Follow
We continue this week with our analysis of Malachi 1:11 as understood by the Early Church. This series is a response to The Sacrifice Challenge, a challenge issued by Roman Catholic apologists who believe that the only possible fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 is Roman Catholicism’s sacrifice of the Mass. The Douay Catechism, as well as many Roman Catholic apologists, holds that “All the … Fathers, … of the primitive ages, teach that the mass is the self same sacrifice of bread and wine that had been instituted by our Saviour,” and is the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy that “in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” As we have demonstrated in the last two weeks, Rome’s claims are wholly inconsistent with the data. Rather, the Early Church saw the sacrifice and incense of Malachi 1:11 to be “simple prayer from a pure conscience.”
Before Roman Catholicism came on the scene, the Early Church saw the Lord’s Supper as a memorial meal, and saw praise and thanks as the sacrifice of the New Covenant, in accordance with Romans 12:1 and Hebrews 13:15,
“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” (Romans 12:1)
“By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.” (Hebrews 13:15)
It is in the light of Romans 12:1 and Hebrews 13:15 that the Early Church’s understanding of Malachi 1:11 can be seen most clearly, as the Early Church Fathers testify.
There are, however, three traps into which we must not stumble in our analysis:
1) The Patristic writers of the Nicæan and ante-Nicæn era occasionally used sacrificial terms when writing about the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and Malachi 1:11. They do not always use the same terms, and when they do use the same terms, they do not always use them the same way. Nor do the terms necessarily refer to the bread and wine, though Rome often assumes that they do. Context will keep us out of this trap.
2) The word Eucharist is a transliteration of the Greek word, “ευχαριστια,” and it is translated as “thanksgiving.” Sometimes it refers to the bread, and sometimes it refers to thanks. Thus, the “sacrifice of the Eucharist” does not of necessity imply a sacrifice of “bread,” but rather a sacrifice of thanks. Translating the word “ευχαριστια” as “thanksgiving” instead of transliterating it as “Eucharist” as context demands will help keep out of this trap.
3) When Jesus celebrated the Passover with His disciples, He instituted the Lord’s Supper, but He also offered praise and thanks and a hymn to His Father (Matthew 26:26-30, Mark 14:22-26). Thus, when a Church Father uses sacrificial terms in relation to the Last Supper, he is not of necessity referring to the bread and wine, but to the thanks and praise, which the Early Church saw as the “pure offering” of Malachi 1:11. By maintaining the distinction between what Jesus offered to His Father and what He offered to His disciples we will avoid stumbling into the third trap.
The traps are easily avoided, and the Scriptures as well as the testimony Church Fathers themselves provide the data we need when we evaluate the Early Church’s position on Malachi 1:11.
By way of reference, here is Malachi 1:10-11, the verse upon which Rome’s Mass sacrifice is presumed to turn:
“Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 1:10-11)
We continue this week with Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr. In the case of Ignatius, Rome attempts to have him offering a sacrifice of bread and wine on the altar, but Ignatius’ context tells a completely different story. In the case of Justin, Rome takes a singular appeal by Justin to an Old Testament type to have him offering bread as the sacrifice, and ignores the overwhelming evidence—actually the overwhelming insistence—from Justin that prayers, praise, hymns, petitions and gratitude are the only sacrifices we offer, and further that it was Christ Himself Who taught us that we are not to offer blood, drink and incense to His Father.
