The Real Presence

[lyrikal]

Part 11:

Tractate 11:4:

1. Therefore, since Nicodemus was of that number, he came to the Lord, but came by night; and this perhaps pertains to the matter. Came to the Lord, and came by night; came to the Light, and came in the darkness. But what do they that are born again of water and of the Spirit hear from the apostle? “You were once darkness, but now light in the Lord; walk as children of light;” Ephesians 5:8 and again, “But we who are of the day, let us be sober.” Therefore they who are born again were of the night, and are of the day; were darkness, and are light. Now Jesus trusts Himself to them, and they come to Jesus, not by night, like Nicodemus; not in darkness do they seek the day. For such now also profess: Jesus has come near to them, has made salvation in them; for He said, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him.” John 6:54 And as the catechumens have the sign of the cross on their forehead, they are already of the great house; but from servants let them become sons. For they are something who already belong to the great house. But when did the people Israel eat the manna? After they had passed the Red Sea. And as to what the Red Sea signifies, hear the apostle: “Moreover, brethren, I would not have you ignorant, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea.” To what purpose passed they through the sea? As if you were asking of him, he goes on to say, “And all were baptized by Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” 1 Corinthians 10:1 Now, if the figure of the sea had such efficacy, how great will be the efficacy of the true form of baptism! If what was done in a figure brought the people, after they had crossed over, to the manna, what will Christ impart, in the verity of His baptism, to His own people, brought over through Himself? By His baptism He brings over them that believe; all their sins, the enemies as it were that pursue them, being slain, as all the Egyptians perished in that sea. Whither does He bring over, my brethren? Whither does Jesus bring over by baptism, of which Moses then showed the figure, when he brought them through the sea? Whither? To the manna. What is the manna? “I am,” says He, “the living bread, which came down from heaven.” John 6:51 The faithful receive the manna, having now been brought through the Red Sea? Why Red Sea? Besides sea, why also “red”? That “Red Sea” signified the baptism of Christ. How is the baptism of Christ red, but as consecrated by Christ’s blood? Whither, then, does He lead those that believe and are baptized? To the manna. Behold, “manna,” I say: what the Jews, that people Israel, received, is well known, well known what God had rained on them from heaven; and yet catechumens know not what Christians receive. Let them blush, then, for their ignorance; let them pass through the Red Sea, let them eat the manna, that as they have believed in the name of Jesus, so likewise Jesus may trust Himself to them.

The way Augustine begins talking about the story of Nicodemus is he brings up the story of Moses leading the people through the Red Sea. What does he believe the Red Sea symbolizes? Baptism. He says the Red Sea is a figure of Baptism. What happens after they crossed the Red Sea? They received Manna from heaven to eat. What happens when we are Baptized? We receive the Eucharist to eat. That is the whole point of Augustine. He is making the connection between Red Sea and Manna to Baptism and Eucharist. What is interesting about that is he quotes from John 6 yet again when talking about the Eucharist.

He goes on regarding Nicodemus…

Tractate 11:5:

1. Therefore mark, my brethren, what answer this man who came to Jesus by night makes. Although he came to Jesus, yet because he came by night, he still speaks from the darkness of his own flesh. He understands not what he hears from the Lord, understands not what he hears from the Light, “which lights every man that comes into this world.” John 1:9 Already has the Lord said to him, “Except a man be born again, he shall not see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus says unto Him, How can a man be born again when he is old?” The Spirit speaks to him, and he thinks of the flesh. He thinks of his own flesh, because as yet he thinks not of Christ’s flesh. For when the Lord Jesus had said, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him,” some who followed Him were offended, and said among themselves, “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” For they fancied that, in saying this, Jesus meant that they would be able to cook Him, after being cut up like a lamb, and eat Him: horrified at His words, they went back, and no more followed Him.

This is VERY telling here. This says it all in regards to what Augustine means by LITERALLY eating Christ’s flesh. He is not talking about “we do NOT eat Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist” but he is talking about the Jews at the time were NOT to eat His flesh right then and there. He was speaking about something sacramental. This is what Augustine means by figurative. He is not taking away from the RP, he is taking away from the understanding of the Jews AT THAT TIME they were with Jesus. They understood him carnally and not spiritually. The reason why Augustine brings this up is because Nicodemus is understanding Jesus carnally by thinking of the flesh and thinking “being born again” being returning to your mother’s womb and being born a second time. Jesus is not talking about that, He is talking about conversion and Baptism (at least according to what Saint Augustine is saying and according to what the Catholic Church teaches).

 

[lyrikal]

Part 12:

He goes on in 11:5:

When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, “Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Pleasantly savored the Lord’s flesh in his mouth. The Lord, however, expounded to them, and said, “It is the Spirit that quickens.” After He had said, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him,” lest they should understand it carnally, He said, “It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing: the words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life.” John 6:54-59

There is that theme of what Augustine means by “understanding it carnally.” The context shows that Augustine’s viewpoint on what “carnally understood” means is “the Jews cooking Jesus up, cooking Him and eating Him right there as He is in front of them.” He is NOT diminishing the belief in the RP of Christ in the Eucharist. That is NOT what “carnally understood” meant to Augustine. In fact, the spiritual understanding of the passage for Augustine IS the Eucharist (NOT the carnal). His understanding is “eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking His blood in a SACRAMENTAL way.”

