a preponderance of the evidence.

This link has 30 Church Fathers in multiple quotation pre 500 AD speaking of this truth.

That coupled with the consistency of orthodoxy of these men and the fact that this tradition arose separately in Ethiopia, India, the Middle East, and Europe. Is more than ample proof of its teachings.

I’m sorry two mystic and cryptic references don’t do anything for me even If I acquiesce that you are right (which I don’t).

 

[Nicea325]

dronald:

Different beliefs on the Eucharist and infant Baptism existed until Augustine.

I am sorry,but I find positions and comments as a desperate means of basically stating:

You see…what we believe is okay and not wrong because the early church did it too.

Different beliefs from different sects or groups of so-called Christians (i.e., Gnostics,Montanists,Dontanists,Adoptionists,etc,etc,etc,etc). These were in conflict from the orthodox church Christ founded. Either Jesus promised the Holy Spirit or he pulled all of our legs? You tell me…

After him, the likelihood of hearing about baptism of children three or older, symbolic Eucharist, or the whole not persecuting heretics didn’t come around until the tenth century.

I do not think so! For the life of me, I do not understand why Protestants do gymnastics with early church history in order to justify the array of teachings within Protestant circles. You cannot re-write history and make it say what you want it to say.

Give me one ECF who defends a symbolic Eucharist to no end because it was what Jesus truly taught? Does he attack the Real Presence as heretical or novel?

Again…where are those countless of writings by ECF defending a mere symbolic Eucharist?

I would probably be quite alright with you baptizing infants and believing the true presence if it keeps me from being “turned over to the secular authorities” and burned.

Okay…let us not hype it or go over board. Who was burned in 250 AD for not believing infant baptism?

See Barengar of Tours, Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe and Hus. The Waldenses and the Hussites.

U-huh…and all of their teachings were orthodox? Who gave Wycliffe permission to translate the Bible? The Waldenses? You think they were not teaching contrary doctrines?

 

[dronald]

So, we disagree in Tertullian, but let’s just say that you are right about him. It does not mean he was correct. In fact the church has spoken clearly that he was likely wrong since he is not canonized. We have plenty of “early Christian writings” from Gnostics and other heretics but I do not see you advocating their positions.

Why?

Because your tradition rejects them. But if your tradition taught that Jesus was just a spirit you might point the Gnostics out as an authority.

So how do we read the early church fathers? I’d say by a preponderance of the evidence.

This link has 30 Church Fathers in multiple quotation pre 500 AD speaking of this truth.

That coupled with the consistency of orthodoxy of these men and the fact that this tradition arose separately in Ethiopia, India, the Middle East, and Europe. Is more than ample proof of its teachings.

I’m sorry two mystic and cryptic references don’t do anything for me even If I acquiesce that you are right (which I don’t).

No doubt Tertullian is overlooked sometimes because of some of his beliefs; but he certainly believed he was passing on Tradition from the Apostles themselves.

The Chaplet Chapter 3
If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel.
newadvent.org/fathers/0304.htm

Ironically, I bet you agree whole heartedly with what is stated here?

 

[dronald]

dronald:

I am sorry,but I find positions and comments as a desperate means of basically stating:

You see…what we believe is okay and not wrong because the early church did it too.

Different beliefs from different sects or groups of so-called Christians (i.e., Gnostics,Montanists,Dontanists,Adoptionists,etc,etc,etc,etc). These were in conflict from the orthodox church Christ founded. Either Jesus promised the Holy Spirit or he pulled all of our legs? You tell me…

As far as thanksgiving goes and communion, we’re much alike. What we believe about it is differing, as were the earliest Theologians. It’s not a terrible thing, and we’re not all going to go to Hell for it.

I do not think so! For the life of me, I do not understand why Protestants do gymnastics with early church history in order to justify the array of teachings within Protestant circles. You cannot re-write history and make it say what you want it to say.

Second time with the gymnastics. I find that Protestants take things in context while Catholics will just ignore the points against all together in my experience here.

Give me one ECF who defends a symbolic Eucharist to no end because it was what Jesus truly taught? Does he attack the Real Presence as heretical or novel?

Again…where are those countless of writings by ECF defending a mere symbolic Eucharist?

I suppose you haven’t been reading this thread?

Okay…let us not hype it or go over board. Who was burned in 250 AD for not believing infant baptism?

Not one.

U-huh…and all of their teachings were orthodox? Who gave Wycliffe permission to translate the Bible? The Waldenses? You think they were not teaching contrary doctrines?

Haha.

 

[Jon_S_1]

No doubt Tertullian is overlooked sometimes because of some of his beliefs; but he certainly believed he was passing on Tradition from the Apostles themselves.

The Chaplet Chapter 3
If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel.
newadvent.org/fathers/0304.htm

Ironically, I bet you agree whole heartedly with what is stated here?

Yes and he describes Catholic baptism well too.

I am certain Tertullian would agree that if he wrote anything contrary to the Catholic faith that it should be rejected.

I don’t believe he did, but I see how you hand your hat on one father among dozens. Why?

 

[Jon_S_1]

As far as thanksgiving goes and communion, we’re much alike. What we believe about it is differing, as were the earliest Theologians. It’s not a terrible thing, and we’re not all going to go to Hell for it.

Second time with the gymnastics. I find that Protestants take things in context while Catholics will just ignore the points against all together in my experience here.

I suppose you haven’t been reading this thread?

Not one.

Haha.

You remind me a lot in your argumentation of the baptists who claim they have an unbroken line to John the Baptist. They then go and point out one teaching in this heretical group, one in that, one in that to show this line. Never mind that this heretical group taught human sacrifice, or this one had sex orgies, or this one rejected the Trinity , if they believed adult baptism or symbolic Eucharist then they were baptist gosh darn it!