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (early 2nd century)
Ignatius of Antioch did not invoke Malachi 1:11, but we will touch on him briefly because he is used by Rome to perpetuate the myth that the Early Church practiced the sacrifice of the Mass. We have already addressed Rome’s claim regarding Ignatius on transubstantiation in our article, Eating Ignatius. In that article we showed that Ignatius’ writing style was highly metaphorical, but that Rome takes him literally at precisely the point that he is driving his metaphors home. On the sacrifice of the Mass, Rome misreads him again. The Catholic Answers web site has Ignatius supporting the sacrifice of the Mass in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, citing him as follows:
“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 [A.D. 110]). (Catholic Answers, The Sacrifice of the Mass)
We hasten to highlight first how gratuitously Rome adds the word “sacrifice” whenever it suits her to do so. The word “sacrifice” (θυσία) does not occur in this chapter. Ignatius says, rather, “one altar; as there is one bishop” (from Schaff, Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, chapter 4). Lacking such a reference from Ignatius, Rome takes the liberty of providing the word “sacrifice” for him, and thereby attempts to have him to make the bread and wine the sacrifice. But it is Antioch, not Rome, who must inform us here.
As we showed in Eating Ignatius, he frequently uses the Lord’s Supper as a metaphor for his theme, and in this letter, his theme is unity. Our readers may validate that on their own by reading his Epistle to the Philadelphians, in which he invokes the theme of unity in every chapter but one, often several times in a single paragraph.
In the midst of this letter on unity, Ignatius exhorts the Philadelphians to use (χρῆσαι) one Eucharist (ευχαριστια), “for there is one flesh” and “one cup,” and “one altar.” It is of no small interest to us that when “eucharist” includes a reference to the elements of the Lord’s Supper—as it does here—Ignatius says the Eucharist is to be “used” by the participants. Ignatius does not have them “offering” the bread and wine here. He only has them “using” it. That is what the elements of bread and wine are for in the Lord’s Supper. We use them to stimulate our memory.
But in another letter, in which his theme is also unity, the “eucharist” refers to the giving of thanks to God rather than bread and wine being given to men. In this case the “eucharist” is given to God to show forth His praise:
“Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks (εὐχαριστίαν) to God, and show forth His praise. For when you assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith.” (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, chapter 13)
Notably, in this chapter he makes no mention of the elements of bread and wine at all. We highlight this contrast to demonstrate how Ignatius, just as Clement and the Didache did last week, maintains his categories so cleanly and distinctly. When the “eucharist” refers to the elements of bread and wine, it is for our use, but when the “eucharist” refers to thanks and praise, it is given to God. Bread is broken for our use. Thanks is offered for His praise. Bread is not offered to God as a sacrifice.
We do not deny that Ignatius refers the unity of the “altar” (θυσιαστηρίου) in his letter to the Philadelphians, a term that carries significant sacrificial overtones, as it derives from (θυσία) meaning “sacrifice.” Rome makes haste to associate the bread and the wine with the altar by adding the word “sacrifice” as if Ignatius had said, “θυσιαστηρίου” (altar) of “θυσία” (sacrifice), but he did not. As we noted above, Rome adds the word “sacrifice” gratuitously. However, as before it is to Antioch, not to Rome, that we must go to understand Ignatius. We need only invoke Ignatius’ own use of “altar” to admonish Roman Catholics that they need not read more into Ignatius than he will allow. As we shall see, when Ignatius invokes the “altar,” the only thing sacrificed on it is either prayer with a pure conscience (Hebrews 13:15) or “your bodies a living sacrifice” (Romans 12:1).
In his letter to the Ephesians, being “within the altar” refers to a unity of prayer:
“if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power [Matthew 18:19], how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride … ” (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, chapter 5)
We notice again that Ignatius maintains his categories here. Bread is offered to eligible participants, and ineligible people are deprived of it. But prayer is what the assembled Church offers to God. To the degree that the “altar” is for sacrifice, it is the prayers of His people rather than bread that is offered to God. To the degree that the “altar” serves as a table, it is bread that is offered to men, not prayer.