It is interesting to note that what I am providing here is NOT a commentary on John 6 according to Saint Augustine. It is a commentary on John 3 according to Saint Augustine. Yet he keeps going to John 6 to make a point about John 3. What is that point? The carnal understanding of the people vs. the spiritual understanding of what Jesus is really talking about (faith, sacraments, Himself).

He goes on in Tractate 11:6:

1. This Nicodemus, who had come to Jesus by night, did not savor of this spirit and this life. Says Jesus to him, “Except a man be born again, he shall not see the kingdom of God.” And he, savoring of his own flesh, while as yet he savored not of the flesh of Christ in his mouth, says, “How can a man be born a second time, when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” This man knew but one birth, that from Adam and Eve; that which is from God and the Church he knew not yet: he knew only those parents that bring forth to death, knew not yet the parents that bring forth to life; he knew but the parents that bring forth successors, knew not yet the ever-living parents that bring forth those that shall abide.
   Whilst there are two births, then, he understood only one. One is of the earth, the other of heaven; one of the flesh, the other of the Spirit; one of mortality, the other of eternity; one of male and female, the other of God and the Church. But these two are each single; there can be no repeating the one or the other. Rightly did Nicodemus understand the birth of the flesh; so understand also the birth of the Spirit, as Nicodemus understood the birth of the flesh. What did Nicodemus understand? “Can a man enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” Thus, whosoever shall tell you to be spiritually born a second time, answer in the words of Nicodemus, “Can a man enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” I am already born of Adam, Adam cannot beget me a second time. I am already born of Christ, Christ cannot beget me again. As there is no repeating from the womb, so neither from baptism.

This makes it clear that Augustine believed that we are born again through Baptism. His whole point is that we are born the first time through parents and the second time through the Church (in Baptism).
The carnal understanding is: Being born again by entering our mother’s womb a second time.
Spiritual understanding is: Being born again through Baptism (a sacrament).

Continued in Part 13…

 

[lyrikal]

Part 13:

We also have the Woman at the Well. Christ told her that the water that He will give leads to eternal life and the woman understood it carnally and thought He was talking about physical water. The context and the primary point that John is making is that Jesus is talking about Baptism. RIGHT before the story of the Woman at the Well, here is what John says:

1 Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were), 3 He left Judea and went away again into Galilee. 4 And He had to pass through Samaria. 5 So He *came to a city of Samaria called Sychar, near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph; 6 and Jacob’s well was there. So Jesus, being wearied from His journey, was sitting thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour. (John 4:1-6 NASB version).

Let’s look at Augustine’s understanding of that passage:

Tractate 15:4-5:

1. But it may be one says, Christ does indeed baptize, but in spirit, not in body. As if, indeed, it were by the gift of another than He that any is imbued even with the sacrament of corporal and visible baptism. Would you know that it is He that baptizes, not only with the Spirit, but also with water? Hear the apostle: “Even as Christ,” says he, “loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, purifying it with the washing of water by the Word, that He might present to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.” Ephesians 5:25-27 Purifying it. How? “With the washing of water by the Word.” What is the baptism of Christ? The washing of water by the Word. Take away the water, it is no baptism; take away the Word, it is no baptism.

1. This much, then, on the preliminary circumstances, by occasion of which He came to a conversation with that woman, let us look at the matters that remain; matters full of mysteries and pregnant with sacraments.

Again, Augustine’s understanding of the passage in a spiritual sense is Baptism. The carnal understanding according to Augustine is that the woman was literally seeking physical water that will prevent her from ever being thirsty again. Augustine believes the context that Jesus is talking about is the Holy Spirit. For Augustine says in the commentary:

1. At length, hear who it is that asks drink: “Jesus answered and said unto her, If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that says to you, Give me to drink, you would, it may be, have asked of Him, and He would have given you living water.” He asks to drink, and promises to give drink. He longs as one about to receive; He abounds as one about to satisfy. “If you knew,” says He, “the gift of God.” The gift of God is the Holy Spirit.

He goes on to talk about how the woman understood Jesus carnally…

1. The woman, however, being in suspense, says to Him, “Lord, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep.” See how she understood the living water, simply the water which was in that fountain. “You would give me living water, and I carry that with which to draw, and you do not. The living water is here; how are you to give it me?” Understanding another thing, and taking it carnally, she does in a manner knock, that the Master may open up that which is closed. She was knocking in ignorance, not with earnest purpose; she is still an object of pity, not yet of instruction.

There is that theme again of carnally understanding what Jesus meant and spiritually understanding what Jesus meant. My whole point in showing Augustine’s understanding of the story of Nicodemus and the story of the woman at the well is to show what Augustine means when he talks about the Jews understood Jesus carnally in John 6. The context and his point shows that he is not downplaying the RP of Christ in the Eucharist, but he is making a point to show that the Jews were not to eat the flesh of the son of man and drink His blood in a carnal way where they eat Him up right there in front of Him. THAT is what Augustine means by Jesus speaking figuratively and spiritually. This is Augustine’s point. That the people understood Christ carnally (mother’s womb, the water that makes you immune to thirst, eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood in a cannibalistic way) while Jesus was speaking spiritually (Baptism, belief in Him, Eucharist and eating His flesh and drinking His blood in a sacramental way, etc.).

