The Real Presence

[lyrikal]

OK, that its just circular logic. Exactly how do you know that it was never fulfilled. It seems that you are assuming your conclusion.

IOW the “different discernment” being the protestant one? Sorry, but no matter how bad you wish the early Church was like modern protestantism, doesn’t make it so. The ECF’s were clear, “oneness” necessitated communion with the Bishop of Rome. He was the sign and the instrument of the unity that God wanted. And if you weren’t in communion with Rome, you were not in the Church, you did not have Christ as your Lord, you did not have God as your Father, you did not have the Holy Spirit-no matter how well your intentions.

Whatever you have that is true, came from the Church. Whatever you have that is false, came from the “Reformers”(or as I call them Revolutionaries).

What I don’t understand is how someone could be a minimalist Christian. Why would you only want a little of Christ here and a little of Christ there? Yet that is exactly what protestants imply by remaining protestant.

Why not have all of Christ-or the “fullness” of Christ, that is found in His Church?

True. And since the divisions are doctrinal they can and should be-and in the case of the Church have already been-answered. Divisions don’t remain because of the doctrines themselves, they remain because of the pride and disobedience of those protestants who steadfastly hold those false doctrines because they don’t want to submit to what they perceive as an “earthly” authority. Protestantism has taught them that they are their own authority, that their interpretation of scripture is just as valid as anyone else’s, including any theologian, or some group of bishops, or even that bishop in Rome.

Of course this is very appealing to modern minds fresh out of the Enlightenment, yet it is completely antithetical to the very work which they hold to be their only authoritative source-the Bible.

The bottom line is that there has to be One Church which is right and the others, in one way or many, are wrong.

I didn’t read history as a Catholic to reinforce my preconceptions. I read history as an atheist/agnostic in my search for God and found the Catholic Church as the only true Christian Church. I didn’t have any preconceptions, just and open mind and a docile heart.

**I came from evangelical protestantism to atheism. And nowhere did I find anything close to it in the early Church. Anyone who does is committing eisegesis. They’re reading protestantism into history, or reading history through their protestant colored glasses. They were taught that the Early Church was protestant, so all that they read they impose their terms, experiences, and understandings upon all that they read. And when they find other passages-sometimes contained within the same work which they claim justifies their beliefs-that is too “catholic” for their tastes they either completely ignore it or explain it away as if the writer didn’t really mean what he wrote.

And for someone who loves history as I do, I find such acts highly offensive. It borders on intellectual dishonesty.**

This says it all, right there. If a Jehova’s Witness can take the Scriptures and tell us Jesus was not God, then anyone can take any text and make it say anything they desire it to say. Where does that lead? What does that tell us? It tells us that there MUST be an authority to settle disputes and controversies.

Example:

Person A believes that Christ taught the Real Presence of Himself in the Eucharist and quotes the Bible and the Early Church Fathers to prove this.

Person B believes that Christ taught the symbolic view of the Eucharist and quotes the Bible and the Early Church Fathers to prove this.

Now what? Is Christ dumb to leave it at that? Is He dumb to let us walk around disagreeing with one another without setting an authoritative system? Heck, even in our own HUMANLY made systems, we recognize that there HAS to be authority in order for there to be order. Look at the Court System, the Government (President, Senators, Governors), Police, etc. If us humans can think of something so logical, how much more would God do the same?

Can a father and a mother leave their 5 kids (who are all under the age of 12) alone forever by handing them a book with instructions on how they are to live? There would be chaos from the get go and disorder. What if one kid disagrees with another on how to interpret a certain text from that book? Now what? There is no authority. No authority, no unity. Authority CANNOT be based on a book alone, especially since that book is the Word of God. Since it is the Word of God and inspired by the Holy Spirit, we would think that it would be interpreted by the Holy Spirit primarily through the Church. The Early Church Fathers were not Sola Scripturalists and never taught such a thing. They never interpreted Scripture outside of Tradition and the Church. To the Fathers, these three things worked together perfectly to bring upon Truth and unity.

The Fathers believed in:

1.) The Scriptures
2.) Oral Traditions
3.) The Authority of the Church

How many Protestants today believe those three things? Anyone who thinks the Early Church Fathers were Protestants or had Protestant beliefs (such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide) is kidding themselves.

God bless.

