Catholic Revival

WEBSITE! GO

2005-03-17T15:53:00.000-08:00

THIS BLOG IS DISCONTINUED. IT HAS FULFILLED ITS PURPOSES. GO TO MY WEBSITE. IT IS GOING TO BE AWESOME!

http://geocities.com/paulm146/

webpage

2005-02-24T19:43:00.000-08:00

I built a webpage last week: http://geocities.com/paulm146/. Read the article entitled "Catholic Doctrines of Grace." It is the best of its kind on the net. At this moment I am working on a response to a decree on baptism from Bishop Erik Braun of the Tallahassee EFCA Reformed Baptist diocesan parish. It will be ready in a few days.

much grace,
Paul

catholicity -- a mark of the church

2005-02-16T15:53:00.000-08:00

John Calvin gave two marks to identify a faithful local church: preaching of the Word of God and due administration of the Sacraments. Communion with the Church At Large was not of his marks to identify a true local church. Visible Unity, except among their own sects in order to keep the Deformation alive, did not mean much to the Deformers. They completely dispensed with the institutional Church of their day and started building a "church" contrary to it.

This is characteristic of heresies. John Henry Newman, in his "Essay on the Development of Doctrine," lists "catholicity" as a mark to discern the true Church:

How was an individual inquirer to find, or a private Christian to keep the Truth, amid so many rival teachers? ... the rule was simple, which would direct everyone right; and in that age (speaking of the fourth century), at least, no one could be wrong for any long time without his own fault. The Church is everywhere, but it is one; sects are everywhere, but they are many, independent and discordant. Catholicity is the attribute of the Church, independency of sectaries. It is true that sects might seem almost Catholic in their diffusion; Novatians or Marcionites were in all quarters of the empire; yet it is hardly more than the name, or the general doctrine of philosophy, that was universal: the different portions which professed it seem to have bound together by no strict or definite tie. The Church might be evanescent or lost for a while in particular countries, or it might be levelled and buried among sects, when the eye was confined to one spot, or it might be confronted by the one and same heresy in various places; but, on looking round the orbis terrarum, there was no mistaking that body which, and which alone, had possession of it. The Church is a kingdom; a heresy is a family rather than a kingdom; and as family continually divides and sends out branches, founding new homes, and propogating new colonies, each of them as independent as its original head, so was it with heresy. ... [heresy] was, by its very nature its own master, free to change, self-sufficient; and, having thrown off the yoke of the Church, it was little likely to submit to any usurped and spurious authority.

What must one do in order to find God's Church, the Body of Christ, his visible and authoritative presence on earth? Must one become a theologian and research all the various sects in order to discover the truth? No! for that is contrary to Christ who reveals himself to the ignorant and poor things of this world. Truth is discernable to the meek who do not have the intellectual ability to sort out theological statements and make scriptural exegesis. All they must ask is: what Church is One Body in Unity and has existed from the beginning, the tradition of which has been witnessed to for 2,000 years since Christ left us with his Spirit? The poor person would take Jesus at his word in his prayer: "Father, may they be one as you and I are one." And they would take him for his word in his solemn institution of the Church as a society separate from the Judaic cult: "The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church." And they would trust his Spirit who, as Jesus said, would "guide us into all truth." Finally, they would humbly desire to keep Paul's command of loving unity and despising schismatics.

Intercession of the Saints

2005-02-03T10:07:00.000-08:00

Protestants often tell me that their "Reformation" was a return to the Church Fathers. I am baffled over this to say the least. Even as a Protestant I knew that the Fathers were thoroughly Catholic. Below is a few quotes on the intercession of the saints taken from www.catholic.com. Also see my documentation on the Eucharistic Sacrifice in a previous post. If the Deformation was a return to the Fathers, can someone please fill me in on why their doctrines were abolished? I would appreciate any honest dialogue on the subject.

Hermas

"[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’" (The Shepherd 3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).

Clement of Alexandria

"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

"But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep" (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of ] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy" (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).

Anonymous

"Atticus, sleep in peace, secure in your safety, and pray anxiously for our sins" (funerary inscription near St. Sabina’s in Rome [A.D. 300]).

"Pray for your parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year, fifty-two days" (ibid.).

"Mother of God, [listen to] my petitions; do not disregard us in adversity, but rescue us from danger" (Rylands Papyrus 3 [A.D. 350]).

Methodius

"Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for to you do I turn again. You are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs to the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing Mother, with the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of you . . . making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father—the Prince of Peace, who in a marvelous manner showed himself as less than all littleness" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

"Therefore, we pray [ask] you, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (ibid.).

"And you also, O honored and venerable Simeon, you earliest host of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the faithful, do be our patron and advocate with that Savior God, whom you were deemed worthy to receive into your arms. We, together with you, sing our praises to Christ, who has the power of life and , saying, ‘You are the true Light, proceeding from the true Light; the true God, begotten of the true God’" (ibid.).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"Then [during the Eucharistic prayer] we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition . . . " (Catechetical Lectures 23:9 [A.D. 350]).

Hilary of Poitiers

"To those who wish to stand [in God’s grace], neither the guardianship of saints nor the defenses of angels are wanting" (Commentary on the Psalms 124:5:6 [A.D. 365]).

Ephraim the Syrian

"You victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Savior, you who have boldness of speech toward the Lord himself, you saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us so that we may love him" (Commentary on Mark [A.D. 370]).

"Remember me, you heirs of God, you brethren of Christ; supplicate the Savior earnestly for me, that I may be freed through Christ from him that fights against me day by day" (The Fear at the End of Life [A.D. 370]).

The Liturgy of St. Basil

"By the command of your only-begotten Son we communicate with the memory of your saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have mercy upon us all, and deliver us for the sake of your holy name" (Liturgy of St. Basil [A.D. 373]).

Pectorius

"Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish [Christ]" (Epitaph of Pectorius [A.D. 375]).

Gregory of anz

"May you [Cyprian] look down from above propitiously upon us, and guide our word and life; and shepherd this sacred flock . . . gladden the Holy Trinity, before which you stand" (Orations 17[24] [A.D. 380]).

"Yes, I am well assured that [my father’s] intercession is of more avail now than was his instruction in former days, since he is closer to God, now that he has shaken off his bodily fetters, and freed his mind from the clay that obscured it, and holds conversation with the ness of the prime and purest mind . . . " (ibid., 18:4).

Gregory of Nyssa

"[Ephraim], you who are standing at the divine altar [in heaven] . . . bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom" (Sermon on Ephraim the Syrian [A.D. 380]).

