Wimpy martyrs?

[VociMike]

That would seem to be the Protestant view of the Early Church. For those same early Christians who so often went to their deaths for the faith, apparently let all sorts of heresies enter into the Church (you know, all that “Catholic” stuff) without making any fuss at all (while, paradoxically, fighting and vanquishing other heresies including one supported by Constantius II himself).

 

[BrianH]

That would seem to be the Protestant view of the Early Church. For those same early Christians who so often went to their deaths for the faith, apparently let all sorts of heresies enter into the Church (you know, all that “Catholic” stuff) without making any fuss at all (while, paradoxically, fighting and vanquishing other heresies including one supported by Constantius II himself).

That is what I like about you VociMike, you are not an instigator.
When did those things that seperate us, those TRADITIONS, that we do not think are apostolic slip in?
I have always thought it was gradual as opposed to a defining moment when someone chose to be a coward. A hundred years is a long time. Since 1907 things have changed quite a bit. That is how I think it happened. Heresy? No that is not the language I would use though.
BH

 

[VociMike]

That is what I like about you VociMike, you are not an instigator.

I like to instigate discussions.

When did those things that seperate us, those TRADITIONS, that we do not think are apostolic slip in?
I have always thought it was gradual as opposed to a defining moment when someone chose to be a coward. A hundred years is a long time. Since 1907 things have changed quite a bit. That is how I think it happened. Heresy? No that is not the language I would use though.
BH

Let’s pick a perennial source of dispute, the Real Presence. If the Protestant view is correct, the Real Presence as taught by the Church (and the Orthodox Church as well) most certainly is a heresy, for it calls mere bread and wine God. But apparently the wimply martyrs of the Early Church, while dying for the faith and fighting other heresies that crept up, simply turned their backs (all of them, every single Christian in existence) when the heresy of the Real Presence was inserted into the faith and drove out the true, symbolic-only view of the Eucharist.

And this makes sense to anybody?

 

[Reformed1]

I like to instigate discussions.

Let’s pick a perennial source of dispute, the Real Presence. If the Protestant view is correct, the Real Presence as taught by the Church (and the Orthodox Church as well) most certainly is a heresy, for it calls mere bread and wine God. But apparently the wimply martyrs of the Early Church, while dying for the faith and fighting other heresies that crept up, simply turned their backs (all of them, every single Christian in existence) when the heresy of the Real Presence was inserted into the faith and drove out the true, symbolic-only view of the Eucharist.

And this makes sense to anybody?

I guess I don’t understand the purpose of this thread.

I just don’t see how the martyrs have anything to do with whether or not the catholic church is off base theologically.

 

[BrianH]

I like to instigate discussions.

Let’s pick a perennial source of dispute, the Real Presence. If the Protestant view is correct, the Real Presence as taught by the Church (and the Orthodox Church as well) most certainly is a heresy, for it calls mere bread and wine God. But apparently the wimply martyrs of the Early Church, while dying for the faith and fighting other heresies that crept up, simply turned their backs (all of them, every single Christian in existence) when the heresy of the Real Presence was inserted into the faith and drove out the true, symbolic-only view of the Eucharist.

And this makes sense to anybody?

I suppose that is one way of looking at it. Rather drastic.
Views develop and change. If you had a quote from 60 AD(30 years after the fact in the context of a shared meal of bread and wine), which we do in Paul’s letters, one from 90 AD, which we do in John’s Gospel, and then some sources for the next 20 years, it is not so hard to see how it could develop.
But your view makes good headlines.

 

[Mickey]

I suppose that is one way of looking at it. Rather drastic.
Views develop and change. If you had a quote from 60 AD(30 years after the fact in the context of a shared meal of bread and wine), which we do in Paul’s letters, one from 90 AD, which we do in John’s Gospel, and then some sources for the next 20 years, it is not so hard to see how it could develop.

What are you saying–that the Eucharist started out as a symbolic celebration and slowly mutated into the understanding of the Real Presence? You’re not serious, right?

 

[Della]

I suppose that is one way of looking at it. Rather drastic.
Views develop and change. If you had a quote from 60 AD(30 years after the fact in the context of a shared meal of bread and wine), which we do in Paul’s letters, one from 90 AD, which we do in John’s Gospel, and then some sources for the next 20 years, it is not so hard to see how it could develop.
But your view makes good headlines.

Just a shared meal? You don’t believe Jesus’ own words: John 6:

[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Or the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper at which Jesus said: “This is my body…this is my blood.”

Paul’s warning about “eating and drinking unworthily” and “discerning the body or the Lord” was referring merely to a “shared meal?”

Have you considered that your interpretation of Jesus’ words and Paul’s writings might be faulty instead of the Church’s constant teaching about the Real Presence?

 

[BrianH]

What are you saying–that the Eucharist started out as a symbolic celebration and slowly mutated into the understanding of the Real Presence? You’re not serious, right?

That is the general evangelical/fundamentalist/non-mainline Protestant view…
I happen to believe in the Real Presence not just like a Catholic or Orthodox does.
Although the longer I spend studying the issue in light of scripture, I seem to be changing my mainline Protestant view into something more…lord have mercy, fundamentalist?
I do not wish to detract too much from VociMike’s thesis though.
BH

 

[Mickey]

Although the longer I spend studying the issue in light of scripture, I seem to be changing my mainline Protestant view into something more…lord have mercy, fundamentalist?

Wow! That’s unfortunate.