In another letter, we are to come “to one altar” so that there may be “one prayer“:
“…but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ…” (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Magnesians, chapter 7)
Prayer, not bread, is what is offered on the altar. In yet another letter, being “within the altar” is a metaphor for having a pure conscience:
“He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.” (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Trallians, chapter 7)
In another place, Ignatius himself is the sacrifice that is to be offered on the altar:
“Pray, then, do not seek to confer any greater favour upon me than that I be sacrificed to God while the altar is still prepared.” (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Romans, chapter 2)
Those are all of his uses of the word “altar.” Thus, when Ignatius speaks of an altar, it is in reference to simple prayer with a pure conscience in accordance with Hebrews 13:15, or in reference to providing his body as a living sacrifice, in accordance with Romans 12:1. It is never in reference to offering the bread and wine to God as a sacrifice. Thus, when we read Ignatius’ Epistle to the Philadelphians in the context of Antioch, rather than the context of Rome, we can see what Ignatius plainly meant—we use “one” eucharist so that we may show forth the cause of our unity, and we gather at one altar so that there may be “one prayer, one supplication” offered to God. Bread is broken. Prayer is offered.
We close this section on Ignatius by reminding our readers of why we must be ever vigilant in identifying and avoiding the traps Rome would lay for us in The Sacrifice Challenge. The first trap is laid when Rome gratuitously inserts the term “sacrifice” in a reference to the Lord’s Supper so that Ignatius appears to represent bread and wine as the sacrifice of the altar, but Ignatius’ use of “altar” tells us otherwise. The second and third traps are avoided when we translate ευχαριστια contextually and see how Ignatius clearly distinguishes between eucharistic bread that is broken for our use at the Lord’s Supper, and eucharistic prayers in which thanks is given to God at the Lord’s Supper. It is the thanks, not the bread, that is offered to God on the altar, and it is thanks, not bread, that was offered to God at the Last Supper. It is by this means that we are able to see Ignatius’ meaning in chapter 4 of his Epistle to the Philadelphians, which was cited by Rome to prove Ignatius’ support of the sacrifice of the Mass. As always, the author’s own context must inform our reading, and we shall see this in our analysis of Justin Martyr, as well.
JUSTIN MARTYR (100 – 165 A.D.)
As with the Didache, Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, Catholic Answers uses Justin Martyr to show that Malachi 1:11 refers to the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the Mass. Catholic Answers uses the following citation from Justin Martyr:
“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 [A.D. 155]). (Catholic Answers, The Sacrifice of the Mass)
Justin Martyr actually makes a similar case three times in his Dialogue with Trypho—in chapters 28, 41 and 117—and his triple reference aids us considerably in our understanding of his application of Malachi 1:11. By the time we are finished with Justin Martyr, he will have conceded that prayer and gratitude are the only sacrifices envisioned in Malachi’s prophecy, and that Jesus taught us at the Lord’s supper not to offer blood, libations and incense to Him.
He starts in chapter 27, by informing Trypho that ingratitude was the problem with the sacrifices of the Jews: God rejected their sacrifices “on account of the hardness of your hearts, and your ingratitude towards Him” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 27). With that foundation laid, he continues in chapter 28 to link Malachi 1:11 to the New Covenant sacrifice:
“But I will lay before you, my friends, the very words of God, when He said to the people by Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I shall not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for from the rising of the sun unto its setting My name shall be glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto My name, even a pure sacrifice: for My name is honoured among the Gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ [Malachi 1:10-11] “ (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 28)
He does not explicitly identify the “pure sacrifice” here, but he will later. In the next chapter he restates gratitude as the distinguishing attribute of the sacrifice of the Gentiles, for “our sacrifices He esteems more grateful than yours” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 29).