John Chrysostom

"He that wears the purple [i.e., a royal man] . . . stands begging of the saints to be his patrons with God, and he that wears a diadem begs the tentmaker [Paul] and the fisherman [Peter] as patrons, even though they be " (Homilies on Second Corinthians 26 [A.D. 392]).

"When you perceive that God is chastening you, fly not to his enemies . . . but to his friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleasing to him, and who have great power [in God]" (Orations 8:6 [A.D. 396]).

Ambrose of Milan

"May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn towards us Christ’s benign countenance" (The Six Days Work 5:25:90 [A.D. 393]).

Jerome

"You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard. . . . But if the apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs?" (Against Vigilantius 6 [A.D. 406]).

Augustine

"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers" (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).

"There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for the who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

"At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps" (Homilies on John 84 [A.D. 416]).

"Neither are the souls of the pious separated from the Church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise there would be no remembrance of them at the altar of God in the communication of the Body of Christ" (The City of God 20:9:2 [A.D. 419]).

the priesthood

2005-01-21T19:15:00.000-08:00

There is one priest of the New Covenant: Jesus. The priests of the Old Covenant were but distant symbols of this great High Priest who, as God-Man, offers himself as Sacrificial Victim. His earthly ministry has been exalted to heaven where he brings his pierced Body before the Father in intercession. Christ has not stopped working on earth, however. His Incarnation, the divine clothed in flesh, continues in his Body that has received his Spirit. As the Father sent the Son, so the Son sent his Church to fulfill the divine apostolate, this sacred ministry of representing the invisible God to the world, in word and sacrament.

Thus St. Peter says: "chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." The Church, as a Living Organism, carries on the work of Jesus. In this holy ministry Christ, through his earthly Body, proclaims his death and resurrection to the world and offers the fruits of this to the Father through our worship. He has given us active participation in his priesthood for the purpose of dispensing his manifold graces. Thus his visible presence lives on. Christ preaches, baptizes, and celebrates his Holy Supper in his servants. This is the one and only Priest and he operates through the instrument of his earthly Body.

As we become Christ we become Priest with him. St. Paul says, "the Church is the fullness of God who fills everything in everyway." The Christian life can be likened to "participating in the divine nature" (2 pet. 1:4) or becoming God. Baptism begins the process of our priesthood in Christ and Confirmation increases it. Those who have an extra-ordinary call into Christ receive Holy Orders. Here the Christian is incorporated into the one Priesthood in the most remarkable way. He has the power to baptize in the name of Jesus and the power to repeat the words of institution at the Holy Supper thus offering the Body and Blood just as our Lord did. Only God has power to forgive sins and yet it was given to the apostles (John 20:23) as a token of his special presence in and among us.

The graces of the High Priest are one but they come in different degrees to the various parts of the Body. Each member does not have the same role but they do share the same priesthood. Those who are priests on the higher plain of being titled 'ministers of Christ' have a special and powerful relationship to the baptized faithful. Both are together in union with the High Priest and make the sacred prayers and sacrifices for all. The Church is God incarnate, the Body of Christ, offering the oblation of the High Priest, the Lamb of God, and all the souls it has perfected.

doctrines of grace

2005-01-18T19:11:00.000-08:00

My blessed Paul! My beloved Augustine! Angelic Doctor of my soul, St. Thomas! Great saints of God, defend us against the errors of Pelagius. May we be conformed to our Lord who has said: "none of these shall be snatched from my hand." Good Shepherd, I do confess that you are sovereign over your sheep and it is you who guide us into perfection. Not unto us, not unto us, but to thy name be the glory and power forever and ever.

"In him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of his glory" (Eph. 1:11-12).

Why are some saved and not others? It has entirely to do with the fact that, for reasons unknown to us, God loves some more than others. Apart from every ounce of foreseen merit God has predestined his elect unto grace and glory. He bestows upon them an infallible grace so that their salvation must come to pass in spite of all human shortcomings. The Spirit works in their hearts through monergistic premotion, an efficacious grace that ensures their free co-operation. Nothing can hinder this act of God because it is "him who works in you according to his good pleasure." Faith and works are freely given (Eph. 2:8-10), so that the exact measure of what we perform is credited to sovereign grace alone. As St. Augustine said, "when God crowns our merits he is crowning his own gifts."

"What have you that you did not receive?" says Paul. If one achieves a greater work than another it is because God caused the greater work in the one than in the other. God is Absolute Cause of all good things, so that the greater good must be attributed to God alone and not the better use of freewill in man. This is the principle of predilection laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas: "Since God's love is the cause of goodness in things, as has been said, no one thing would be better than another if God did not will greater good for the one than for another... And the reason why some things are better than others, is that God wills them a greater good. Hence it follows that he loves more the better things."

Ludwig Ott, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma":
"The Thomistic teaching on this question .... is accepted by most of the Dominican theologians. According to his teaching God has predetermined from all eternity that certain people shall be saved, and for the realisation of this bestows effective grace on these people. In this way he physically affects the free-will of the elect, and so secures that they decide freely to co-operate with grace. Efficacious grace, by its inner power (per se sive ab intrinseco) infallibly brings about that the elect freely consent to do those salutary acts... Thus it is intrinsically and substantially different from sufficient grace, which merely confers the potency to do a salutary act. In order that this potency be translated into an act, another new, intrinsically different grace (gratia efficax) must appear. From all eternity God has decreed the free assent of the human will to the efficacious grace whereby He brings about salvation for those who fall within his decree" (pg. 248).

May the false teachers, posing as apologists of the Church, such as Erasmus, be refuted. And may the badly misinformed mouths of Luther and Calvin never be heard again. Let us lament, O Lord, the sad state of the doctrines of grace at the time of these heretics. Shine the light of your countenance upon us that we may never depart from the teachings of Paul, Augustine, and Aquinas. Our eternal security is in your mercy alone, the joy of your saints.

hoc est corpus meum: hocus-pocus?

2005-01-16T09:29:00.000-08:00

In the "comment" section of the "Fathers on the Eucharistic Sacrifice" post, a (liberal?) Protestant gave the following charge against my Lord:

"And where did he appoint people to "stand in his place as his representatives" in the breaking of the bread and the passing of the cup? And where did He appoint people to recite the hocus-pocus (hoc es corpus) of "Institution"? It would seem that you are again guilty of reading of Roman Catholicism into first-century Christianity. "

In the Latin Vulgate Bible, Jesus says "hoc est corpus meum" at the Last Supper. It means "this is my Body" in English. How someone can deny that Jesus uttered these words I do not know. The following is a cut and paste from http://www.faithfulvoice.com/hocest.htm (capitalization is mine).

Mat 26.26-28

"C¦nantibus autem eis, accepit Jesus panem, et benedixit, ac fregit, deditque discipulis suis, et ait : Accipite, et comedite : HOC EST CORPUS MEUM. Et accipiens calicem gratias egit : et dedit illis, dicens : Bibite ex hoc omnes.Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum."