 

[BrianH]

Have you considered that your interpretation of Jesus’ words and Paul’s writings might be faulty instead of the Church’s constant teaching about the Real Presence?

The point is not really my view. The point is that from a Protestant perspective the church has drifted in some areas. Obviously or their would not be Protestants.
As far as your question, of course, every day. I have always believed in the Real Presence…but the longer I spend on this board and the longer I look into it, it is starting to decrease.
Back on topic!

 

[Mickey]

I have always believed in the Real Presence…but the longer I spend on this board and the longer I look into it, it is starting to decrease.

Then you’d best get off these boards–they’re twisting you in the wrong direction.

 

[Mickey]

St. Tarsicius (3rd century)

Tarsicius was an acolyte or perhaps a deacon at Rome. He was accosted and beaten to death on the Appian Way by a mob while carrying the Eucharist to some Christians in prison. The incident is included in Cardinal Wiseman’s novel “Fabiola”, and Pope Damasus wrote a poem about it. Tarsicius is the patron of first communicants and his feast day is August 15.

 

[VociMike]

I guess I don’t understand the purpose of this thread.

I just don’t see how the martyrs have anything to do with whether or not the catholic church is off base theologically.

I want to know how the same Christians which would go to their deaths rather than deny the faith, were just fine with denying their faith when all these alleged heresies slipped in. How was it that 10 or 20 million early Christians meekly accepted teachings that were clearly heretical according to the Protestant view, without so much as a peep of protest?

Ah wait, but not all teachings! Why did they fight some heresies and ignore others? Why was, e.g the nature of Christ so important to them, but the nature of the Eucharist meant nothing to them (for they fought the Arian heresy but did nothing to oppose the heresy of the Real Presence). What a mystery!

The point of the thread is that when one actually tries to imagine the historical events that Protestants claim, they are so vastly contradictory as to be quite impossible.

 

[VociMike]

The point is not really my view. The point is that from a Protestant perspective the church has drifted in some areas.

Not drifted, let’s not mince words. According to the Protestant view, the Church succumbed to heresy after heresy in its first few hundred years, while at the same time successfully fighting many other heresies. And they did not succumb through cowardice, as is clear by the witness of the countless martyrs. So how was it that a Church so willing to die for the faith, and to correct errors in the faith, at the same time allowed other grevious errors to enter the faith without so much as a peep of resistance?

The whole Protestant theory of Early Church error is ludicrous when closely examined.

 

[Mickey]

Ah wait, but not all teachings! Why did they fight some heresies and ignore others? Why was, e.g the nature of Christ so important to them, but the nature of the Eucharist meant nothing to them (for they fought the Arian heresy but did nothing to oppose the heresy of the Real Presence). What a mystery!

Don’t forget about the total lack of interest when the heresy of infant baptism was introduced!

 

[Della]

The point is not really my view. The point is that from a Protestant perspective the church has drifted in some areas. Obviously or their would not be Protestants.
As far as your question, of course, every day. I have always believed in the Real Presence…but the longer I spend on this board and the longer I look into it, it is starting to decrease.
Back on topic!

I’m sad to hear that you are drifting farther away from orthodoxy. I can’t imagine with all the solid defenses of the Real Presence, with all the Scripture and historical references to it in the forum’s threads and the website library, that that would push you farther away from believing in it. I confess to being totally confused!

My point in citing the Scriptures was to answer your call for any evidence in the 1st century of the Real Presence, which I think quite on topic since VociMike’s premise is that the martyrs of the early Church went to their deaths to defend the orthodoxy of the Church’s teachings, one of them being the Real Presence.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I guess I don’t understand the purpose of this thread.

I just don’t see how the martyrs have anything to do with whether or not the catholic church is off base theologically.

The purpose is simple. The Martyrs were Catholic in faith and practice. They weren’t off base, theologically.

Are the early christian martyrs off base to believe as Christ taught the first christians. Or when did these individual cease to be practicing Catholics?

There are no answers to those questions that won’t be a contradiction to historical Christianity.

 

[ribozyme]

That would seem to be the Protestant view of the Early Church. For those same early Christians who so often went to their deaths for the faith, apparently let all sorts of heresies enter into the Church (you know, all that “Catholic” stuff) without making any fuss at all (while, paradoxically, fighting and vanquishing other heresies including one supported by Constantius II himself).

I think Kent Hovind is a wimpy martyr; he is a Christian who believes he is persectuted by the government and he went to jail for tax evasion.

 

[BrianH]

VociMike;1872062]Not drifted, let’s not mince words. According to the Protestant view, the Church succumbed to heresy after heresy in its first few hundred years, while at the same time successfully fighting many other heresies.

I do think it was a drifted. I also do think think the things we disagree on constitute heresy. If I did, I would say so.
That is the nature of change usually, gradual.

 

[VociMike]

Here’s another inexplicable fact according to the Protestant theory of the corruption of the Church:

A) Every heresy that the Church fought was an actual error, according to modern mainstream Protestantism. That is, there is no early heresy which the Church overcame which mainstream Protestantism now believes. So in fighting early heresies the Church was 100% true to the faith. And yet…

B) Every supposed heresy that the Church did not fight gained complete acceptance in the Church.

So we have a Church which on the one hand recognizes the error of all the heresies she fought, while at the very same time she is turning a completely blind eye to all the other heresies which are infecting her. What is amazing is the complete bipolar nature displayed here. The Church was right according to mainstream Protestantismm in opposing every heresy she opposed, but she was conveniently blind to every heresy which the Protestants accuse her of adopting. What a remarkable record.