Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Sacramental Union

[Thorolfr]

I can tell you that those Catholics who are active members of the Church, even those who have not had any formal instruction, believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist almost across the board.

I’ve always wondered what various Christians really believe about the doctrines of their faith, whether Catholic or Protestant. I was kind of surprised by something that the well known scholar of early Christianity, Bart Ehrman, a self-acknowledged agnostic, wrote in his newest book, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (HarperCollins, 2014), p. 324-5:

After I stopped being an evangelical Christian, I worshiped for years in liberal Christian churches. Most people in these congregations were not literalists: they did not think either that the Bible was literally true or that it was some kind of infallible revelation of the word of God. And even though they said the traditional Christian creeds [such as the Apostles’ Creed] as part of their worship services, many of these people did not believe what they said – as I learned from talking to them. Moreover, many people never gave a passing thought to what the words meant or why they were in the creed in the first place….On several occasions over the past few years, when giving lectures in liberal and open churches throughout the country, I have said that of the entire creed, I can say only one part in good faith: “he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.” For me personally, not being able to say the (rest of the) creed – since I don’t believe it – prevents me from joining such congregations. But members of these congregations – and even clergy - often tell me that this should not be an obstacle. A lot of them don’t believe it either. At least not in any literal way.

 

[pablope]

I was raised Southern Baptist but attended a Presbyterian church for a while and am now a member of Lutheran church. I’m pretty sure that all three view the Eucharist and the bread and the wine somewhat differently and that all of them view them differently from Catholics. I’ve always been a little fuzzy about what different Christian groups believe the bread and wine represent in the Eucharist and would like to discuss this issue.

See the link in post 20.

 

[SteveVH]

That is all a moot point in trying to support that a majority of Christians believe in transubstantiation… or rather, that shows that a majority does not, based on statistics. You and I both know that the numbers that are collected on “Catholics” include both cultural Catholics, and “cafeteria” Catholics, and anyone that claims to be “Catholic” whether they are or not. Again, that means a majority of Christians do not believe in transubstantiation. I’m well aware that a majority opinion proves nothing, even on “my” side.

I’m not going to squabble with you over this. There are still many more faithful Catholics than all of Protestantism put together.

It most certainly is. Form, substance, accidents, etc… we have to go back to Plato and Aristotle to get the groundwork in the application. For those of us who know of Forms, substance, accidents, etc… that the philosophers debated about, it does indeed impact how we either agree or disagree with certain teachings based on their arguments.

You said that Transubstantiation is an Aristotelian concept. Aristotle never had this concept. We can, however, use his philosophical language (form, substance, etc.) in order to explain the Catholic concept.

And there you go; one of the many reasons that EO, and Protestant groups don’t agree with every Catholic that explains it this way. Many don’t see a need of an “explanation” and feel it takes away from the actual reality and mystery of the situation. Applying a man-made culturally tied concept to a supernatural event (unless given by God) is doomed to failure, IMO.

Who said this was a man-made concept? We are dealing with a divinely revealed truth that Christ is truly and substantially present in the Eucharist. In fact, if this is not true then there is no Catholic Church as this is the source and summit of our faith. We also believe that the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ, leads the Church into all truth. This would include the teaching, in the form of doctrines, which explain the dogma.

What I don’t understand is this. If you believe that a truly supernatural event occurred at the last supper, then how can you continue to believe it was only symbolic?

And it was the dogmatization of that man-made view that has turned many people off from it, as it would no longer be enough to accept the truth in a different sense, one would have to espouse transubstantiation. In short, dogmatizing something in a way that fractures the Body of Christ doesn’t seem to be an idea steeped in unity. Don’t misunderstand, I understand the reason given by Catholics, I just don’t agree with it.

We need to get something very straight here. The fracture in Christianity happened before the doctrine was defined, not after, and therefore was not over Transubstantiation. The fracture occurred first and it was only those that caused the fracture that denied the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, regardless of how it was explained. The doctrine of Transubstantiation was the Catholic Church’s answer to the heresy that came from the Reformation; those that “fractured” or “divided” from the Catholic Church.