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, *Take, eat; this is my body.* And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, *Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.*

Mark 14.22-24

"Et manducantibus illis, accepit Jesus panem : et benedicens fregit, et dedit eis, et ait : Sumite, HOC EST CORPUS MEUM. Et accepto calice, gratias agens dedit eis : et biberunt ex illo omnes. Et ait illis : Hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur."

"And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." "

Luke 22.19-20

"Et accepto pane gratias egit, et fregit, et dedit eis, dicens : HOC EST CORPUS MEUM, quod pro vobis datur : hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Similiter et calicem, postquam c¦navit, dicens : Hic est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur."

"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." "

The Greek for "hoc est corpus meum" or "this is my body" is: Touto estin to soma mou.

Jesus told us to say the same words over the bread and wine: Luke 22:19, "DO THIS in rememberance of me."

Paul preserves these words of Jesus and commands they be said in the Corinthian liturgy:

1 Cor 11.23-30

"Ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis, quoniam Dominus Jesus in qua nocte tradebatur, accepit panem, et gratias agens fregit, et dixit : Accipite, et manducate : HIC EST CORPUS MEUM, quod pro vobis tradetur : hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Similiter et calicem, postquam c¦navit, dicens : Hic calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine ; hoc facite quotiescumque bibetis, in meam commemorationem. Quotiescumque enim manducabitis panem hunc, et calicem bibetis, mortem Domini annuntiabitis donec veniat. Itaque quicumque manducaverit panem hunc, vel biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini. Probet autem seipsum homo : et sic de pano illo edat, et de calice bibat. Qui enim manducat et bibit indigne, judicium sibi manducat et bibit : non dijudicans corpus Domini."

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died."

No real Protestant denies this. I challenge the accuser of my Lord to cite one (non-liberal) Protestant theologian or scholar in his favor. Let us keep in mind that the Supper is where Judas betrayed the Lord. May we be preserved from his fault. Lord help us all.

Fathers on the Eucharistic Sacrifice

2005-01-12T18:53:00.000-08:00

I have compiled the most extensive Patristic documentation of the Eucharistic Sacrifice that I have seen on the web. Some of the quotes I cut and pasted from websites but the rest I typed out from books. They are arranged in chronological order with the date next to the Father or Council. By no means is this a complete compilation of the matter. And keep in mind that this is solely about the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and not about the Real Presence or Transubstantiation, for that would take me forever. I did not write out the sources for each and every author because it too would take too long, but they are available upon request. Note: also see my previous post on "Protestants and the Mass" which gives good reason to believe in the Great Sacrifice. Remember: this is not a seperate sacrifice, but the one and only sacrifice on the cross that is "made present" sacramentally. This does not detract but adds to the splendor and once-for-all-ness of Calvary. It is the Sacrifice of the Covenant set before the Church and the Father for all eternity. Enjoy!

The Didache (70)

"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14).

Pope Clement I (80)

Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the Divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should no the thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity… Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5).

Ignatius of Antioch (110)

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4). Note: I have another translation that omits “of sacrifice.” I’m not sure what the deal is on that.

Justin Martyr (155)

"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41).

Irenaeus of Lyons (189)

"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5).

“But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to him his own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit.”

Tertullian (210)

“…Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar? When the Lord’s Body has been received and reserved, each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.” (On Baptism)

“…We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none put the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings [Sacrifices] for the dead as birthday honors.” (The Chaplet)

The Divine Liturgy of James, The Lord’s Brother (first or second century?)

“…this Thy holy and spiritual table, upon which Thy only-begotten Son, and our Lord Jesus Christ, is mystically set forth as a sacrifice for me, a sinner, and stained with every spot.”

“…receive us as we draw near to Thy holy altar, according to the greatness of They mercy, that we may become worthy of offering Thee gifts and sacrifices for our transgressions and for those of the people; and grant to us, O Lord, with all fear and a pure conscience to offer to Thee this spiritual and bloodless sacrifice, and graciously receiving it unto Thy holy and spiritual altar above the skies for an odor of a sweet spiritual smell, send down in answer on us the grace of Thy all-holy Spirit… and grant that our offering may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, as a propitiation for our transgressions and the errors of the people; and for the rest of the souls that have fallen asleep aforetime…”

Hippolytus (160-235)

“And she [wisdom] has furnished her table… refers to His honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper.” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs)

Cyprian of Carthage (253)

"If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ" (Letters 63:14).

“…and do not by human and novel institution depart from that which Christ our Master both prescribed and did; yet since some, either by ignorance or simplicity in sanctifying the cup of the Lord, and in ministering to the people, do not do that which Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, the founder and teacher of this sacrifice, did and taught.” (Epistle to Caecilius)

“…And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when offered sacrifice to God the Father, offered the very same which Melchizedech had offered, namely the bread and wine, which is in fact His Body and Blood!” (Epistle to Caecilius)

[telling the story of a Eucharistic miracle during Mass] “…we were offering the Sacrifice…and the offering we were making…” (The Lapsed)

[telling the story of another Eucharistic miracle during Mass] “…the Sacrifice offered by the bishop…” (The Lapsed)

“…neither can the oblation be consecrated where the Holy Spirit is not…” (Epistles)

“We find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed; and that what was wine, He called Blood. From this it is apparent that the Blood of Christ is not offered if there is no wine in the cup; nor is the sacrifice of the Lord celebrated with a legitimate consecration unless our offering and sacrifice corresponds to the passion.” (Epistle to Caelcilius)

Council of Nicea I (325)

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyter, wheras neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist, even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and lit the deacons remain with their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishops of the presbyter administer to them…” (Canon XVIII)

Serapion (350)

"Accept therewith our hallowing too, as we say, ‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of virtues. Full also is this sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to you we offer this living sacrifice, this unbloody oblation" (Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice 13:12–16).

“To you we offer this bread … we offer the Bread … We offer also the Cup … we offer the Chalice … Accept also the thanksgiving of Your people and bless those who offer the oblations and the Thanksgivings…”

Evagruis Pontus (345-399)

“Following the dismissal from the Martyrium, everyone proceeds behind the cross, where, after a hymn is sung and a prayer is said, the bishop offers the sacrifice and everyone receives Communion. Except on this one day, throughout the year the sacrifice is never offered behind the cross save on this day alone.”

“All of the proper passages from the Book of Moses was read, the sacrifice was offered in the proscribed manner, and we received Communion.”

Cyril of Jerusalem (350)

"Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who are in need" (Catechetical Lectures 23:7–8).

Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit of the souls of those for who the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn Sacrifice is laid out. (Catechetical Lectures 23:5, 9)

Gregory Nazianzen (383)

"Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword" (Letter to Amphilochius 171).

Ambrose of Milan (340-397)

"We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in sacrifice here on Earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered" (Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David 38:25).

"Even if one does not now see that Christ is sacrificed, still He Himself is sacrificed on earth, whenever the body of Christ is sacrificed, Yea, it is obvious that He even offers Himself in us, for His Word sanctifies the sacrifice which is offered." (FCD, p. 206)

Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428)

“All the priests of the new covenant offer the same sacrifice continually, in every place and in every age; because the sacrifice which was offered for all is also one – the sacrifice of Christ our Lord, who accepted death for us, and by the offering of that sacrifice has purchased salvation for us, as blessed Paul says. ‘By one oblation,’ he says indeed, ‘He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.’” (Catechical Homilies)

John Chrysostom (385-405)

"When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?" (The Priesthood 3:4:177).

"Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the sacrificial victim who is placed thereon!" (Homilies on Romans 8:8).

”I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same.” (Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy)

"The angels surround the priest; the whole sanctuary and the space before the altar is filled with the heavenly power who come to honor Him Who is present upon the altar… Behold the royal table. The angels serve at it.” (The Priesthood)

"‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of Christ?’ Very trustworthy and awesomely does he [Paul] say it. For what he is saying is this: What is in the cup is that which flowed from his side, and we partake of it. He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise him in song, wondering and astonished at his indescribable gift, blessing him because of his having poured out this very gift so that we might not remain in error; and not only for his having poured it out, but also for his sharing it with all of us. ‘If therefore you desire blood,’ he [the Lord] says, ‘do not redden the platform of idols with the slaughter of dumb beasts, but my altar of sacrifice with my blood.’ What is more awesome than this? What, pray tell, more tenderly loving?" (Homilies on First Corinthians 24:1(3)).

"In ancient times, because men were very imperfect, God did not scorn to receive the blood which they were offering . . . to draw them away from those idols; and this very thing again was because of his indescribable, tender affection. But now he has transferred the priestly action to what is most awesome and magnificent. He has changed the sacrifice itself, and instead of the butchering of dumb beasts, he commands the offering up of himself" (ibid., 24:2).

"What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there is one sacrifice" (Homilies on Hebrews 17:3(6)).

“And whenever he [the priest] invokes the Holy Spirit, and offers the most dread sacrifice, and constantly handles the common Lord of all, tell me what rank shall we give him?” (The Priesthood)

“Not in vain was it declared by the Apostles that in the awesome Mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them much benefit. For when the entire people stand with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling on God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith.” (Homilies on the Epistles to the Philippians)

“Even though thou believe the body of the Christ to be real and bring it to the altar for transformation, and fail to distinguish the nature of the body of the Godhead we shall say to thee, ‘If thou offer rightly and fail to distinguish rightly, thou sinnest;”

Apostolic Constitutions (400)

“For this reason do you also, now the Lord is risen, offer your sacrifice, concerning which He made a constitution by us, saying, ‘do this in remembrance of me’… And let this be an everstanding ordinance till the consummation of the world, until the Lord come.”

“And when He had delivered to us the representative mysteries of His precious body and blood… Instead of a bloody sacrifice, He has appointed that reasonable and unbloody mystical one of His body and blood, which is performed to represent the death of the Lord by symbols… We also, our Father, thank Thee for the precious blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for us, and for his precious body, wherof we celebrate this representation, as Himself appointed us, ‘to show forth his death.’”

Augustine (395-415)

"In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness" (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]).

”For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that prayers for those who have died in communion of the Body of and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.”

“The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible Sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice.”

“Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.”

“By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.”

“…Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them, or when alms are given in the church…”

“…Open your eyes at last, then, any time, and see, from the rising of the sun to its setting, the Sacrifice of Christians is offered, not in one place only, as was established with you Jews, but everywhere… Not according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedech.”

"For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it" (The City of God 17:20).

”That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ.”

Cyril of Alexandria (376-444)

“The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood…” (commentary on the Gospel of Matthew)

“[God] infuses life-giving power into the oblations and transmutes them into the virtue of His own flesh.” (Homilies on the Gospel of Luke)

Council of Ephesus (431)

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thankgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and Precious Blood of Christ the Savior of us all. … (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius)

“We perform in the churches the holy, life-giving, and unbloody sacrifice; the body, as also the precious blood, which is exhibited we believe not to be that of a common man and of anyone like unto us, but receive it rather as his own body and as the blood of the Word which gives all things life… Since therefore Nestorius and those who think with him rashly dissolve the power of this mystery; therefore it was convenient that this anathematism should be put forth.” (Session 1, Canon XI)

Sechnall of Ireland (444)

"[St. Patrick] proclaims boldly to the [Irish] tribes the name of the Lord, to whom he gives the eternal grace of the laver of salvation; for their offenses he prays daily unto God; for them also he offers up to God worthy sacrifices" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 13).

Fulgentius of Ruspe (524)

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only-begotten God the Word himself became flesh [and] offered himself in an odor of sweetness as a sacrifice and victim to God on our behalf; to whom . . . in the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament . . . the holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of bread and wine. In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively, but in this sacrifice which has now been given us is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious, but in the present sacrifice it is announced that he has been killed for the impious" (The Rule of Faith 62).

Gregory the Great, Pope (540-604)

“This Victim alone saves the soul from eternal ruin, the sacrificing of which presents to us in a mystical way the death of the Only-begotten, who… is immolated for us again in the mystery of the sacred oblation. For His body is eaten there, His flesh is distributed among the people unto salvation, His blood is poured out, no longer in the hands of the faithless but in the mouth of the faithful. Let us take thought, therefore, of what this sacrifice means for us, which is in constant representation of the suffering of the Only-begotten Son, for the sake of our forgiveness.”

Council of Quinisext (692)

“…For to his own church, where the pastoral administration had been given him, he ordered that water mixed with wine should be used at the unbloody sacrifice, so as to show forth the mingling of the blood and water which for the life of the whole world and for the redemption of its sins, was poured forth from the precious side of Christ our Redeemer.”

“…they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy with water and wine. And the holy Fathers who assembled at Carthage provided in these express terms: ‘That in the holy Mysteries nothing besides the body and blood of the Lord be offered as the Lord himself laid down, that is bread and wine mixed with water.’ Therefore if any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy action according to what has been handed down by the Apostles, and hall not offer the sacrifice with wine mixed with water, let him be deposed, as imperfectly showing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been handed down.” (Canon XXXII)

“and that they may be blameless ministrants, and worthy of the sacrifice of the great God, who is both Offering and High Protest, a sacrifice apprehended by the intelligence: and that it might cleanse away the pollutions…” (Canon II)

“A Canon of the Synod of Carthage says that the holy mysteries of the altar are not to be performed but by men who are fasting, except on the on day of the year on which the Supper of the Lord is celebrated… But since nothing leads to abandon exact observance, we decreed that the Apostolic and Patristic tradition shall be followed.”