In chapter 41, Justin then makes a connection between the thanksgiving offering under the New Covenant and the fine flour offering for a healed leper under the Old (Leviticus 14). Not insignificantly, this fine flour offering is identified as a thanksgiving offering in Leviticus 7. When Justin makes the link between the “fine flour” thanksgiving offering in the Old Testament, and the thanksgiving offering of the New, it is the bread that serves as the typological link, and therefore he refers to “the bread of the thanksgiving” at the Lord’s supper. But he then goes on to explain that it is the thanksgiving for the bread that is offered to God, consistent with the depiction of the Eucharist in the Didache (chapters 9 & 10) last week, in which thanks are offered to God in the context of a celebration using bread and wine. This is also consistent with 2 Corinthinians 9:10-12, in which bread provided to the saints results in thanksgiving to God, making the bread an occasion for thanks. In Justin, the bread and wine remind us of both the Lord’s provision for our physical needs and of Jesus’ provision for our spiritual needs, and being thus reminded of Jesus’ suffering, we are compelled to gratitude, and offer thanks to God. Wherever “Eucharist” appears in the English translation, we render it “thanksgiving,” in bold:
“And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the thanksgiving, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [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 unto 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, says the Lord: but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the thanksgiving, and also the cup of the thanksgiving, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it].” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 41)
We emphasize our rendering of ευχαριστιας (eucharist) as “thanksgiving” for a simple reason: rendering it as “the bread of the Eucharist” gives a false impression that Justin saw the bread as the eucharist here. But Justin actually saw the eucharist as an event (“a celebration”) that included the use of bread and wine, during which celebration, thanks is offered to God. This is consistent with what we saw last week in the Didache, where the thanksgiving of the bread and cup was described as an event in which thanks is offered to God but bread and wine were given to men (Didache, chapters 9-10). Note carefully that Justin explains the Lord’s supper in terms that distinguish the bread from the thanks: the celebration was prescribed “in remembrance of the suffering which Christ endured” (bread), “in order that we may at the same time thank God…” (eucharist) for His creation (bread). The bread itself was not the thanks, but was a part of a meal during which thanksgiving was offered, as W. Trollope explains in his Greek edition of the Dialogue with Trypho:
“It is clear also that although he speaks of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, he does not regard the elements as constituent parts of it, but confines its sacrificial import to the offering of thanksgiving to God for the creation of the world, for deliverance from the dominion of the sin, and for the subjugation of the devil.” ((Philosophi et Martyris cum Tryphone Judæo Dialogus, Rev W. Trollope, M.A. Cambridge, 1891) 84 note 3)
Trollope’s observation is consistent with the bread and cup of thanksgiving as depicted in the Didache, which bears out as we move forward to chapter 117 of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. It becomes clear that Justin had referred to the “bread of the thanksgiving” solely on account of the typological link between a thanksgiving offering in the Old Testament and a thanksgiving celebration in the New, during which thanks is offered to God. Moving past that type, Justin then reverses the order of his words, and now the sacrifice which Jesus prescribed is “the thanksgiving of the bread” instead of “the bread of the thanksgiving.” The thanksgiving, he says, is the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11:
“Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the thanksgiving of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, ‘And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but you profane it.’ [Malachi 1:10-12] ” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 117)
Then, in the next sentence, Justin the provides his precise meaning when he acknowledges plainly that prayers of thanksgiving alone are the “only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices,” and further that the bread and the cup are not the sacrifice, but rather serve only to stimulate our memories:
“Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 117)
The “solid and liquid food” stimulate the memories of the participants, and because Jesus’ suffering is “brought to mind” by the food, thanks is offered to God as a sacrifice of praise in accordance with Hebrews 13:15.
In his concluding argument in chapter 117, Justin drives the point home—namely that it is the Gentiles, not the Jews, who are now offering sacrifices of prayer and thanksgiving everywhere under the sun, and thus it is the Gentiles who have fulfilled Malachi 1:11:
“For there is not one single race of men, whether barbarians, or Greeks, or whatever they may be called, nomads, or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers and giving of thanks are not offered through the name of the crucified Jesus. And then, as the Scriptures show, at the time when Malachi wrote this, your dispersion over all the earth, which now exists, had not taken place.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 117)
Bread and wine effect remembrance of his sufferings, which are brought to mind by the solid and liquid food (chapter 117), and are “in remembrance of the suffering” to stimulate our memories and provoke us to gratitude (chapter 41) “through the name of the crucified Jesus” (chapter 117). At no point is the suffering of Jesus offered. Bread is broken. Thanks is offered.