By you putting “not symbolic” in parenthesis after true presence, you are showing you aren’t “getting” what I’m saying.

No, I was just making clear what I was saying. I totally get what you are saying.

Again, would anyone say to David that the water in the cup was “just symbolic”

Yes. I would.

and his attitude and action had no reality, power, or meaning? I don’t think they would.

No, I would not say that it had no meaning. I would also not say that the belief only in a symbolic presence is devoid of meaning. But it doesn’t come close to the real thing. One is a photograph, the other is the real person standing in front of you. Both have meaning.

One of my thoughts in response to this is, I don’t limit the true presence of Christ to the Eucharist, nor do I think that the best way of talking about the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is done by defining it via Aristotelian means. However, the whole purpose of my initial replies and my specific example of David is to show that 1) we have example of calling water, blood and the huge significance of that, and 2) through that to show it is somewhat insulting to downplay what many protestants think and feel about the Eucharist by labeling it for them (in straw man fashion) “just symbol” or “merely symbolic.” (And, no I’m not saying that happens often on CAF, but I have seen it.)

I don’t think anyone is trying to downplay anything. It is what it is. One is a symbol, maybe very full of meaning. The other is the Person of Jesus Christ. We don’t need to look at a photograph, as meaningful as that may be, when we have the real person standing in front of us. So both have meaning, but one means much more than the other.

 

[Kliska]

You want to visit this thread…particularly when Fr K, s Norwegian Lutheran priest, steps in…forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=889981&page=11

Will check it out, thanks for the link! I won’t reply to the whole thing here, but there is one bit that stands out to me that I think applies here;

That some Luthern theologians don’t want to call it that shows either that they reject philosophical ‘explanations’ in theology (which means they ought to reject Nicea), and/or that they are inconsistent, or that they reject a substance-based metaphysic (which would mean that they also ought to reject the Formula of Concord).

That, to me, is a false dilemma. Notice the “either/or” dichotomy that only allows Lutherans 2 options. The Lutherans I have read and have known would not accept the false dichotomy presented in this “either/or” choice. I’m sure one of the Lutherans on the board will correct me if I’m wrong.

But this is what the Churc’s binding and loosing authority is for…to define what the teaching is so that there is hodgepodge of beliefs out there…not like protestantism today.

I don’t believe in the binding and loosing authority the same way the Catholic church teaches (obviously ) as I don’t see that taught nor applied in scripture the way the Catholic church teaches and applies it. I also posit that there are some areas where a “hodgepodge” of beliefs would be allowable, and we even see that taught in scripture. Some areas, no, some areas, yes, and the Holy Spirit is the guide, and one way He guides is via scripture.

Is this your job or the Church’s?

It is my job to test all things and hold fast to that which is true and good, and work out my own salvation with fear and trembling. I’m simply stating; the “true presence” of Christ is not limited to the Eucharist, and to clarify; that is taught in scripture.

What do you think then is the best method?

The best method is what is presented in scripture. As CS Lewis said, man-made explanations, metaphors, etc… are helpful, but they should always bow to what was told to us in scripture, and we should hearken to how God decided to define something or how He chose to illustrate it, the examples given, the parables, and what is contained in the OT and NT as types. That is one reason why I do lean toward a more Orthodox way of looking at certain things presented to us; not everything has to be put in an intellectual box and labelled in order to be believed or practiced. And I further contend that by doing so, anyone that does not label something the same, then gets splintered from those who do.

God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, His ways are not our ways, and from regular physics to quantum physics to supernatural occurrences and forces… I just do not feel comfortable with tying in a dogmatic statement formulated by man that is directly tied to a non-Christian philosopher (Aristotle) that is tied to mans’ thoughts and a certain culture and time.

 

[Kliska]

I’m not going to squabble with you over this. There are still many more faithful Catholics than all of Protestantism put together.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but Catholic and Protestant are not the only 2 in the game.

You said that Transubstantiation is an Aristotelian concept. Aristotle never had this concept. We can, however, use his philosophical language (form, substance, etc.) in order to explain the Catholic concept.