 

[david_ruiz]

Really David? Scripture gives us the outline and boundaries? Show me where the scriptures once mention a canon for Scripture? Hhmmm? I wonder where on earth did the canon derived from?

May I quote Church Father Barnabus, “It is well, that he who has learned the judgements of the Lord, AS MANY AS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ,should walk in them.” Why, this should be declared heretical. Good thing he wasn’t born 1400 years later…Actually Peter and Paul mention several times that what they wrote is “canon”,- holy, inspired writing. Are you saying once the mother church declares a book inspired and holy ,from God Himself ,that it is not an “outline” or “boundary” or authoritative ? So God gives us something , and because we decide He gave it to us ,therefore, we are equally on par with what He gave us. Who mentioned circular earlier ?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

May I quote Church Father Barnabus, “It is well, that he who has learned the judgements of the Lord, AS MANY AS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ,should walk in them.” Why, this should be declared heretical. Good thing he wasn’t born 1400 years later…Actually Peter and Paul mention several times that what they wrote is “canon”,- holy, inspired writing. Are you saying once the mother church declares a book inspired and holy ,from God Himself ,that it is not an “outline” or “boundary” or authoritative ? So God gives us something , and because we decide He gave it to us ,therefore, we are equally on par with what He gave us. Who mentioned circular earlier ?

God the Father sent His Son. God the Son sent His Apostles and told them “He who hears you hears Me. He who rejects you reject Me and Him who sent Me.”(Luke 10:16).

Paul writes that the Church is the “fulness of Christ”(Eph 1:16-23) and the “pillar and bulwark of the truth”(1 Tim 3:15).

The Bible is inspired because of the principle that it is the Church which produced the scriptures and proclaims them. The Bible is the “Word of God” because in it is contained the Gospels and the memoirs of the Apostles who Jesus sent in His name and with His authority. All of the books were written by men in the Church. Their works were proclaimed as inerrant by the Church.

BTW, you fail to understand the distinction between “declared” and “proclaimed”. The Church doesn’t “declare” things as if they weren’t before and suddenly are by their word. They Church “proclaims”, affirms things that already are true.

The purpose of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 390’s was to not only confirm what the canon was, but to exclude other works that were being read in the Church during worship. The Church decided upon the criteria for the canon and then chose the books to be included according to that criteria.

The bottom line is that the logic is not circular, it is spirical.

 

[david_ruiz]

Example:

Person A believes that Christ taught the Real Presence of Himself in the Eucharist and quotes the Bible and the Early Church Fathers to prove this.

Person B believes that Christ taught the symbolic view of the Eucharist and quotes the Bible and the Early Church Fathers to prove this.

Now what? Is Christ dumb to leave it at that? Is He dumb to let us walk around disagreeing with one another without setting an authoritative system? Heck, even in our own HUMANLY made systems, we recognize that there HAS to be authority in order for there to be order. Look at the Court System, the Government (President, Senators, Governors), Police, etc. If us humans can think of something so logical, how much more would God do the same?

Quite a political rendering of an age old problem .You frame it for your answer. Why don’t you go back to the Garden of Eden , for there is nothing new under the sun . God spoke quite clearly to two perfect , sinless, God -filled, humans (Adam and Eve) .Was God so “dumb” to leave it that , even free will ? Yep . Was he worried ? Nope . So why are you ? My friend, there will always be choices and division , from perfect beginnings, like Scripture. There is personal conscience , something a church authority could snuff out .In fact 3 popes just a century and a half ago decreed or forbade freedom of conscience, for the Church is the only authority or conscience of what is good and proper…Sorry , but God is His own interpreter , as Peter confessed rightly , because God interpreted ,discerned form all the oral and written Jewish tradition ( your # 1,2,3,) and revealed it to Peter. Against this the gates of hell , death itself could not prevail .For if you tell me something, that is one thing , but if God is in it and He tells me something thru it, I would hope to die for it (hold on to it) .That is why early Christians were torn asunder ,not just because of what an apostle told them or what they heard or read , but because of what God had personally revealed to them .They were baptized in the Holy Ghost. As Augustine says, “He teaches us” ,yet Augustine was taught by Ambrose." Do you who granted to him,your servant, to speak these true words, grant to me that I might understand them." No Jesus was not dumb and He is with us as sure as he was with the apostles for three years. The Holy Spirit teaches us ,Is that dumb ? maybe ,for by the foolishness of preaching should men be saved .