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

Part 14:

Let’s continue examining the commentary on the Psalm. Augustine continues and says…

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 says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein.

Here it is right there. Augustine, here, talks about if the people had any common sense, they would have understood that He was not talking about physically eating his flesh right now as He is talking to them, but that “THERE MUST BE SOME LATENT MYSTERY HEREIN.” This is key. Augustine is talking about the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. THAT is the spiritual understanding of what Jesus is saying. The CARNAL understanding is physically eating His flesh and drinking His blood as He is, cannibalistically. Christ is speaking in spiritual terms and is talking about a Sacrament to where they WILL eat His flesh and drink His blood SACRAMENTALLY.

They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned. 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 says unto them, It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

That whole section just summed up my point exactly. “It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing, the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Why does Augustine quote that passage? Because the “flesh that profits nothing” here, is in regards to the carnal understanding of the people (cannibalism…eating Jesus as He is right there in front of them). The “words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” is in regards to the spiritual understanding (eating Jesus SACRAMENTALLY in the Eucharist).

Saint Paul continuously uses the notion of “Spirit vs. Flesh” in the his Epistles. This is the point that Jesus is making here. To understand something carnally (fleshly) leads to a misunderstanding and to death (hell). To understand something spiritually leads to eternal life and profits much.

Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.

In other words, you are NOT to eat Jesus while He is standing in front of you speaking to you in regards to eating His flesh and blood.

“You are not to eat this body which YOU SEE.” The key words are “WHICH YOU SEE.” That is the point that Augustine is making. You are NOT to eat this body which you see in front of you, but you are to eat it in a different manner sacramentally. Had they stuck around and followed Him a little longer, they would have understood exactly what He meant.

“not to drink that blood which they will crucify Me shall pour forth.” The key words here are “SHALL POUR FORTH.” Augustine’s point is that the people are not to go underneath the Cross at the time of the crucifixion with their mouths open trying to drink the blood of Christ to gain eternal life. It is ALL sacramentally understood (mystery). We are to eat His body and drink His blood in the Eucharist.

I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken.

“I have commended unto you a certain mystery, spiritually understood.” What is that mystery? It is the Eucharist. How so? Because it is SPIRITUALLY understood. Carnally understood would be cannibalism.

Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.

The key words here are “visibly celebrated.” The word “celebrated” tells us that Augustine is talking about the Eucharist here. There is no question about it. We CELEBRATE the Passover Mystery, we CELEBRATE the Eucharist. Augustine’s wording of “I have commended” and “visibly celebrated” points to the Eucharist. The context suggests that Augustine is talking about the Eucharist when he says that “FLESH we eat is for our salvation.”

I have also shown you that Augustine’s understanding of John 6 is Eucharistically understood.

The end.

Thank you! Again, I do not expect you to reply to everything or even reply at all but I do pray and plead that you read everything with an open heart and an open mind. It’s been fun. I will be responding to your other replies soon, but don’t worry they won’t be this long at all.

God bless you, brother!

PS: It looks like I got the numbering of the parts wrong. There should be 13 parts but I skipped the #6. I need to work on my 1,2,3s still.

 

[MartinJordan]

Hi Lyrikal, just a little hellow to you.

Ive been silently following your interesting exposition on what St. Augustine meant. I enjoyed reading it, and just to inform you that I for one appreciate your efforts to bring in understanding of the importance of the Eucharist that we Catholics celebrate all for His Greater Glory.



MJ

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Lyrikal, just a little hellow to you.

Ive been silently following your interesting exposition on what St. Augustine meant. I enjoyed reading it, and just to inform you that I for one appreciate your efforts to bring in understanding of the importance of the Eucharist that we Catholics celebrate all for His Greater Glory.



MJ

Thank you, MartinJordan! I really appreciate your kind words here. The Eucharist is the greatest gift that God gives to the world today. He humbles Himself for us by becoming food for us; food that nourishes our souls. The least we can do is defend this teaching that He Himself has given us. It is all an honor for me. Praise God! :bowdown2:

God bless you!

 

[regression]

Hi David Ruiz,
You mentioned:
but certainly no more intercessors as in the o.t, .for we are all priests,
and can intercede for each other​

You recognize that in the o.t. that there were 3 catagories of priests.
The High Priest, allowed only once a year to enter the Holy of Holies, had the fullness.
The Levites, who were priests designated to serve the temple and people in their offerings
of lambs, or doves, be they for sin, or otherwise.
The People, who were designated as a priestly people who took part in the sacrifices
the Livitical priests offered in their behalf.

Each one had duties, and responsibilites, and special functions.
These 3 catagories of priests were not at all equal. They were appointed and
annointed seperately and for different ends.