Protestants and the Mass

2004-12-31T14:20:00.000-08:00

Notice what Protestant scholars are saying these days. It doesn't surprise me.

Joachim Jeremias:
"[T]he command for repetition [of the Lord's Supper] may be translated: 'This do, that God may remember me.' How is this to be understood? Here an old Passover prayer is illuminating. On Passover evening a prayer is inserted into the third benediction of the grace after the meal, a prayer which asks God to remember the Messiah. . . . In this very common prayer, which is also used on other festival days, God is petitioned at every Passover concerning 'the remembrance of the Messiah'" (Jeremias, 252).

J.N.D. Kelly:
"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).

Reformed thinker, Max Thurian postulates three reasons for the necessary use of the concept of sacrifice to understand the Eucharist: (1) the Eucharist is "the sacramental presence of the sacrifice of the cross... and it is the liturgical presentation of the Son's sacrifice by the chruch to the Father, in thanksgiving for all his blessings and in that he may grant them afresh"' (2) it is "the participation of the church in the intercession of the Son before the Father in teh Holy Spirit, that salvation may be accorded to all.. and that the kingdom may come in glory"' (3) it is "the offering which the church makes of itself to the Father, united in the Son's intercession, as its supreme act of adoration and its perfect consecration in the Holy Spirit." (Thurian, ESRP, p. 51)

As a Protestant I realized that regardless of the real bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it is still a sacrifice in its own nature. What else is the seperation (even if its symbolical) of Christ's body and ? This is the one and only sacrifice of the cross visibly (even if symbolically) in the Eucharist. This is the covenant meal which calls to mind to both parties the sacrificial institution of the covenant. Thus the covenant between the Church and God is renewed as the Slain Victim (yes, Christ is still the slain Lamb in heaven, see Rev. 5) is presented and consumed (just like in the OT Passover).

If anyone would like to debate me on the Sacrifice of the Mass or just have a friendly conversation about it, give me an email: paulm146@yahoo.com

Check in later this week for a full Patristic witness to this very easily proved doctrine.

Sola Scriptura Challenge

2004-11-12T20:38:00.000-08:00

I challenge anyone to prove that Jesus or the Apostles taught sola scriptura (scripture alone). I am all ears!

Robert Sungenis, "Not By Scripture Alone" pg. 228:
"If Scripture meant to teach such a doctrine [sola scriptura], it would have no difficulty at all in explaining the doctrine to us. All we need is some clear statement that conveys: (a) Scripture is formally sufficient and the final court of appeal; (b) oral Tradition is not to be preserved and is not authoritative after the completion of Scripture; and (c) the Church is not the final authority on the interpretation of Scripture. If Scripture stipulated just one of these three principles, there would be cause to consider a doctrine of sola scriptura,; but so far, no one has been able to show us where Scripture clearly teaches any of these stipulations. If the early Councils could not see it in Scripture, they who were closest to the Apostles, why should we be expected to see it?

This is an open challenge. Show me where Scripture teaches any of these three things. I have had dozens upon dozens of dialogues with Protestants on this doctrine, but ironically, they were all very short. Every single time they retreated or refused to talk about it after they gave their verse and their conclusion from it. Never have they stayed in the conversation after this.

Show me the Scriptures!

You can email me at paulm146@yahoo.com or make a comment on the blog.

My Favorite Protestant Blogs

2004-09-11T17:27:00.000-07:00

Check these out....

http://taylormarshall.blogspot.com/

http://sacradoctrina.blogspot.com/

http://hornes.org/theologia/

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/

http://www.societaschristiana.com/

A Church Without a History; a History Without a Church

2004-09-02T17:16:00.000-07:00

In most academic disciplines, historical facts carry a lot of weight. But the Protestant variety of Christianity is one of a kind. For most modern evangelicals, history is irrelevant in the science of theology. It might be nice to open up a history book and see what things were like way back when. But as far as using history as a tool, there is no use, as far as evangelicals see. I am partly sympathetic with these folks. If the Church has always been wrong on the most essential issues (sola fide, sola scriptura, ecclesiology, etc.), then what is the use in learning about the Church?

Generally, most academic disciplines use history as a reference tool to gain understanding on the present and a perspective on how new approaches developed. This can only be done if their intellectual predecessors had some kind of truth. For instance, philosophers and scientists can look back to different schools of thought in ancient Greece, which birthed modern philosophy and science. Protestantism, however, cannot do this with the history of "club Jesus." This is for the simple reason that "club Jesus" did not exist prior to the 16th century. According to Protestant theologian Norman Geisler, there was no doctrine of justification by faith alone between the times of Paul and Luther. That is, that the Church was void of the gospel of grace. According to the Reformers, the existent Church of their period (or any period for that matter, because the same doctrines were believed) was simply not a Church. This makes sense. If one must believe Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone to be saved, and if nobody believed this doctrine, then nobody was saved. And with no Christians there could be no Church.

There is a little problem with this however, and most Protestant theologians will gladly recognize it (which shows there lack of concern for history if it doesn't bother them). "Club Jesus" is 16 centuries removed from history, with nothing in between. Anybody in any real academic discipline, especially history, would question whether or not "club Jesus" existed to begin with. A good Protestant will plead to the Apostle Paul as the Apostle of justification by faith alone. This gives the club some point of reference and origin. The only problem is that the club is still very secretive, almost like a cult with secret doctrines. I say this because there is only one man that the Protestants appeal to, only one. None appeal to Jesus. None appeal to Peter. None appeal to John. None appeal to James or Jude or any other Apostle of Christ. It should worry the scholar if they don't appeal to Jesus for their most central doctrine of justification by faith alone. This is simply because Paul is the only one they can make a case for without their arguments collapsing the moment they speak. Selective quoting cannot establish anything. The academic mind will view the whole story, and not just one man (Paul) as the heretic Marcion tried to do. Jesus, Peter, John, and James are just as important to the doctrine of justification.

Those interested in any history whatsoever will take a note that Paul was dealing with situations that are entirely irrelevant today, and therefore our interpretation of Paul cannot be fused into a 16th or 21st century framework. In Romans and Galatians, Paul was dealing with Judaizers, people who were forcing the Law of Moses upon the Gentiles. This is the context in which all of Paul's polemics on justification are to be read. It takes a real historian to note that in the Church's struggles with Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, the verses the "Protestors" use to establish sola fide, were never used by the Church in combating the above heresies. One would think the Church wouldn't be so stupid. But for evangelicals it doesn't matter. All that matters is a copy of one man's writings and private interpretation, and this often at the exclusion of historical knowledge.