Substance, essence, Form, the changing of one to another, the stability of identity and on and on are indeed from Aristotle, and Plato. There were the game-changers of the philosophical world. I taught Philosophy at the local college. The language and concepts in transubstantiation are borrowed from Aristotle and are added into Catholic thought in order to put something into popular philosophical ideas.

What I don’t understand is this. If you believe that a truly supernatural event occurred at the last supper, then how can you continue to believe it was only symbolic?

Again, the fact you say “only” symbolic shows my poor job.

We need to get something very straight here. The fracture in Christianity happened before the doctrine was defined, not after, and therefore was not over Transubstantiation. The fracture occurred first and it was only those that caused the fracture that denied the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, regardless of how it was explained. The doctrine of Transubstantiation was the Catholic Church’s answer to the heresy that came from the Reformation; those that “fractured” or “divided” from the Catholic Church.

I’m well aware.

Yes. I would.

Reading all about David, and what he was saying and doing here… I don’t think you would, or if you did, I wouldn’t want to be there to see it. But, pardon me, I don’t see the point in arguing hypotheticals, so that’s on me.

No, I would not say that it had no meaning. I would also not say that the belief only in a symbolic presence is devoid of meaning. But it doesn’t come close to the real thing. One is a photograph, the other is the real person standing in front of you. Both have meaning.

Passover, the last supper, the water in David’s cup, etc… etc… are not comparable to a photograph and that is not what the majority of Protestants, including me, believe.

I don’t think anyone is trying to downplay anything. It is what it is. One is a symbol, maybe very full of meaning. The other is the Person of Jesus Christ. We don’t need to look at a photograph, as meaningful as that may be, when we have the real person standing in front of us. So both have meaning, but one means much more than the other.

The point is; Chris is indeed really there, but just perhaps not in the way “transubstantiation” would have Him there. It is downplaying it, and it is insulting when it is implied that Protestants shouldn’t even bother with Eucharist, and yes, I’ve read that very thing from Catholics. And again, it is not the difference between a photo and having the person there; that is your example, not what is taught in scripture, nor in most Protestant churches.

 

[Duane1966]

So if two people share the same collection of books, and one person says I am going to give this collection of books a name, say a name like “Holy Bible”, and the other person says they are going to call it “Mystery of Faith”, since they call it by different names are they now sharing different books?

 

[jlhargus]

By you putting “not symbolic” in parenthesis after true presence, you are showing you aren’t “getting” what I’m saying. I’m sure that fault lies with me, as explaining a particular theological perspective isn’t always easy (such as the Trinity). Again, would anyone say to David that the water in the cup was “just symbolic” and his attitude and action had no reality, power, or meaning? I don’t think they would.

It was water, do you think David or anyone really believed blood was in the cup or even a true presents of blood with the water? David knew it was only water in the cup. Because he was using the water as a symbol. There was no true presents of blood in that cup only water.

Again, as you rightly say, that is not defining it via Aristotelian philosophy the way that the Catholic church does via “transubstantiation.” Even Lutherans are quick to correct someone when a person says they believe in “consubstantiation.” There is a reason the Orthodox do not define it. So, again, a majority of Christians don’t accept transubstantiation.

Lutherans may deny consubstantiation but the Aristotelian philosophy succinctly defines their believe that both bread and wine are present with Christ . Just as Aristotelian philosophy of transubstantiation succinctly defines Catholic belief that bread and wine are no longer present but only Christ. Just as the word trinity defines Catholic teaching there are three persons in the one God.

 

[Kliska]

It was water, do you think David or anyone really believed blood was in the cup or even a true presents of blood with the water? David knew it was only water in the cup. Because he was using the water as a symbol. There was no true presents of blood in that cup only water.

So you see him stating it is blood, yet you know it is water. Is it clear that he declared it blood?

2 Samuel 23: 14 David was then in the stronghold, while the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem. 15 David had a craving and said, “Oh that someone would give me water to drink from the well of Bethlehem which is by the gate!” 16 So the three mighty men broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water from the well of Bethlehem which was by the gate, and took it and brought it to David. Nevertheless he would not drink it, but poured it out to the Lord; 17 and he said, “Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this. Shall I drink the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?” Therefore he would not drink it. These things the three mighty men did.