This same distinction is stridently maintained in Justin’s First Apology wherein he explains the correct administration of the Lord’s Supper. In his description of the sacrament, notice how he describes the offering. The president “takes bread … and offers thanks.” He does not “offer bread.” When the president has given thanks, the people do not partake of “bread that has been offered,” but rather partake of bread over which thanks have been pronounced. The reader is invited to note that prayers, praise and thanks are the only offerings Justin describes. The bread is never offered or sacrificed:
“But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 65)
Justin has maintained categorical clarity here. We “offer thanks” to God because “we receive” bread and wine. Bread is broken and given to men. Praise and thanks is offered to God. Justin repeats this same order again in chapter 67. Notice that the president takes bread, “offers prayers and thanksgivings,” and then distributes “that over which thanks have been given.” At no point does he offer the bread or the cup to God:
“Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given … .” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 67)
Again, Justin maintains his categorical clarity. Bread is brought forward to the president, prayers and thanksgiving are offered to God, then bread is distributed to men. Bread is broken. Thanks is offered.
When we take Justin Martyr’s complete thoughts on Malachi 1:11, it is clear that he sees a sacrifice of prayers, praise and thanksgiving as the sacrifice of the New Covenant, and sees the bread and wine as solid and liquid food that stimulate our remembrance, bringing Jesus’ sufferings to mind. As he acknowledged to Trypho, “prayers and giving of thanks … are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices” of the New Covenant.
We conclude this section on Justin Martyr by highlighting a rather significant chapter of his First Apology. In this chapter, he makes the case that the only sacrifice Jesus taught at the Last Supper was the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi, and that sacrifice was praise, gratitude, thanksgiving and hymns. It is because He has no need of blood, libations and incense that we offer prayer and thanksgiving to Him instead. To make this case, he brings the fire of Malachi 1:10-11 together with the hymns offered by Christ at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26), and by doing so shows that the only sacrifice he thought the Lord had left us with was the sacrifice of praise alone. Listen as he explains what Jesus taught us:
“[W]orshipping as we do the Maker of this universe, and declaring, as we have been taught, that He has no need of streams of blood and libations and incense; whom we praise to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied, as we have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire [Malachi 1:10] what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns [Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26] for our creation, and for all the means of health, and for the various qualities of the different kinds of things, and for the changes of the seasons; and to present before Him petitions for our existing again in incorruption through faith in Him. Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him…” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 13)
Justin maintains his categories again, and insists that the bread is for our use, and it is prayer, not bread, that is offered to God. We note as well that Justin said it was Jesus Who taught us these things—namely that we are not to offer incense and blood and libations to His Father, but rather ought to offer thanks and hymns [ὕμνους] instead. We emphasize Justin’s use of the word “hymns” [ὕμνους] here because he says the “teacher of these things is Jesus,” and the only time in the Scriptures that Jesus explicitly hymns His Father is at the Last Supper:
“And when they had sung an hymn [ὑμνήσαντες], they went out into the mount of Olives.” (Matthew 26:30)
“And when they had sung an hymn [ὑμνήσαντες], they went out into the mount of Olives.” (Mark 14:26)
It is in the context of Jesus offering hymns to His Father at the Last Supper that Justin Martyr invokes Malachi 1:10—”neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought”—and insists that we must not offer blood, wine and incense. The “only honour that is worthy of Him,” Justin says, is not to receive the bread and the wine as a sacrifice, but rather to receive our gratitude and thanks and hymns and petitions. The bread of the Lord’s table is to be received by men. The thanks is received by God.