The Fathers believed in:

1.) The Scriptures
2.) Oral Traditions
3.) The Authority of the Church

Maybe, but they would never say #2 ,3 are equal to #1.That would take centuries of compromise, but certainly not in first century church.

Anyone who thinks the Early Church Fathers were Protestants or had Protestant beliefs (such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide) is kidding themselves.

Barnabus,Early Church Father, -"It is well that he who is learned in the ways of the Lord,“as many as have been written should walk in them”. Or somebody named Augustine,- “Therefore, since we were too weak to find the truth by pure reason and for that cause we needed the authority of Holy Writ, i now began to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scripture,unless you wished that both through it you be believed and through it you be sought” and “easy for everyone to read” (VERNACULAR ???),and “accessible to all men”.

 

[david_ruiz]

The Bible is inspired because of the principle that it is the Church which produced the scriptures and proclaims them.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

The GreyPilgrim;8239611:

Wow .The way you word it it seems like the Church breathed life into them. Was Peter wrong when he said God breathed them ?

If you mean that the Church breathed life into them because God breathed life into the Church, then yes, that’s what I’m saying.

Is the Church of God God’s Church or is it a church of men? The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky on Pentecost wrapped in shrinkwrap for them to use. The Bible doesn’t “make” the Church or act as the Church’s constitution; the Bible presupposes the Church and describes a Church already in existence.

God breathed on the Apostles(John 20:21-23). Jesus never told the Apostles to write anything down. And the Apostles never reported Jesus actually breathing on a book.

The Bible came from the Church, the Church from Christ, Christ from the Father, and all in the Holy Spirit.

You’re creating division where there is none.

 

[lyrikal]

The GreyPilgrim;8239611:

Wow .The way you word it it seems like the Church breathed life into them. Was Peter wrong when he said God breathed them ?

Peter is IN the Church. This is where your argument falters. You separate the Apostles from the Church as if they are two things that are different. This basically shows your fallacy and reveals your misunderstanding. The Apostles would NEVER separate themselves from the Church because they believed to be THE Church.

I’ll respond to your cute little Church Father quotes another time. For the record, nothing you quoted shows those Early Church Fathers believing in Scripture ALONE but it shows them believing in the authority of Scripture which the Catholic Church agrees on and has no problem with. So with the Fathers you quoted I say AMEN to those quotes and as does the Catholic Church.

Don’t make Augustine to be a believer in Sola Scriptura. You’ll easily find yourself walking into a wall.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Maybe, but they would never say #2 ,3 are equal to #1.That would take centuries of compromise, but certainly not in first century church.

Wrong. Oral tradition and scripture were both equal(2 Thes 2:15), it was the authority of the Apostles and their successors which was primary or else Paul would have no right to demand obedience to his words. Paul tells other churches to accept Timothy and Titus as they would accept Paul, himself-that is as having the authority of an Apostle.

Again, you’re committing eisegesis. You’re reading history through protestant colored glasses.
david ruiz:

Barnabus,Early Church Father, -"It is well that he who is learned in the ways of the Lord,“as many as have been written should walk in them”. Or somebody named Augustine,- “Therefore, since we were too weak to find the truth by pure reason and for that cause we needed the authority of Holy Writ, i now began to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scripture,unless you wished that both through it you be believed and through it you be sought” and “easy for everyone to read” (VERNACULAR ???),and “accessible to all men”.

The Latin vulgate was the standard in Augustine’s time( not to mention Augustine had an admitted hatred of Greek) because the Roman Empire spoke LATIN. LATIN WAS THE VERNACULAR.

Two:
"But should you meet with a person not yet believing the Gospel. how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."

St. Augustine, AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL, chpt 5.

Please don’t quote St .Augustine out of context.

 

[Jim27290]

Why not?

Because Christ is locally in Heaven, sitting at the right hand of God the Father.
(ROM 8:34, HEB 9:24-25, ACT 1:11)

So what you are basically saying is that you know what God can or cannot do?

I have maybe made a mistake but I believed this thread was about the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist and Protestant views of that and I do not understand how my saying that I believe in the Real Presence somehow means that I am pretending to know the limits of the limitless God. No what I am basically saying is:

I’m Anglican and fully believe in the real personal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I just don’t believe that he is locally present… if you know what I mean

If you want it really simple… I mean that I believe in transignification.