The majority of christians, based on what I’ve heard here at this site, understand
that the o.t. have figures or types that point to the n.t. For example, Christ is
the new Adam who gave us life by the wood of a tree, as Adam had lost life
by the wood of a tree. Abram’s sacrifice of his only son and the heavenly Father’s.
There are lots more. These were to help prepare us for what was to come.

The o.t. high priest prefigured n.t. Apostles and their successors the bishops.
The o.t. Livitical priests prefigured the n.t. priests annointed to this position to serve the church and the people in offering sacrifices.
The n.t. Christians are a priestly people who take part in the divine sacrifice offered in their behalf by the annointed priest which were prefigured by o.t. priestly people.

Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the old covenant but to fulfill it. In this instance, He did fulfill it and raised it to an even holier position. Just as St. Paul said in one of his letters that Circumcision in the old pointed to Baptism in the new.

The 3 levels of priesthood are still with us today in even a newer and better way.
For we now do not center our offerings and worship around natural animals,
but around the divine Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Thank you for that reminder. I think what you described, the three level of priests, is detailed in Mike Aquilina’s book “The Mass of the Early Christians”. When I get home today I will have to skim through it and re-familiarize myself with the concept.

 

[Radical]

Also, I will be giving my (name removed by moderator)ut on Augustine’s sermon #227. I believe that’s the one you want an answer to? Or is it 272? Or both? Anyway, I’ll assume it’s 227 unless further clarified.

it would be both, but (IMHO) it is the “how” of 272 that presents a rather formidable obstacle for your view to overcome. I note that you have provided a 14 part response and that you still may be crafting further responses to the 2-3 posts of mine that you haven’t directly addressed. My plan is to submit a couple of general responses which should point out (what I believe to be) the inadequacies of your approach and after that I would only address those portions of your posts that (I believe) would require special attention. I hope that my responses will then be kept to a handful (even if you run your total to 20 or so.)

If all goes well, I would post my general responses in a few days and then my specific responses in a week or so…would that work for you?

 

[Trebor135]

For the sake of lurkers and future readers, I couldn’t let this slip through the cracks, even though it’s not exactly related:

James White had this as footnote to his Council of Nicea article : "For those who struggle with the idea that it was not “Roman Catholicism” in those days, consider this: if one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacle on the altars in their churches, would one think they were in a “Roman Catholic Church” ? Of course not. Yet , the Church of 325 had none of these beliefs,either. Hence ,while they called themselves “Catholics”, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant."www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-

A response to this paragraph would take a whole thread, if not several. Suffice it to say that the Christians of 325 believed in a visible church; the sinlessness and assumption of Mary, at least to a certain extent; prayers for the dead, if not suffering after death for sanctification; and penance after absolution, if not its correlary indulgences. The Church Fathers Were Catholic is recommended reading in this area.

I’d very much like to see a debate between a Catholic and White on the question, “Was the Early Church Reformed Baptist?”…

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by david ruiz
James White had this as footnote to his Council of Nicea article : "For those who struggle with the idea that it was not “Roman Catholicism” in those days, consider this: if one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacle on the altars in their churches, would one think they were in a “Roman Catholic Church” ? Of course not. Yet , the Church of 325 had none of these beliefs,either. Hence ,while they called themselves “Catholics”, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant."What Really Happened at Nicea? | Christian Research Institute

James White is more amusing than educational. And the church of 325 was NOT divided into Protestant,evangelical or fundamentalist…that is a FACT of history!

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

James White is more amusing than educational. And the church of 325 was NOT divided into Protestant,evangelical or fundamentalist…that is a FACT of history!

That is the key assumption & misunderstanding of many if not all protestants when they read into Christian history. They assume their idea of “church”-that is the merely loose confederacy of ‘bible-believers’ who gloss over doctrinal differences.

To them when we demonstrate how one Church father or another wrote work ‘x’ or work ‘y’ they don’t see that work or the expositions in that work as being believed universally. They read those works merely as the opinion of one man-beit a bishop, a pastor, theologian, or as they put it ‘missionary’. And that those beliefs were only the witness of that particular ‘church’.

To them theologies were just as varied then as they are today. To them the only thing that makes the ‘RCC’ different is that they assume that the ‘RCC’ became corrupted & then used the political influence of secular Rome to force the ‘Roman doctrine’ upon other churches. IOW the ‘RCC’ enslaved ‘real christians’ to the ‘Roman doctrine’. Luther, Zwingly, and Calvin are heroes because they freed christianity from the “RCC’s” tyranny.

That is their view of history. It is revisionist history at best, outright dishonesty at its worse. It ignores the volumes written before Christianity’s legalization that clearly demonstrate a Universal Church in which all of the local churches, while they did have their heretics and scismatics, all believed the same doctrine, practiced generally the same worship, and all confirmed that their doctrines and practices came from the Apostles. They believed in the Real Presence, they attended Mass, they prayed to the Saints as demonstrated by graves and catecombs all over the Empire, they prayed for the dead. They believed that Mary was the Theotokos(the Mother of God) before the council of Ephesus needed to be conveined because of heretics who had betrayed the Faith. They believed in purgatory. And they believed that the Bishop of Rome was the head teaching & administrative authority for that Universal Body-even the pagan Romans before the 3rd century knew this.