Yes, he makes it clear. Just as it is “clear” that Jesus called the bread His body. Both Jewish; David, and his Son Jesus using clear language. One we all agree is water, but yet is blood in a very real sense, and one we don’t agree whether it is bread or flesh. What applies to one can apply to another. The point being, David was clear, and to him in a very real sense, that water was blood, which he poured out as an offering to God, so precious was it. No one would have insulted David by downplaying the meaning and reality of what he declared and what he did.

Lutherans may deny consubstantiation but the Aristotelian philosophy succinctly defines their believe that both bread and wine are present with Christ . Just as Aristotelian philosophy of transubstantiation succinctly defines Catholic belief that bread and wine are no longer present but only Christ. Just as the word trinity defines Catholic teaching there are three persons in the one God.

There is a reason why Lutherans reject the term “consubstantiation” but that’s not my fight, though I do respect them for it.

To the thread; I did not mean to derail the thread, but rather to speak to the OP. Thank you for the dialogue, but I’m not here to argue against a point, but rather to speak to a certain point. I’ve delved into all of this before and have no wish to continue on in what could be considered a rude or argumentative way. So, thank you, and I’m out.

 

[SteveVH]

The point is; Chris is indeed really there,

How?

but just perhaps not in the way “transubstantiation” would have Him there.

How do you know this?

It is downplaying it, and it is insulting when it is implied that Protestants shouldn’t even bother with Eucharist, and yes, I’ve read that very thing from Catholics.

Well, I don’t know why you would find it insulting that we believe Protestants only have a symbol of the Lord’s supper. Isn’t that what you believe? And we certainly do want you to “bother with the Eucharist” by coming home to the place in which it is truly present. It is what makes us one. That is why we call it “communion”.

But first of all one must have the Eucharist before one can discuss the true presence. I agree completely that Protestant “communion” is nothing more than symbolic, maybe very meaningful, but symbolic nonetheless, for the simple reason that no one outside of the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches has any authority to consecrate the elements. That authority is handed down, not assumed just because someone wishes it to be so.

And again, it is not the difference between a photo and having the person there; that is your example, not what is taught in scripture, nor in most Protestant churches.

No, we didn’t have photographs when the Bible was written so I am sure you won’t find it there. The analogy, however, is solid. A symbol, by its very nature, represents something real but is not the thing it represents. In the Protestant faith communities what you have represents the body and blood of Christ. In the Catholic Church it IS the body and blood of Christ. You have a symbol of what we possess in reality.

That’s the difference and is what the Church has believed since its inception and is what most of the Reformers and their sons and daughter have rejected. What is insulting is when someone comes along 1500 years later and rejects the heart and soul of the original Church. That is what causes fracturing and division.

 

[Kliska]

Sorry Steve, it is clear I am not explaining things clearly enough, or in a way you can really understand due to my lack of clarity, sometimes communication is hampered by the method. I would just ask for readers to study the David passage and realize the language used, and look to the Passover, realize the language used, and then look to the New Testament and realize the language used and seek guidance, from God, as to what it really means, and not rely on man-made labels to try to capture what is being communicated and what is happening.

I do, however, have to say that I am surprised that the Protestant position is not being respected even in the discussion, and even when a Protestant is saying how it is insulting when our belief is downplayed, and treated as beneath notice.

Grace and peace to you, again, I’m out.

K

 

[SteveVH]

Sorry Steve, it is clear I am not explaining things clearly enough, or in a way you can really understand due to my lack of clarity, sometimes communication is hampered by the method. I would just ask for readers to study the David passage and realize the language used, and look to the Passover, realize the language used, and then look to the New Testament and realize the language used and seek guidance, from God, as to what it really means, and not rely on man-made labels to try to capture what is being communicated and what is happening.