I believe that the bread and the wine truly and really become the Body and Blood of Christ at consecration, and that Christ is truly and really present in the consecrated elements of the Eucharist… that is how my feeble human mind understands the Sacred mystery of the Holy Eucharist.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Because Christ is locally in Heaven, sitting at the right hand of God the Father.
(ROM 8:34, HEB 9:24-25, ACT 1:11)

So then God cannot be omnipresent? Do you understand what an “anthropormorphism” is?

Acts 17: [24] The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
[25] nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
[26] And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
[27] that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
[28] for `In him we live and move and have our being’;

Jesus also tells the Aposltes “I am with you always, until the close of the age…”

I have maybe made a mistake but I believed this thread was about the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist and Protestant views of that and I do not understand how my saying that I believe in the Real Presence somehow means that I am pretending to know the limits of the limitless God. No what I am basically saying is:

If you want it really simple… I mean that I believe in transignification.

I believe that the bread and the wine truly and really become the Body and Blood of Christ at consecration, and that Christ is truly and really present in the consecrated elements of the Eucharist… that is how my feeble human mind understands the Sacred mystery of the Holy Eucharist.

But Jesus didn’t say ,“this signifies my body”, He said, “this IS my body.”

It’s like looking at the American flag. The threads, the dye, the weave pattern, etc., don’t make the American flag THE American flag. What makes it the American flag is the essence-or substance-that all of those things combined together form.

The bottom line is that if by the Word of God the entirety of the universe can be formed into existence, why is it so hard to accept that God can make Himself substantially present in the species (accidents) or bread and wine?

 

[lyrikal]

Quite a political rendering of an age old problem .You frame it for your answer. Why don’t you go back to the Garden of Eden , for there is nothing new under the sun . God spoke quite clearly to two perfect , sinless, God -filled, humans (Adam and Eve) .Was God so “dumb” to leave it that , even free will ? Yep . Was he worried ? Nope . So why are you ?

Can you show me where in Scripture it says that Adam and Eve are supposed to be infallible? I don’t believe that they’re infallible and they certainly can err. But, that’s not the case here. No Catholic does claim (or should claim) that the pope or the Church is/are sinless. Don’t confuse infallibility with being sinless. The Scriptures DO tell us that Peter will not teach error (Matthew 16:16-19), the Apostles will not teach error (Matthew 18:18) and that the Church is the pillar and foundation of TRUTH (1 Timothy 3:15). Our belief is not made up but it is Scriptural and Apostolic. If God gave Adam and Eve authority to teach us (without error) on matters that are doctrinal, then you would have a point. But no one believes that so there is no need to go there.

My friend, there will always be choices and division , from perfect beginnings, like Scripture.

And at the same time, there will always be ONE truth that we can cling to. Whether or not there are thousands of divisions does not take away from the fact that truth is objective not subjective. Denominations will come and go, but the truth is in the Church that Jesus started 2000 years ago.

There is personal conscience , something a church authority could snuff out .

There is personal conscience, yes. And by your admission, personal conscience can err (see your quote above regarding Adam and Eve). Since (by your admission) personal conscience can err, then we would expect Christ to start an infallible Church to keep us under the roof of the true Church. But if you don’t believe me when I tell you that the Church has the fullness of truth, why not go to the Scriptures and see?

1Ti 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

In fact 3 popes just a century and a half ago decreed or forbade freedom of conscience, for the Church is the only authority or conscience of what is good and proper…

Please provide a reference. Many times, Protestants and people of other faiths take the Church’s teachings out of context.

Sorry , but God is His own interpreter , as Peter confessed rightly , because God interpreted ,discerned form all the oral and written Jewish tradition ( your # 1,2,3,) and revealed it to Peter. Against this the gates of hell , death itself could not prevail

I agree, God IS His own interpreter. We believe that the Holy Spirit inspires the Church and leads it to the fullness of truth. Take Scripture for example. It was penned by men who can err but since they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, they cannot err. Same goes with interpretation. The Church is lead by men that can err but since they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, they cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

.For if you tell me something, that is one thing , but if God is in it and He tells me something thru it, I would hope to die for it (hold on to it) .

What I am telling you does not come from me but comes from the teachings of a Church that Christ established. Christ gave the Church command to teach with authority. What does the Scriptures say about this?