I said above that I am sympathetic with my Protesting brethren. If we know by private interpretation that the Church was never right on the most essential issues, why does the Church matter? We certainly can't treat it like the Church that Christ tried to establish. Therefore using her teachings as a tool in the science of theology is practically useless. Why bother? Aren't there better things to do? If the Church was never right on the most essential issues then we are more or less assured that she was never right on the minor issues. If any story is not worth reading, it would have to be the failure of the "fake" Church which was never right to begin with.

Medical science may not learn anything new from old experiments, but they atleast value those old experiments as teaching them something in the present. Old information cannot be discarded of because there is no such thing as old information. [If something is true, it always has its significance.] But if the Church has been failing in attaining true information of the gospel for all of her existence, it can indeed be discarded of. It was a useless experiment... according to the Protestors anyway.

Someone might say that the early Church atleast had enough light to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity. It is very true that they had enough light to formulate such a marvelous doctrine as the Trinity. But according to the Protesting principle, there is no reason to receive this doctrine of the Church as having any value. There is abolutely no reason why this doctrine cannot be discarded of with the rest of them. It only so happens because the Prots choose to hold a particular interpretation of Scripture that they value Nicene orthodoxy. But again, there is no reason why this interpretation of Scripture cannot be changed. The Church's doctrine is always in question and is always based upon the contingence of the reasoning of a number of individuals. In our present case, there are atleast 32,000 of these individuals, all starting their own official denomination.

Any idea of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church is completely lost unless someone wants to believe there are 32,000 different Holy Spirits. Didn't Jesus say in the gospel of John that he would guide his Church into all truth? And didn't he say that the gates of hades would not prevail? Didn't John tell us in his epistle that the anointing will teach us all things? Didn't Paul say in 1 Tim. 3:15 that the Church was the ground and pillar of truth? The problem for the Prots is that they have no place to look. Where is this Church that is the basis for all truth? It cannot be found. Prots say that the Church is invisible. Well, hmmm......

When was the last time we read about the history of invisble people? Any attempt to document this Church would be impossible. No one could see it, and if we could, we wouldn't know which one it was. The chances are one out of 32,000. I believe this explains why history, for Prots, is irrelevant. It doesn't establish anything. This is something interesting to think about. A whole new academic discipline would have to emerge in order to chart the invisible life of the Church. Assuming that there would be possible moments in history when this Church manifested in various ways (as Prots hold), the traditional interpretive mode of history via "cause and effect," could not be used anymore than it could in tracking Bigfoot or ghosts in haunted houses. What are we left with? A myth? I am inclined to think bigfoot, ghost, and extra-terrestrial sitings are not conclusive in establishing any real fact, therefore it is only myth. However, we do have good opinions from people who supposedly saw these various life forms, much like we have good opinions from people who have supposedly seen a Church somewhere. But I'm still not convinced about either Bigfoot or "club Jesus." Granted people saw a shadowy figure that could have looked like Mr. Bigfoot. But this was just based on their interpretation; much like "club Jesus" is based on an innovative interpretation of Mr. Paul.

I want evidences! But the sad fact is, that Prot theologians like Geisler, say that there are no evidences of "club Jesus" in the facts of history, only Paul's letters 21 centuries removed from all present doctrinal problems. Are the eyes of Prot Bible interpreters as good those who have viewed Bigfoot? Even if there are brilliant Prot Bible scholars, are we to believe with no factual observation of our own? Are we to believe something based on the credentials of men, in this case, expert Bigfoot catchers and Bible readers? To this day, I have seen no photographs of Bigfoot. I will not believe! To this day, I have seen no proof from Scriptures of any Prot doctrines. I will not believe. Not only do I not see these in evidences, such as photographs or manuscripts, but I have not seen either Bigfoot or "club Jesus" in person. The witnesses that have seen these things are inconclusive. That is why most people don't take Bigfoot sightings seriously. This is also why people don't take "club Jesus" sightings [prior to the 16th century founding date] seriously, including most Prot theologians and historians.

If the supposed true Church (club Jesus) is not a historical Church, then why would it's history matter? It doesn't have a history; atleast not one that can be verified by traditional historical analysis. As I said above, a whole new historical method would have to be invented in order to find and document something that is invisible and only pops its head in every once in a while. A mathematician would not study the humanities. Nor would a philosopher study archeology. Following the same train of thought, "club Jesus" has no reason to study the Holy Roman Catholic Church, which tes most of Church history as *the* Church. Protestantism and Catholicism are different worlds. I sympathize with the Protestor who believes he has nothing in common (atleast not the gospel anyway) with the Church between the periods of Paul and Luther.

"To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant" -- John Henry Newman

Development of Doctrine

2004-08-27T18:17:00.000-07:00

Catholics are often accused of making up new doctrines. Sometimes they are accused of bringing them in as late as the 19th century. These include the more notable imaculate conception, assumption of Mary, and papal infallibility. Protestants argue that these doctrines were never present in Church history. "Why bring them in now?" they say.

My response to the well meaning Prots: "Right back at ya, Biblebuddy!" Your doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide were invented in the 16th century with no early Church support. Protestants generally have a high concept of doctrinal development unknowingly. This is out of necessity because they have no other way to explain the doctrinal innovation phenomenon. They resort to the idea (which isn't all that wrong) that the Holy Spirit teaches different things at different times in Church history. John Frame (Protestant theologian), for example, has a good understanding of this in his book, "Evangelical Reunion" (Recommened for Prots!).

Frame is forced to say that doctrine develops, because he sees the reality of this fact in the present day and in Church history. He is simply being honest. There is no way to get around it. Doctrines change in the Church, bottom line. Protestants! you believe in the principle of doctrinal development. There is no other way to explain how one day, all of a sudden, the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide came into existence. (Norman Geisler, Prot theolgian, says that no man held to sola fide between the periods of Paul and Luther.) Protestants have an irrational way of dealing with this problem. They resort to saying that the Church is invisible and therefore doctrines can come and go when the "visibleness" of the Church comes and goes. Its like a game of peekaboo: here I am; now I'm gone. Or maybe its more comparable to a game of hide and seek. God leaves his Church searching in the dark until the missing nugget is found 1600 years later. And wasn't this supposed to be the most essential doctrine in justification? Hmmm... I'm left wondering. There has got to be a better way to deal with this problem.