I do, however, have to say that I am surprised that the Protestant position is not being respected even in the discussion, and even when a Protestant is saying how it is insulting when our belief is downplayed, and treated as beneath notice.

Grace and peace to you, again, I’m out.

K

Kliska, I just don’t see what is being downplayed. You believe that your communion is a symbol, full of meaning. I agree with you. What you have is a symbol and it is very meaningful to you. So what is being downplayed?

 

[TxGodfollower]

Notice that if we were to take David literally, we’d have to say that there was blood in the cup. But it was water. Was it silly for David to do what he did? Was it “mere” symbol without meaning? By no means. Wrapped up in all of this symbol language was a profound and literal truth that had layers of meaning. We would insult David and his mighty men, and the Lord, by downplaying the importance and power of what transpired. All of this to say, if you run into protestants like me who believe in a symbolic Eucharist, it doesn’t mean it is has no power, that it has no meaning, quite the opposite, it has deep power and meaning. Just as all Passovers from the time of the original brought the original to mind and made it present, in that way, we too believe the Eucharist does the same. Just as David knew the water was “more than water” because of everything that had happened and represented, and he poured it out as an offering to the Lord, we too know that the bread and cup are “more than bread and wine.”

Sorry, but most of Christendom does indeed accept Transubstantiation, in fact by an incredible majority when you consider that there are 1.3 billion Catholics.

That is all fine and good. But have you ever asked yourself why the entire Church, since the beginning, believed in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, both Catholic and EO for 1500 years before the Protestants became so enlightened and rejected it? Do you believe the entire Christian Church was guilty of idolatry from the beginning?

That assumes all Christians were Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

And there you go; one of the many reasons that EO, and Protestant groups don’t agree with every Catholic that explains it this way. Many don’t see a need of an “explanation” and feel it takes away from the actual reality and mystery of the situation. Applying a man-made culturally tied concept to a supernatural event (unless given by God) is doomed to failure, IMO. And it was the dogmatization of that man-made view that has turned many people off from it, as it would no longer be enough to accept the truth in a different sense, one would have to espouse transubstantiation. In short, dogmatizing something in a way that fractures the Body of Christ doesn’t seem to be an idea steeped in unity.

 

[SteveVH]

That assumes all Christians were Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

Yep. Please tell me the name of a Church prior to the “reformation” that was not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?

 

[Thorolfr]

Yep. Please tell me the name of a Church prior to the “reformation” that was not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?

Ebionites, or Ebionaioi (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι; derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning “the poor” or “poor ones”), is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era. They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites. The Ebionites used only one of the Jewish Gospels, revered James the Just and rejected Paul of Tarsus as an apostate from the Law. Their name suggests that they placed a special value on voluntary poverty. The Ebionim was one of the terms used by the sect at Qumran that sought to separate themselves from the corruption of the Temple, whom many believe were the Essenes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

 

[SteveVH]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

Are you really trying to imply that Ebionites or Gnostics or a myriad of other heretical groups that have been present throughout history somehow represent Christianity? The Church has never been without its enemies and detractors, from both without and within. Can one deny the divinity of Christ and remain Christian? Sorry. There was no other CHRISTIAN Church.

The only separation in Christendom prior to the “reformation” was the schism between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. And while the EO have not defined what happens when bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, they, like the Catholic Church, have always believed that Christ is entirely and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist. You should check out an Eastern Orthodox liturgy sometime. You should witness the respect and reverence given to the Eucharist. Its awesome. It was and is the central dogma of both Churches.

This is exactly why the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not defined long ago. The belief in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist was never challenged until the Reformation. The Church has had to defend the Apostolic faith since its inception, to guard the truth given once, for all by the Apostles. Thus the Council of Trent was called in order to, among other things, articulate as specifically as possible the belief held by the Church from the beginning concerning the source and summit of its faith, the Eucharist, and so defined its teaching in the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Thorolfr]

Are you really trying to imply that Ebionites or Gnostics or a myriad of other heretical groups that have been present throughout history somehow represent Christianity? The Church has never been without its enemies and detractors, both without and within. Can one deny the divinity of Christ and remain Christian? Sorry. There was no other CHRISTIAN Church.