Luk 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Matthew 18:15-18
15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

That is why early Christians were torn asunder ,not just because of what an apostle told them or what they heard or read , but because of what God had personally revealed to them .They were baptized in the Holy Ghost.

But nothing that was revealed to the saints ever contradicted the Church’s teachings, they only affirmed it.

Continued…

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Just came back from spending some time in Adoration (of Jesus in the Eucharist) and I just have to say that I am so glad the Jesus kept His promise of being with us (physically) until the end of time!

Thank you Jesus for being with us in a real and tangible way!

 

[david_ruiz]

f you mean that the Church breathed life into them because God breathed life into the Church, then yes, that’s what I’m saying.

Yes ,we know the writers were first Jewish , then were called people of the Way ,and finally called "CHRISTIAN at Antioch.They were not "catholic " yet.No denomination or name can claim the writings other than those just given

.

The Bible came from the Church,

False focus,unless you are trying to elevate your denomination/Western Catholicism.

You’re creating division where there is none.

No you are creating division by saying it is your church and not others,By claiming the Roman Catholic Church reigns supreme and all other believers are second class. When you say “Church” ,you mean your church , which to me is not catholic /universal .At best it is western catholic ,not eastern catholic ,nor protestant catholic.

 

[lyrikal]

As Augustine says, “He teaches us” ,yet Augustine was taught by Ambrose." Do you who granted to him,your servant, to speak these true words, grant to me that I might understand them."

As noted earlier by us, please do not take St. Augustine out of context and make him sound like he is a Sola Scriptura believing Protestant. What you quoted above from St. Augustine is something that I and the Church can say amen to. Nothing in that quote says that we are to follow the Scriptures ALONE.

Let’s take a look at some St. Augustine quotes and see what he believed:

“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.”
Augustine,On Christian Doctrine,3,2:2(A.D. 397),in NPNF1,II:557

“But those reasons which I have here given,** I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers**, **or **from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.”
Augustine,On the Trinity,4,6:10(A.D. 416),in NPNF1,III:75

"As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established."
Augustine,To Januarius,Epistle 54:1(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,1:300

“[H]e, I say, abundantly shows that he was most willing to correct his own opinion, if any one should prove to him that it is as certain that the baptism of Christ can be given by those who have strayed from the fold, as that it could not he lost when they strayed; on which subject we have already said much. Nor should we ourselves venture to assert anything of the kind, were we not supported by the unanimous authority of the whole Church, to which he himself would unquestionably have yielded, if at that time the truth of this question had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council. For if he quotes Peter as an example for his allowing himself quietly and peacefully to be corrected by one junior colleague, how much more readily would he himself, with the Council of his province, have yielded to the authority of the whole world, when the truth had been thus brought to light?”
Augustine,On Baptism against the Donatist,2:5(A.D. 401),in NPNF1,IV:427

“What the custom of the Church has always held, what this argument has failed to prove false, and what a plenary Council has confirmed, this we follow!”
Augustine,On Baptism against the Donatist,4:10(A.D. 401),in NPNF1,IV:450

“You think that you make a very acute remark when you affirm the name Catholic to mean universal, not in respect to the communion as embracing the whole world, but in respect to the observance of all Divine precepts and of all the sacraments, as if we (**even accepting the position that the Church is called Catholic because it honestly holds the whole **truth, of which fragments here and there are found in some heresies) rested upon the testimony of this word’s signification, and not upon the promises of God, and so many indisputable testimonies of the truth itself, our demonstration of the existence of the Church of God in all nations.”
Augustine,To Vincent the Rogatist,93:7,23(A.D. 403),in NPNF1,I:390

No Jesus was not dumb and He is with us as sure as he was with the apostles for three years. The Holy Spirit teaches us ,Is that dumb ? maybe ,for by the foolishness of preaching should men be saved .

The Holy Spirit teaches us primarily through the Church and secondarily in private; however, what the Holy Spirit teaches us can NEVER contradict what the Church teaches us because that same Holy Spirit teaches the Church so we should expect to find the same truth. If we’re going to talk about the Holy Spirit teaching us individually only, your whole argument falls flat on it’s face BECAUSE of the fact that we are having a debate. I believe the Holy Spirit is guiding me and you believe the Holy Spirit is guiding you and yet we are contradicting each other. How can the Holy Spirit lead two people to two different kinds of truths? Why should I believe you? Why should you believe me? I shouldn’t and you shouldn’t either. There MUST be an authority to proclaim the truth when there are disputes. How else do you think the Scriptures were put together?