John Henry Newman has a nice theory. He explains the principle of doctrinal development at work in the formation of the papacy. By far, this is a better historical explaination than any Protestant has given. All Catholic doctrines have roots in history. Yes, even papal infallibility, assumption of Mary, and the immaculate conception. What can be said of sola scriptura, sola fide, and the invisible church? I don't want to hear Protestants complain about new doctrines in Catholicism. Please!

The following is a cut and paste from http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ190.HTM. It begins with Newman and ends with comments from Dave Armstrong.

Let us see how, on the principles which I have been laying down and defending, the evidence lies for the Pope's supremecy.

As to this doctrine the question is this, whether there was not from the first a certain element at work, or in existence, divinely sanctioned, which, for certain reasons, did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs, and of which events in the fourth century are the development; and whether the evidence of its existence and operation, which does occur in the earlier centuries, be it much or little, is not just such as ought to occur upon such an hypothesis.

. . . While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope . . .

. . . St. Peter's prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were "of one heart and soul," it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws . . .

When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops,and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. it is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . .

Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire became Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of that power should take place when that Empire fell. Moreover, when the power of the Holy See began to exert itself, disturbance and collision would be the necessary consequence . . . as St. Paul had to plead, nay, to strive for his apostolic authority, and enjoined St. Timothy, as Bishop of Ephesus, to let no man despise him:so Popes too have not therefore been ambitious because they did not establish their authority without a struggle. It was natural that Polycrates should oppose St. Victor; and natural too that St. Cyprian should both extol the See of St. Peter, yet resist it when he thought it went beyond its province . . .

On the whole, supposing the power to be divinely bestowed, yet in the first instance more or less dormant, a history could not be traced out more probable, more suitable to that hypothesis, than the actual course of the controversy which took place age after age upon the Papal supremecy.

It will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and acts of the Ante-nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that presumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it . . .

Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later.

(Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878 ed., Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989, pp. 148-155; Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 3)

If one reads the above carefully, they'll see that Newman is reasoning as follows (using mostly his words, but clarifying and explanding upon them a bit):

1. Suppose there is a good reason for saying that the Papal is part of Christianity (there certainly is: the biblical Petrine data and much indication in the Fathers).

2. Let us construct a provisional, falsifiable theory of development of doctrine to account for facts as they lie in the history that we can objectively observe and verify.

3. Let us also assume the general probability and likelihood (indeed, dare we say, inevitability?) that doctrine develops as time proceeds and need arises, and that these developments are parts of the Divine system.

4. In order to illustrate #3, we will show several analogies to other doctrines which are held in common by Protestants and Catholics.

5. Let us pursue a theory which connects the words and acts of the Ante-nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century.

6. Assuming the premises we have established, let us see if there is anything in the history of the early Church to contradict it.

7. By checking those facts and applying this provisional analysis, we see that nothing in the early history of the Church contradicts it

8. Therefore, we accept it as a plausible explanation of the course of developmental history as God ordained it from the outset, and as indicated in kernel form in the apostolic deposit itself; particularly the New Testament.

Was St. Augustine a Protestant?

2004-08-18T20:33:00.000-07:00

This is copied from this dude's site: http://www.willcoxson.net/faith/augprot.htm. [...Just to cite the sources...]

Was St. Augustine a Protestant?

St. Augustine is one of the greatest of catholic saints. He is revered by Western christians both Roman Catholic and Protestant, and especially by Calvinists and Lutherans. Dr. R. C. Sproul, a leading Calvinist theologian and writer in the U.S. has written that he (Sproul) is an "Augustinian". On a theological forum sponsored by Dr. Sproul's ministry, a participant made the audacious statement that "Calvin and Luther did not teach anything that Augustine did not teach." Such statements are severely misinformed. After listening to these Protestants make the "Augustinian" claim, I have come to realize that what they mean is that they accept Augustine's ideas of absolute predestination and salvation by grace. Catholics affirm with Protestants that salvation is by God's grace. However, in regards to predestination, the Catholic Church has not made a dogmatic statement on the matter. In his writings on predestination, St. Augustine gave his private opinions and not the catholic consensus of the church. It is noteworthy that St. Augustine is nearly alone in affirming absolute predestination. His contemporaries and those who followed him did not follow such a rigid system but allowed the freedom of the will.

In his writings outside of his speculations on predestination, St. Augustine was generally reflecting the catholic consensus of the time, and the beliefs which he held as the catholic bishop of Hippo in North Africa. Here are some of the catholic beliefs of Aurelius Augustine, catholic Bishop of Hippo:

The canon of Scripture includes the Septuagint OT canon (deuterocanonicals, Apocrypha)
Authoritative Tradition
Baptismal regeneration and grace
Necessity of baptism for salvation
Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lord's Supper)
The Mass is a sacrifice
Necessity of the Lord's Supper for salvation
Purgatory and praying for the departed
The communion of saints and saintly intercession
Authority of the Catholic Church
Apostolic Succession
Possibility of falling from grace
The sacrament of penance
Mary was ever virgin

After looking at these beliefs, if someone claimed to be Augustinian, I think it is rather obvious that they would not be a Calvinist or a Protestant, but Catholic. Although some Protestant denominations such as the Lutherans may accept some of these beliefs, no Protestant denomination will accept them all. Calvinists reject every single one of these beliefs of Augustine. If anyone was to preach all these beliefs in a Protestant church, he would immediately be branded an arch heretic--yet, Protestants quote Augustine and consider him a hero. A heretic is a hero? At one of his ministry conferences, Dr. Sproul made the statement that (paraphrased), "Anyone who believes in Purgatory knows nothing of the Gospel." The implications of Dr. Sproul's extreme statement is that St. Augustine was not even a Christian. It seems somewhat hypocritical and logically contradictory to me for people like Dr. Sproul to count Augustine as "one of their own", yet in other places to make statements that would exclude him from even being a Christian. It is time for Calvinists to be honest and admit that they are really not Augustinian, but that they follow Calvin alone. Remember one other thing: If Calvin and Luther taught the same doctrines as Augustine, they would not have been excommunicated. St. Augustine is considered an orthodox Doctor of Theology for the Catholic Church and the patron saint of theologians whereas Luther and Calvin are not. For more information, see Dave Armstrong's page on St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Augustine believed the canon of Scripture to contain the Greek OT canon also known today as the deuterocanonicals or "Apocrypha"

"The whole canon of the Scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called `of Solomon' because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

Augustine Believed in Authoritative Tradition

"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in Apostolic Tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, 'that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to Apostolic Tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,' is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

Augustine believed in Baptismal Regeneration and Grace

"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, `Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents' or `by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,' but, `Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.' The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]).

"Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted" (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5 [A.D. 420]).