There was no sacrifice of the Mass in the Early Church. Ignatius of Antioch, when taken in his natural context, clearly saw the altar as the place where Christians gather to offer thanks with a pure conscience. When “the eucharist” refers to bread, it is for our consumption, but when it does not refer to the bread, it is offered to God as praise and thanks. Justin Martyr insists as well, that Jesus taught us not to offer wine and incense to God, but rather thanks, hymns and petitions instead.
We will continue this series next week with Irenæus and Tertullian.
Tim, so clear. You have written the rise of Roman Catholicism, after this series you can write The fall of Roman Catholicism. With the fall of the Mass, the summit of their religion, the false gospel of adding their merits to Christ’s gifts collapses. You have shown that the eficacy of our sins is in the one time sacrifice for which we offer thanks, and not in the re offering of the body of Christ under the appearence of bread and wine. The Mass is for the spiritually dead, the true supper for the spiritually living. I will go to commuion with the full knowledge that my sins are forgiven, and to give praise and thanks in memory for what He DID for us. In faith alone in our savior. Thanks Tim for the clarity and light shed on the early fathers. K
Yes Kevin, Tim has single handedly, armed only with his trusty keyboard Excalibur, toppled the entire Romish juggernaut!
Oh, wait. Tim needs to explain why there was no outcry when the Romish Beast imposed the bread sacrifice on the believers. Were they all secretly liquidated? Did they all go underground to escape the gestapo?
You guys are so corny. Ha!
Jim,
While granted I have not been following the comment threads all that closely, I don’t think I have ever seen you and yours respond to the content of Tim’s posts. My personal impression of most of the dissenting comments are that they have been like a small dog yipping away. A lot of noise, no substance. You disagree. We get that. Mind explaining from Scripture, or even these church fathers that Tim has been quoting, how Tim is wrong?
Thanks, and I look forward to your reasoned and thoughtful response to the current subject.
Dan,
I suggest you read the comments closely and you’ll find plenty of people debunking Tim using Scripture and church fathers. BOB (who’s not even Catholic) did an excellent job of pointing out Tim’s tendency to use partial and out of context quotes. It won’t take you long to read all the relevant comments if you skip Kevin’s comments. He makes up about 80% of the total comments.
CK, you wrote,
I, too, would be interested in where this has taken place. There have been people here who disagreed with my conclusions, but “plenty of people debunking Tim using Scripture and the Church Fathers” is a charge that requires some proof. Can you point me to where this has taken place here? You continued,
Where did Bob do this? Bob alleged that I was using the ellipses to conceal countervailing evidence. I asked for proof that I was doing this, and he opted not to provide evidence at the time. If he has done so since then, I may have missed it.
Both of your charges should be easy to prove. Can you point me to where “plenty of people have debunked” me using Scripture at the Church Fathers and where Bob proved my “tendency” to use partial out of context quotes?
Thanks,
Tim
This post by CK consists of maybe 15 words, none of which address Tim’ s article. It mentions Bob’s name, Tim’s name and Kevin’s. Jim’ post is as small not addressing the article either. This is powerful proof you guys wont go near it. I dont blame you. In the last few monts Tim has debunked Baprismal regeneration and Transubstantiation, any bread EVER being offered up. In facr Tim has put ex opere operato out of business without any serious apologist coming here and trying to debunk it. But, Jim, Bob, Mathew, CK, provide allot amusement. God bless.
I’m pasting this here as well…as the Romish mind is seared and the conscience is founded in hypocrisy.
Eric wrote the following:
“Please, don’t miss this. Scott wants dialogue on his own terms. Scott’s rules rule. His tender heart demands it.”
This is really the key point since I have been reading Scott and Matthew both. Scott admits somewhere here that he has listened to hundreds of debates, and they have all sort of blended together. This tells you where Scott true passion and heart is by his own admission. It is in the sin of debate.
He loves to debate. It is who he is. He loves to set the rules, and if you don’t follow his debate rules than he is going to get really upset. Almost like a child standing in front of a parents crying and screaming stamping feet side by side debating with parents to give him his way. It is not effective on this site, so Scott and Matthew will console each other on Scott’s blog to encourage one another in their sin.