Maybe, but they would never say #2 ,3 are equal to #1.

Yes they would. You are more than welcomed to start a thread about this and we can go into it in more detail. I believe I have already shown that Augustine regarded all 3 as being equal in authority.

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

That would take centuries of compromise, but certainly not in first century church.

Doctrine develops. Protestant and Catholic doctrines have been developed and defined century after century. Do you think Moses was walking around teaching the Trinity? Do you think the Christians in the first century were walking around teaching that Christ has two wills? You want to talk about a doctrine that developed? You should look into the doctrine that tells us Baptism is only a symbol and nothing happens when you are baptized. All it means is that you are now a Christian. Good luck with that.

Development of doctrine does not mean an addition to the doctrine but a clearer understanding to the doctrine. The Church in the first century operated as the Church being the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that the Word of God is passed down orally and through written Scriptures (2 Thes 2:15).

Barnabus,Early Church Father, -“It is well that he who is learned in the ways of the Lord as many as have been written should walk in them”.

Amen. This says nothing about SCRIPTURE alone. We believe and agree with Baranabus on this.

Or somebody named Augustine,- “Therefore, since we were too weak to find the truth by pure reason and for that cause we needed the authority of Holy Writi now began to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scripture,unless you wished that both through it you be believed and through it you be sought” and “easy for everyone to read” (VERNACULAR ???),and “accessible to all men”.

Again, the Catholic Church believes in the authority of Scripture and can say AMEN to what you just quoted from Augustine. There is absolutely nothing in that quote that contradicts Catholic teaching. It only contradicts your misrepresentation and what you believe the Catholic Church teaches.

Did you want more quotes from Augustine? Here you go…

**“Wherever this tradition **comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it”
Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis

"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you"
C. Cresconius I:33

“It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true”
Sermon 117:6

"The authority of our Scriptures, strenghtened by the consent of so may nations, and confirmed by the succession of the Apostles, bishops and councils, is against you"
C. Faustus 8:5

“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the CHURCH”
Trinitas 4,6,10

1. Cease, then, to bring forward against us the authority of Cyprian in favor of repeating baptism, but cling with us to the example of Cyprian for the preservation of unity. For this question of baptism had not been as yet completely worked out, but yet the Church observed the most wholesome custom of correcting what was wrong, not repeating what was already given, even in the case of schismatics and heretics: she healed the wounded part, but did not meddle with what was whole. And this custom, coming, I suppose, from apostolical tradition (like many other things which are held to have been handed down under their actual sanction, because they are preserved throughout tile whole Church, though they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils of their successors),–this most wholesome custom, I say, according to the holy Cyprian, began to be what is called amended by his predecessor Agrippinus.
   Augustine on Baptism Against the Donatists, Book 2, chapter 7, 12.

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic".
Augustine (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39

Augustine was a Catholic. Good luck making those quotes agree with your belief of Sola Scriptura which St. Augustine NEVER taught nor believed.

God bless.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8239667:

Peter is IN the Church.

Yes ,Peter was a Jewish Christian ,a person of the Way .He was not called “catholic”,nor" roman catholic".Those labels did not exist then ,nor will they exist in eternity

You separate the Apostles from the Church

You separate the apostles form half of Christendom , by claiming them to be Roman Catholic when they were not (nor were they Orthodox, Lutheran, baptist etc. )

For the record, nothing you quoted shows those Early Church Fathers believing in Scripture ALONE

Surpassing means surpassing.Augustine said Scripture had surpassing authority Nowhere does Augustine say Tradition ,or Rome or even his beloved Catholic (universal) Church had surpassing authority. He goes on to say ,"his holy ones posses the word of life, with manifest authority of their spiritual gifts and for the instruction of the heathen nations he produced out of corporeal matter sacraments, and visible miracles, and voices, and words, IN KEEPING WITH THE FIRMAMENT OF YOUR BOOK, and in them the faithful will find blessing I am sorry but Augustine said the boundaries for religious things is Scriture. He is thankful for “holy ones” -magisterium ,but he is also thankful for His personal teacher ,by experience, the Lord Himself.