When the case of Paul of Samosata was brought before the Emperor Aurelian, he himself said that he had no jurisdiction in the matter & that the case needed to be sent to “your Pope in Rome.”

All of this before either 313 or 325.

Nicea was called to answer against bishop Arius & Arianism, which denied Jesus’ divinity. Constantine was not a Christian at this time. At best he was merely a syncretist who was actually sympathetic to Arius. Constantine wasn’t baptized until he was on his death-bed. So for protestants to paint him as some great champion for pagainized Catholicism is intellectually dishonest.

Sadly many fundamentalists, and most professional anti-catholics, aren’t well known for doing their due dilligence when it comes to ancient history. Sadly they’ll find just enough to satisfy their prejudices and post what they find as “fact”. Although their methods and techniques they owe to Boettner and his ilk.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi David Ruiz,
You mentioned:
but certainly no more intercessors as in the o.t, .for we are all priests,
and can intercede for each other​

You recognize that in the o.t. that there were 3 catagories of priests.
The High Priest, allowed only once a year to enter the Holy of Holies, had the fullness.
The Levites, who were priests designated to serve the temple and people in their offerings
of lambs, or doves, be they for sin, or otherwise.
The People, who were designated as a priestly people who took part in the sacrifices
the Livitical priests offered in their behalf.

Each one had duties, and responsibilites, and special functions.
These 3 catagories of priests were not at all equal. They were appointed and
annointed seperately and for different ends.

The majority of christians, based on what I’ve heard here at this site, understand
that the o.t. have figures or types that point to the n.t. For example, Christ is
the new Adam who gave us life by the wood of a tree, as Adam had lost life
by the wood of a tree. Abram’s sacrifice of his only son and the heavenly Father’s.
There are lots more. These were to help prepare us for what was to come.

The o.t. high priest prefigured n.t. Apostles and their successors the bishops.
The o.t. Livitical priests prefigured the n.t. priests annointed to this position to serve the church and the people in offering sacrifices.
The n.t. Christians are a priestly people who take part in the divine sacrifice offered in their behalf by the annointed priest which were prefigured by o.t. priestly people.

Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the old covenant but to fulfill it. In this instance, He did fulfill it and raised it to an even holier position. Just as St. Paul said in one of his letters that Circumcision in the old pointed to Baptism in the new.

The 3 levels of priesthood are still with us today in even a newer and better way.
For we now do not center our offerings and worship around natural animals,
but around the divine Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Thank-you .Have heard this before .I believe I last answered with an interesting tidbit I once heard .They said Israel was to be a nation of priests (coming out of Egypt) , until they disbelieved and did NOT enter the promised land, wandering for 40 years .Instead, because of their sin, God instituted the 3 tiers of priesthood you suggest, along with a whole slew of laws,ordinances …Just because it is in the O.T. , it may not be a foreshadow .For instance, God allowed for divorce , but it was not his perfect will ,but because or our sin ,He allowed it. Why do you not follow this “foreshadow” ? God ordained and even blessed Israel’s kings , but rule by kings was NOT his perfect will. He was for a theocracy and warned against a king . But because of their sin ,missing the mark, God allowed the kings (it was second best) . So your scenario of 3 tiered priests does not have a good foundation and was “second best”. Certainly not one to be started again in a perfect, brand new covenant. …Did Abel need a priest , or was he his own priest ? Did he not offer up a blood sacrifice himself , a personal worship between himself and Jehovah ? Is not that pure and first rate ? How about Abraham ,Isaac and Jacob ?? If anything, this is the foreshadow of the new covenant .The laws and rituals and priests filled the sin gap , till we were squeaky clean again by the Blood of the Lamb , so that we can enter into the Holy of Holies and go one on one with God Almighty, the loving, personal Father again. The sin has been forgotten and the law and priests and rituals are not needed for those reasons anymore as Paul says in Hebrews. .He says they are fulfilled but also NOT NEEDED anymore, certainly not intercessory for sacrifice.Hence new names -bishops ,presbyters for ministering and preparing us for every good work… Indeed, I am reminded of O.T. sentiment at a Catholic Mass. Their is my intercessor sacrifice preparer ,the priest .Their is Lord Almighty , in His tabernacle , behind the veil. I can not approach Him ,except thru the Father (the priest). We offer , re-present , the sacrifice up to God. And it feels so good and ritualistic, almost mystical .But I am sure all good people of all faiths feel the same way about their religious ceremonies. …No, the world was turned upside down because of something new . Something that gave dignity to all men ,women , Jews, Greeks , gentiles, rich ,poor , they all were equally baptized in Christ ,and all enter the holy place,and as Barnabus church father said, - “We are his monstrance” .He lives inside of us,and sups with us ,closer than a brother. Halleluiah !

 

[david_ruiz]

What about St. John Chrisysostom in Homilies on Hebrews? He specifically says the sacrifice of the Mass is not many but the same sacrifice on the cross. What happened on the cross was not thanksgiving, it was a sacrifice.

 

[david_ruiz]

James White is more amusing than educational. And the church of 325 was NOT divided into Protestant,evangelical or fundamentalist…that is a FACT of history!