Scott is an admitted former Lutheran turned Roman Catholic, and clearly this tells one by admission a lot. Modern Lutherans have no resemblance of anything truly reformed as did Luther. Lutherans, like Wesley’s Methodism, is really Romish at its practice, government and doctrine. Look at the priestly garments many in these movements…tell me this is not anti-biblical and pro-Romish. None of this stuff is even remotely a picture of the true church of Jesus Christ subsequent to His deal, burial, resurrection and accession to the thrown at the right hand of His Father. NOTHING.
Matthew loves to reference Scripture as a Roman Catholic like it is the fundamental basis for his belief system. This is ideal in theory and hypocrisy, but you can be certain that even Satan himself was a master at using Scripture to tempt Jesus Christ to sin. In the wilderness he tempted Christ using Scripture references, but Christ being the Master and Creator of those very infallible truths corrected and rebuked Satan.
Anytime Matthew, like Satan himself, uses Scripture to justify his support for Rome than rebuke him firmly and correct him faithfully using the literal sense context of Scripture. Use the Scripture to interpret the Scripture, and don’t be deceived when Matthew uses his own conscience as his guide. His conscience is truly seared and founded in doctrines of devils:
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1Tim.4:1-3)
Follow the truth of this inerrant statement by Westminster:
“IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”
Tim,
I debunked your entire theory before Christmas, despite Kevin’s muddying the waters with his usual barrage of postings.
You maintain the Catholic Church started in the latter half of the 4th century.
Central to the Catholic Church is the Pope. On about three occasions I demonstrated that Rome and her Bishops weighed in on the affairs of other bishoprics way before 350 A.D.
Although that settles it, I opted to refute your theory about the Marian doctrines being post 350 developments too.
I haven’t bothered with your bizarre view of the Eucharist other than to ask you why there was no outcry when Rome supposedly foisted her “bread worship” on the faithful.
Jim, you wrote,
I maintain that the Roman Catholic Church started in the latter part of the 4th century. That is why I called my post “The Rise of Roman Catholicism” rather than “The Rise of Catholicism.” References to the Catholic Church are plentiful in the early Church Fathers, but Roman Catholicism was a novelty of the late 4th century.
That is not accurate. Since the term “pope” has not always referred to the Roman Bishop, you must do more than prove that the term “pope” predated the latter part of the 4th century. You will note in my article that I did not say that there were no bishops in Rome prior to 350 A.D.. Nor did I say the term “pope” was not used prior to 350 A.D.. The earliest known use of the title to refer to a patriarch was in reference to the patriarch of Alexandria, not to the bishop of Rome:
The article also notes that the term was not officially reserved for the Bishop of Rome until the 11th century. If it is true that “central to the Catholic Church is the Pope,” why was the first pope from Alexandria? What I think you meant is that “Central to the Roman Catholic Church is a Roman Pope who has Primacy over all others.” As I noted in my article, the first Roman Bishop to claim this successfully was Pope Damasus I (reigned from 366 – 384 A.D.), although some had tried, unsuccessfully, before that. It was in 370 that the first claim was made that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. It was in 380 that the term Pontifex was transferred from the emperor to the bishop of Rome, although Tertullian used the term mockingly of him much earlier. If you have countervailing evidence, you are welcome to provide it here. As you know, all comers are welcome. But merely showing that Rome had a bishop before 350, or that there was a church prior to 350, or that the term “pope” predated 350 is not sufficient to “debunk” my “entire theory.”