Don’t make Augustine to be a believer in Sola Scriptura. You’ll easily find yourself walking into a wall. :

He wasn’t perfect ,but please show me where he says Tradition and magisterium (pope /decrees,councils) interpret scripture FOR Augustine ,and that they do NOT have to be subject to Holy Writ ? Well , I can think of one instance where he buckled under majority or prevailing opinion ,where he admitted that perhaps Mary was without sin, despite Scripture saying "all have sinned’ , or perhaps I misunderstood and somehow He reconciled the two ,but I think not.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Yes ,we know the writers were first Jewish , then were called people of the Way ,and finally called "CHRISTIAN at Antioch.They were not "catholic " yet.No denomination or name can claim the writings other than those just given

1. “Catholic” is not just another “denomination”.
   2)“Catholic” is the English trasliteration of the Greek word “katholike” which means “universal”. Which is precisely what Jesus intended the Church to be and what the Church was long before Ignatius used the word to describe the Church in his letter to the Smyrneans in 107. “Denominations” are an invention of protestantism to justfy their existence apart from the Church.
   3)You are still operating off of the false premise that everything to be believed in the Church and about the Church has to be found in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible say that.
   .

david ruiz:

False focus,unless you are trying to elevate your denomination/Western Catholicism.

I reject of your referring to the Catholic Church as a “denomination”. You still have yet to prove the existence of other “denominations” in the first three centuries, much less prove the validity of such “denominations”.

Sure enough there were Gnostics who called themselves “christians” but just because you call yourself a “christian” doesn’t make it so. Look into Gnosticism and see if their beliefs line up with the Gospel(Gal 1:8-9). Montanus called himself a “christian”. So did Novatian, Nestorius, Arius, Manichaeus, and most every other heretic and scismatic.

"And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; ” John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” Song of Songs 6:9** Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, ** "(St Cyprian, “On the Unity of the Church”)

Your whole line of reasoning presupposes protestant tradition & worldview which is begging the question.

Did the books of the Bible come from the inspiration of God through the hands of the authors or not? Were those men members of the Church or not?
davis ruiz:

No you are creating division by saying it is your church and not others,By claiming the Roman Catholic Church reigns supreme and all other believers are second class. When you say “Church” ,you mean your church , which to me is not catholic /universal .At best it is western catholic ,not eastern catholic ,

You seem to be confusing “rites” with “denominations” and still confusing your protestant notion of autonomous local “churches” with what Jesus intended as the Church.

All 22 rites that are in communion with the Pope are “the Church.” If I were to be transported from where i live now to Moscow, Berlin, Bejing, Tokyo, Melbourne, etc. And went to Mass in any one of those cities, I would hear the exact same readings and participate in the same worship as I do here at home.

This is a failure of distinctions on your part, not “creating division” on mine.
david ruiz:

nor protestant catholic.

There is no such thing as the “protestant catholic church”.

 

[david_ruiz]

Can you show me where in Scripture it says that Adam and Eve are supposed to be infallible?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

david ruiz:

Don’t get that from scripture .What is bound in heaven first shall be bound on earth.Where Peter was right ,he was right .Where he was wrong he was wrong .We are not bound by our rightness or wrongness or Peter’s, but by His truth and Person.

So then what is the meaning of Jesus giving Simon a name(Peter, “the Rock”) reserved specifically for Himself?
david ruiz:

(1 Timothy 3:15).Again ,it is the Church universal /catholic ,not Roman Catholic or Orthodox or Baptist etc.

This is equivocation and the tactic is disengenuous. You’re purposefully trying to muddy the waters and force us to accept your definitions of terms. We do not. Within the Church are all those rites which are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. That is the Universal Church.
david ruiz:

Yes ,and it had no name at first. .But if you prefer names…

We prefer clarity & truth is clear. You seem to prefer religious subjectivism and relativism, the muddier the waters the better for you to justify your tradition.
david ruiz:

Pope Leo12- 1821-condemned religious freedom,tolerance,bible societies,bible translations.
Pope Pius 8 -1829 -denounced liberty of conscience,and bible societies Pope Pius 9 1846- denounced liberty of conscience,liberty of worship,speech, press,condemned bible societies

Posting brief accusations without citations or without context is not proof.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Let’s get back on the road.