Who said it was ? It was divided however ,as it is down to today.The wheat with the bad stuff,growing side by side.The "One " church as it is often put, is a myth. If it were not, Nicea wouldn’t have been necessary. And the “problem”, division continued even worse after the council .

 

[david_ruiz]

To them when we demonstrate how one Church father or another wrote work ‘x’ or work ‘y’ they don’t see that work or the expositions in that work as being believed universally. They read those works merely as the opinion of one man-beit a bishop, a pastor, theologian, or as they put it ‘missionary’. And that those beliefs were only the witness of that particular ‘church’.

I am sure this is true for some critics ,but not all .It is quite a blanket statement.The fact is there was universality on most doctrine at the beginning .But certainly by 3-4th century some “diversity” is found, along with a universal doctrine and practice.

To them theologies were just as varied then as they are today. To them the only thing that makes the ‘RCC’ different is that they assume that the ‘RCC’ became corrupted & then used the political influence of secular Rome to force the ‘Roman doctrine’ upon other churches. IOW the ‘RCC’ enslaved ‘real christians’ to the ‘Roman doctrine’. Luther, Zwingly, and Calvin are heroes because they freed christianity from the “RCC’s” tyranny.

A blanket statement .But you make the same generalization that everything was fine until Luther in the 1500’s .Everybody forgets ,Waldo (1200’s) ,and Huss and Wycliff and other Catholics begging for reform - some put to death ( just like old testament prophets ,speaking against entrenched status quo). Not to mention the east west rivalry being 1700 years old.

That is their view of history. It is revisionist history at best, outright dishonesty at its worse.

I am also against revisionism or dishonesty ,Lord help me .But ,some have said to the victor go the spoils ,when it comes to history telling .Anything anti Catholic could be burned .This was true for centuries .If heretics were burned ,why not their writings

.It ignores the volumes written before Christianity’s legalization that clearly demonstrate a Universal Church in which all of the local churches, while they did have their heretics and scismatics, all believed the same doctrine, practiced generally the same worship, and all confirmed that their doctrines and practices came from the Apostles. They believed in the Real Presence, they attended Mass, they prayed to the Saints as demonstrated by graves and catecombs all over the Empire, they prayed for the dead. They believed that Mary was the Theotokos(the Mother of God) before the council of Ephesus needed to be conveined because of heretics who had betrayed the Faith. They believed in purgatory. And they believed that the Bishop of Rome was the head teaching & administrative authority for that Universal Body-even the pagan Romans before the 3rd century knew this.

3 centuries is a long time.Heck ,within Paul’s time you had false gospels and letters and “hereticks”. I personally have only read up to around 130 A.D. Did not find any pope, purgatory ,Mary stuff, confessional, real presence was more figurative, not the mass of today , well , it was more protestant service looking than Catholic (-no special language ,clothes ,incense tabernacle,priesthood),don’t think I saw praying for dead or saints. No doubt all these things were soon to come, just did not see them before 130 A. D. To be sure some things could be debateable , as to a present day Catholic/Protestant interpretation or not , just as scripture is debateable on some of our divisive topics.

Nicea was called to answer against bishop Arius & Arianism, which denied Jesus’ divinity

.Well,not exactly .He believed Jesus was divine ,just not as divine as the Father.

Constantine was not a Christian at this time.

Probably not ,but I would not say absolutely

At best he was merely a syncretist who was actually sympathetic to Arius.

True

Constantine wasn’t baptized until he was on his death-bed.

Not sure ,but so were many believers ,so as to be washed clean before death, or avoid penance .

So for protestants to paint him as some great champion for pagainized Catholicism is intellectually dishonest.

Whether he did or didn’t doesn’t rely on him being a christian or not .He definitely lifted the persecutions and wanted to see Christians unified-good politics .But you are right ,in that a following emeperor did more damage by making it mandatory to be a Christian ,or something like that.

Sadly many fundamentalists, and most professional anti-catholics, aren’t well known for doing their due dilligence when it comes to ancient history. Sadly they’ll find just enough to satisfy their prejudices and post what they find as “fact”. Although their methods and techniques they owe to Boettner and his ilk.

So Wycliffe and Huss and Calvin and Luther and other reformers were illiterate about their own church history , but put their life on the line for that beloved church ,ignorantly ? C.S. Lewis said “those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past” Just 150 years ago decrees came out of Rome denouncing bible societies ,vernacular bible translations and reading ,freedom of conscience etc…But I am with you ,at least up to 130 A.D. Look at it all honestly and hide from nothing .yet the spirit discerneth all things.

 

[lyrikal]

it would be both, but (IMHO) it is the “how” of 272 that presents a rather formidable obstacle for your view to overcome. I note that you have provided a 14 part response and that you still may be crafting further responses to the 2-3 posts of mine that you haven’t directly addressed. My plan is to submit a couple of general responses which should point out (what I believe to be) the inadequacies of your approach and after that I would only address those portions of your posts that (I believe) would require special attention. I hope that my responses will then be kept to a handful (even if you run your total to 20 or so.)

If all goes well, I would post my general responses in a few days and then my specific responses in a week or so…would that work for you?