Augustine Believed Baptism was Necessary for Salvation

"There are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized" (Sermons to Catechumens, on the Creed 7:15 [A.D. 395]).

"[According to] Apostolic Tradition . . . the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).However, he did allow for exceptions--what he called baptism of desire or (martyrdom).

"That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, `Today you shall be with me in paradise' [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart [i.e., baptism of desire] if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism" (ibid., 4:22:29).

Augustine Believed in the Real Presence

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own Body, he said, 'This is my Body' [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice is the of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

Augustine Believed the Mass to be a Sacrifice

"In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness" (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]).

"For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, 'There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink' [Eccl. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and ? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it" (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]).

Augustine Believed in the Necessity of the Lord's Supper for Salvation

"[According to] Apostolic Tradition . . . the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).

Augustine Believed in Purgatory and Praying for the Departed

"That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the . But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the has its place" (The Care to be Had for the 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

Augustine Believed In the Communion of Saints and Saintly Intercession

"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers" (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).

"At the Lord's table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps" (Homilies on John 84 [A.D. 416]).

"For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by his sacraments or by the prayers or relics of his saints . . . The miracle which was wrought at Milan when I was there. . . [and when people] had gathered to the bodies of the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, which had long lain concealed and unknown but where now made known to the bishop Ambrose in a dream and discovered by him" (City of God 22:8 [A.D. 419]).

This last quote showed that Augustine believed there was something special about the relics of the saints. Show me a Protestant who believes that!

I don't know where the rest of it went, but you get the point...

Real Presence

2004-08-16T21:54:00.000-07:00

This is a response to whoever said that the Church Fathers were ambiguous on the "real presence." This seems pretty clear to me.

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my ,’ but, ‘This is my ’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

Athanasius

"'The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:' You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the , of our Lord Jesus Christ. 'And again:' Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected" (Sermon to the Newly Baptized ante 373 A.D.)

Gregory of Nyssa

"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ" (Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.).

Cyril of Alexandria

"We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the of Christ . . . draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice" (Catecheses," 22, 9; "Myst." 4; d. 444 A.D.).

John Chrysostom

"It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. 'This is My Body,' he says, and these words transform what lies before him" (Homilies on the Treachery of Judas" 1,6; d. 407 A.D.).

Council of Ephesus

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the , according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the , and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

This could go on for hours, but I'll stop here. I also find it quite interesting that the Eucharist is referred to as a "sacrifice" in the earliest Christian writings. The Didache and Clement's epistle were written during the lives of the Apostles. They both make explicit references to the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist.

Formal vs. Material Sufficiency of Scripture

2004-08-01T18:04:00.000-07:00

"The Catholic Faith can agree that Scripture is sufficient. But (Theological technobabble Alert!) it also warns that there is a distinction between material and formal sufficiency. What's the difference between material and formal sufficiency? Simply put, it is the difference between having a big enough pile of bricks to build a house and having a house made of bricks. Material sufficiency means that all the bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture. However, it also teaches that since the meaning of Scripture is not always clear and that sometimes a doctrine is implied rather than explicit, other things besides Scripture have been handed to us from the apostles: things like Sacred Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks together in the right order and position) and the Magesterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things--Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium--are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God." (Mark Shea)

"[The Church and Scripture] are not two rival horses in the authority race, but one rider (the Church) and one horse (Scripture). The Church as writer, canonizer, and interpreter of Scripture is not another source of revelation but the author and guardian and teacher of the one source, sacred tradition, which includes Scripture as its preeminent treasure and legacy. We are not taught by a teacher without a book or by a book without a teacher, but by one teacher, the Church, with one book, Scripture." (Kreeft)

Historical Influences on Sola Scriptura

2004-07-22T19:27:00.000-07:00

Author: Philip Blosser. Extract taken from "Not By Scripture Alone", by Robert Sungenis (pgs. 72-74)

What were the historical influences that contributed to the rise of sola scriptura? Doubtless there were many factors, some of them political and economic (like the desire for independence from Rome’s hegemony and the need to theologically justify defying her authority), and some of them social and cultural (like the invention of printing, which not only made Bibles widely available, but reinforced the individualism of the act of reading, as opposed to hearing, Scripture). Still other factors were intellectual and spiritual. It was certainly no that the Protestant Reformation began in the academy (the perfect environment for the consummate individualist: me, my books, and the Holy Spirit – with the accent on the autonomous academic intellect); or that the academic setting was that of the slightly skeptical via moderna schools of the nominalist tradition. My own hunch is that the most significant influences on sola scriptura stemmed from a profound shift in intellectual and spiritual climate during the late middle ages, associated with the rising influence of nominalism.

In scholastic philosophy, nominalism involved a skeptical dismissal of “universals” as mere “fictions” – as mere “words” or “names” (Latin nomina), from which we get “nominalism.” It attracted theological attention only after it was used to interpret the Eucharist. Berengar of Tours (c. 1000-1088) was the first scholastic to insist on the ultimacy of the evidence of the senses in interpreting the Sacrament, and was the first recorded case in Church history of a theologian denying the real bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. His position both reflected contributed to a shift away from a world of timeless universals as the basis for understanding reality, and toward the physical world of changing individual, empirical facts. It was a shift that produced, in many quarters, an atmosphere of skepticism about the rational intelligibility of God’s nature and purposes, as defined by the Church; a skepticism resulting not merely in the rejection of the divine realities communicated in the sacraments as such, but in a rejection of the whole outlook of sacramental realism that pervaded the very identity and self-understanding of the Church and her claim to speak, on earth, for God in heaven. This meant a new skepticism, not merely about the connection between an “outward sign” (like baptism) and a real “inward grace” (like regeneration), but about any real, naturally mediated, intelligible connection between the temporal and eternal, the earthly and the heavenly.

The resulting atmosphere was one naturally conductive to proto-Protestant sentiments – a “symbolic” view of the sacraments, a “forensic” view of justification, and a “spiritual” view of the Church. As Christ could be present in the Eucharist only “nominally”; as sinners could be made just only “nominally” – so the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church could exist in the world only “nominally.” The finite could not contain the infinite. Nature could not serve as a channel for grace. The authority of God’s Word (in the order of eternity) could be preserved from the contamination of earthly mediations (in the order of time) only by sequestering it within a sanctuary of pure propositions by means of sola scriptura. So, at least, it was widely thought. But the effect was quite different. The seat of real authority was removed from the Church, as the teacher of Scripture, and placed in the individual interpreter of Scripture alone; where it was never meant to be. Thus the extrabiblical influence of late medieval nominalism, together various practical exigencies involved in trying to justify revolt against the Church and the whole ecclesiastical tradition, combined to facilitate the development of sola scriptura and to make each Protestant, in principle, his own pope.