The only separation in Christendom prior to the “reformation” was the schism between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. And while the EO have not defined what happens when bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, they, like the Catholic Church, have always believed that Christ is entirely and substantially present in the holy Eucharist. It was and is the central dogma of both Churches.

Who gets to decide who a heretic is? The winners of course. As Winston Churchill said, “History is written by the victors.” We know almost nothing about the Ebionites or what they really believed because none of their own writings have survived but only the accusations of their enemies against them. If, on the other hand, they had won out against other early Christian groups, perhaps those who came to form the Catholic Church would have been considered the heretics. All these “other heretical groups” as you call them came to be suppressed by the winners, but we cannot say that they were not Christians.

 

[SteveVH]

Who gets to decide who a heretic is? The winners of course. As Winston Churchill said, “History is written by the victors.” We know almost nothing about the Ebionites or what they really believed because none of their own writings have survived but only the accusations of their enemies against them. If, on the other hand, they had won out against other early Christian groups, perhaps those who came to form the Catholic Church would have been considered the heretics. All these “other heretical groups” as you call them came to be suppressed by the winners, but we cannot say that they were not Christians.

Sorry, I just don’t have the energy.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Yep. Please tell me the name of a Church prior to the “reformation” that was not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?

Armenian Apostolic and all the churches in the Oriental Orthodox Communion. St. Thomas Christians in India. Waldensians.

 

[Thorolfr]

Yep. Please tell me the name of a Church prior to the “reformation” that was not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?

The Copts are the native Christians of Egypt, a major ethnoreligious group in Egypt and the largest Christian group there…The Copts are one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East…According to ancient tradition, Christianity was introduced to the Egyptians by Saint Mark in Alexandria, shortly after the ascension of Christ and during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius around 42 AD.[26] The legacy that Saint Mark left in Egypt was a considerable Christian community in Alexandria. From Alexandria, Christianity spread throughout Egypt within half a century of Saint Mark’s arrival in Alexandria, as is clear from a fragment of the Gospel of John, written in Coptic, which was found in Upper Egypt and can be dated to the first half of the 2nd century, and the New Testament writings found in Oxyrhynchus, in Middle Egypt, which date around the year 200 AD. In the 2nd century, Christianity began to spread to the rural areas, and scriptures were translated into the local language, today known as the Coptic language, but known as the Egyptian language at the time. By the beginning of the 3rd century AD, Christians constituted the majority of Egypt’s population, and the Church of Alexandria was recognized as one of Christendom’s four Apostolic Sees, second in honor only to the Church of Rome. The Church of Alexandria is therefore the oldest Christian church in Africa.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts

The Copts even have their own pope, currently Pope Theodoros II.

 

[SteveVH]

Who gets to decide who a heretic is?

The Apostolic Church, the one founded and built by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit gets to decide. How is the truth received from the Apostles to survive if it is not defended against error?

The winners of course. As Winston Churchill said, “History is written by the victors.”

Do you expect that the Church which Christ founded and within which he promised to remain until the end of time would somehow fail? Christ himself promised that it wouldn’t. That it wouldn’t suffer the fate of the Ebionites or the Gnostics or the Arians. And lo and behold, the Catholic Church turns out to be the most ancient and longest lived institution on earth.

We know almost nothing about the Ebionites or what they really believed because none of their own writings have survived but only the accusations of their enemies against them.

I rest my case. Does this sound like the group that Christ sent out to the four corners of the earth to spread his kingdom?

If, on the other hand, they had won out against other early Christian groups, perhaps those who came to form the Catholic Church would have been considered the heretics.

Tell me, who came to form the Catholic Church? Do you imagine that it was just one more on the block? Preachers everywhere doing their own thing and then along comes some folks to start up the Catholic Church?

All these “other heretical groups” as you call them came to be suppressed by the winners, but we cannot say that they were not Christians.

Yes we can. Do you believe that one should be able to identify themselves as a Darwinist and then deny evolution? I mean, who’s to say? Your argument is just silly. But I still like you.