Hi Radical,

That works for me. I am looking forward to your response(s). I’ll be giving my (name removed by moderator)ut on Sermons 227 and 272 which is what your other 2-3 posts are about. Have a great night.

God bless.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I am sure this is true for some critics ,but not all .It is quite a blanket statement.The fact is there was universality on most doctrine at the beginning .But certainly by 3-4th century some “diversity” is found, along with a universal doctrine and practice.

No. There was no church that was baptist in Corinth and one that was evenagelical in Ephesus, and Presbyterian in Smyrna. They didn’t even have these doctrinal differences close to anything that protestants now hold. There was no such thing as “faith alone”, there was no such thing as “bible alone.” The only major controversy in practice in the first century was when to celebrate Easter. Any “diversity”-which is simply a euphamistic way of saying “heresy” or “scism”-was tested either by local or ecumenical councils. Where which the “diversities” were condemned and the inventors of them were told to either recant or be excommunicated. Montanus tried to mix Christianity with Gnosticism-he was condemned. Nestorius tried to say that Jesus was two persons(another form of Gnosticism)-that was condemned.
david ruiz:

A blanket statement .But you make the same generalization that everything was fine until Luther in the 1500’s .Everybody forgets ,Waldo (1200’s) ,and Huss and Wycliff and other Catholics begging for reform - some put to death ( just like old testament prophets ,speaking against entrenched status quo).

I never said “everything was fine” and would appreciate it if you’d not put words in my mouth… The characterization was one that I have experienced with many if not most evengelicals/fundamentalists. Reform was needed, but not according to doctrine. The Church’s doctrine was not at issue, it was certain practices such as the sale of indulgences and clericalism which needed to be address. And which were addressed.

Hus was regurgitating Gnostic ideas, and in his assertions was demanding “bible alone”-that is the only thing close to “protestantism” he can claim. Wycliff, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly didn’t want to reform the Church. They wanted to destroy the Church, not reform it, and to rebuild it in their own image.
david ruiz:

Not to mention the east west rivalry being 1700 years old.

1700 years old? What history book are you reading?
david ruiz:

I am also against revisionism or dishonesty ,Lord help me .But ,some have said to the victor go the spoils ,when it comes to history telling .Anything anti Catholic could be burned .This was true for centuries .If heretics were burned ,why not their writings 3 centuries is a long time.

Now comes how you really think. Anything salacious or defamitory must be applied to the Catholic Church because there is no possibility that the Church, when it comes to history, can act upright or honestly.

Firstly, the assumption begs the question. The Church didn’t burn heretics, the Church Universal never sanctioned the burning of heretics. Was there certain local bishops who were used as puppets of secular rulers to get rid of their political enemies? Yes. But you need to recognize those distinctions for the sake of historical accuracy.

Secondly, maybe the reason that the works of heretics weren’t preserved is because their works weren’t worth preserving? Papyrus was the primary medium for books and only lasted a few hundred years in good conditions. The reason why we know so much about all of the heresies of the Early Church is because Catholic apologists spent so much time copying them out to refute them.

Thirdly, during the Diocletian persecutions he gave orders that Chiristian books were to be burned. Many Christians, under pain of death, handed over books that would later be called the Bible to be burned. Others refused and were killed. The bottom line is that you have your BIble because of the blood and sacrifice of the Catholic Church who preserved them.

There is one more famous story that when Roman soldiers entered this one Christian library that after some resistance the librarian handed over his books to be burned. What the soldiers didn’t know was that what he handed over to be burned was one of the largest libraries of Gnostic heretical writings that existed in the Western Empire.

The bottom line is that while your assertions may sound appealing to those who are already prejudiced against the Church they have no basis in fact.

Heck ,within Paul’s time you had false gospels and letters and “hereticks”. I personally have only read up to around 130 A.D. Did not find any pope, purgatory ,Mary stuff, confessional, real presence was more figurative, not the mass of today , well , it was more protestant service looking than Catholic (-no special language ,clothes ,incense tabernacle,priesthood),don’t think I saw praying for dead or saints.

One, what are you reading? What are your sources? Arguments from silence as “proof” are not arguments. Writings mostly are written when a doctrine is attacked. Most of the debates in the first three centuries had to do with Christology. But Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” is an excellent exposition of Christianity as handed down from the Apostles(he himself a student of John the Evangelist).

F.F. Bruce’s “New Testament History” and Johannes Quasten’s “Patrology” are two of the best and unbiased works on the Early Church. I read them as an atheist/agnostic coming back to Chirstianity.
david ruiz:

No doubt all these things were soon to come, just did not see them before 130 A. D. To be sure some things could be debateable , as to a present day Catholic/Protestant interpretation or not , just as scripture is debateable on some of our divisive topics.

Scripture is “debated” because there is such a thing as the law of non-contradiction. And its obvious that your “sources” are severely deficient.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

pt 2
david ruiz:

.Well,not exactly .He believed Jesus was divine ,just not as divine as the Father.

Arius denied that Jesus was of the same substance or essence as the Father. You cannot say that Jesus is still divine yet not divine like the Father is.
It’s simple, anything that is less than God is not God.
Arius claimed that Jesus is less than God, therefore Arius denied Jesus’ divinity.
david ruiz:

Probably not ,but I would not say absolutely

I’m saying, absolutely, that Constantine was not a Christian until he was baptized on his death bed. You’re also assuming protestantism in your response, which begs the question. You are not buried in Christ and incorporated into His body-the Church-until you are baptized in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
david ruiz:

Not sure ,but so were many believers ,so as to be washed clean before death, or avoid penance .

Well according to the history sources that I have I am sure. Constantine waited until his death because he knew he had blood on his hands. He killed his own relatives because he believed that they conspired against him for the throne.
david ruiz:

Whether he did or didn’t doesn’t rely on him being a christian or not.

Are you kidding? That is the whole basis of so many protestant’s arguments agianst the Universal Church!
david ruiz:

He definitely lifted the persecutions and wanted to see Christians unified-good politics .But you are right ,in that a following emeperor did more damage by making it mandatory to be a Christian ,or something like that.

Did you even read what I posted?
Constantine never made it “mandatory” to be a Christian. He merely legalized it. Most of his life he worshiped in the Mithras cult. He had no real power or authority in the Church. He did nothing but meddle in the Church in the east and perpetuated Arianism by supporting it. BTW the one who baptized Constantine was an Arian bishop himself. Why the Orthodox Church in the East still refers to him as “St. Constantine” is beyond me.
david ruiz:

So Wycliffe and Huss and Calvin and Luther and other reformers were illiterate about their own church history , but put their life on the line for that beloved church ,ignorantly ?

No, they were prideful and ignorant men who wanted to make a name for themselves while claiming that they were doing God’s will. Sorry, God’s will isn’t to destroy His Church and enact doctrines that neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever taught.

John Calvin did, accurately, testify(against himself) that the Church remained “pure and undefiled” during the first six centuires of her existence. Any cursory examination of that history, when compaired to protestantism, shows that protestantism doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
david ruiz:

C.S. Lewis said “those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past” Just 150 years ago decrees came out of Rome denouncing bible societies ,vernacular bible translations and reading ,freedom of conscience etc…

Yes, because those traslations were full of errors and not approved for printing by the Church and those “Bible societies” were not orthodox. Hence they did more damage and caused more error and fracturing in Christendom. Sorry, Mr. Ruiz, but religious subjectivism is one of the worst diseases to infect modern man in recent times. It’s a lie and a tool of the evil one. Orthodox Doctrine comes from God, through Christ and His Church. Not from individual ‘believers’.
david ruiz:

But I am with you ,at least up to 130 A.D. Look at it all honestly and hide from nothing .yet the spirit discerneth all things.

It’s foolish to assume that the oak tree in its fullness will look exactly the same as the acorn. God didn’t make the tree to be that way, neither did he create the Church to be that way.

 

[david_ruiz]

One, what are you reading? What are your sources?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Clement, Barnabus,Ignatius,Matteas,Polycarp.Didache. Discussed them on history timeline thread .

Have you read Rod Bennet’s “The Four Witnesses”?
david ruiz:

Yes ,which the church used to promote the Roman bishop,and I am not sure Iraneus intended that.

“…we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner…assemble in unauthorized meetings; (we do this, I say) by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of that very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; also (by pointing out) the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by the means of the successions of bishops. For it is of necessity that every (local)Church should agree with this Church(in Rome), on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those (faithful men) who exist everywhere.” (Against Heresies, bk 3, chpt 3).

“Not sure”? Irenaeus is pretty clear.

“You, therefore who laid the foundation of rebellion, submit to the presbyters, and accept the chastisement for repentance, bending the knees of your heart.”(St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, chpt 57).

If the Bishop of Rome had no universal authority, that the Church wa merely a loose confederacy like protestantism is today, what right does Clement even have to demand obedience from congregants of another church?

“For you will afford us joy and gladness if you obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit and get rid of the wicked passion of jealousy, according to the plea of peace and harmony which we have made in this letter. **We have sent trustworthy and prudent men…and they will be witnesses between you and us.”(St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, chpt 63).

Again, Clement writes to the Corinthians under the authority of the Holy Spirit. The same authority that the Apostles wrote under after the Council of Jerusalem(Acts 15:28). There is no way that St. Clement-if protetsnatism be true-would do this. Unless this authority WAS given him by the Apostles, and he, in the letter, is exercising that authority.
david ruiz:

Several other lists of bishop of Rome differ slightly .but yes ,I like Iraneus and his list of bishops from three different churches (locations- cities)) Romes foundation ,at least from his list is Peter AND Paul.He certainly was NOT talking of Popes or head /universal bishop

Nowhere was I speaking of mere lists(as important as they are). I have demonstrated in the above passages the authority of the Bishop of Rome in action before the end of the first century.

As I said earlier, it seems as though your understanding of the Chruch up to 130 is deficient.

Nowhwere was the Bishop of Rome’s divine authority questioned until the Novatian heresy after the Decian persecutions. The Church-through men like Cyprian and Turtullian-stood against these heretics and defended the primacy or the Bishop of Rome.**