You continued,
Yes, indeed you did. But how that proves Roman Primacy is a mystery to me. As I have demonstrated to you repeatedly, Polycarp “weighed in” on Roman affairs (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 3.4). There you will find that Polycarp “weighed in” on Philippian affairs, as well. Cyprian also “weighed in” on Roman affairs when Firmilian, was “justly indignant at the manifest folly of Stephen [Bishop of Rome], who, while he piques himself on the site of his see, and eagerly claims the succession of Peter, does introduce &c.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 74.3) Firmilian thanked Cyprian because he had “settled the matter.” The Donatists had been judged by “pope” Melchiades, who was then Bishop of Rome. Then the Donatists appealed to the ecumenical Council of Arles, asking that council to resolve a matter that had already been judged by a Roman (regional) Synod. After the Donatists “took pains to have the matter again more carefully examined and settled at Arles,” the matter was settled. (Augustine, Letter 43, chapter 2.4)
All these events and letters predate 350 A.D., and yet you maintain that the primacy of the bishop of Rome was recognized before 350 A.D.. The evidence militates strongly against your assertion.
You also alleged, in a separate comment,
You mean like the tone he took in his letter to the Ephesians?
Thanks,
Tim
JIM–
You said: “I haven’t bothered with your bizarre view of the Eucharist other than to ask you why there was no outcry when Rome supposedly foisted her “bread worship” on the faithful.”
That is a good point. I would be interested in the answer, too.
” bizzare view of the Eucharist” I love the mind of a Catholic. Tim has proven the ONLY practice in the early church was no bread offering, and the Catholic sees that as the bizzare view. We need to buy y’all pairs of opposite glasses. Then you will see the truth, that the Roman Catholic view is not only the bizzare view, it is the nonexistent view. Your pride keeps you from the gospel and being saved. You just cant walk away from big mamma, she is the crack cocaine that Bob talks about not being able put down. When I came to this site, I told Tim that I believed that you read Roman Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth. Tim has proven, whether Romans 2, Baptism, the Lord’s supper, Rome has taught the complete opposite of the scripture and the early fathers. And it shouts out like trumpet. K
KEVIN–
You said: “Then you will see the truth, that the Roman Catholic view is not only the bizzare view, it is the nonexistent view.”
Then why was there no outcry when Rome supposedly foisted her “bread worship” on the faithful? There should have been plenty of Doctors of the Church or Church scholars that would have recognized it for idolatry and fought against it. Was Rome so powerful as to completely silence even the elect for hundreds of years?
No outcry! Jim, that is such a simple and frankly child like question. Sometimes those are the hardest to answer. I’m embarrassed I never thought of it.
Can you imagine? The church commanded that all Christians worship a loaf of bread and no one revolted! All these holy men who were willing to be burned alive than worship a pagan god sat silently and did what the church commanded!!!!
Tim in all your exhaustive research did you find any early church father leave the church because of this so called offensive pagan ritual?
Jim,
As I wrote in When Mary Got Busy, Eucharistic Adoration was unknown until the 11th century. That is why all the accounts of the history of Eucharistic Adoration have a huge gap from when Christians were exchanging consecrated bread as a show of unity in the 2nd century, and when Eucharistic Adoration took Europe by storm in the 11th century. 900 years of missing history, and not a bit of Eucharistic Adoration to be found in it.
You can see that huge gap in the words of John Hardon as he tries desperately to close that gap:
So, in a nutshell, the history of Eucharistic adoration is … 1000 years of not adoring the eucharist. They shared it with each other as a sign of unity, and sometimes they even stored it in places. Then, something happens. Suddenly at the end of the 11th century, everyone got busy worshiping the Eucharist:
That’s right. The real presence was so “taken for granted” that nobody was worshiping the Eucharist for 1,000 years. And then people started worshiping the Eucharist.
As I wrote in It’s Complicated, the Real Presence was so “taken for granted” that it did not even occur to the Church to kneel before the Eucharist on Sundays until the 11th century.
That’s your history of Eucharistic Adoration, Jim.
When it took Europe by storm, a lot of people were burned to death because they refused to worship the idol, so yes, there was an outcry, often from within the flames.
You ask why there was no outcry “when Rome supposedly foisted her ‘bread worship’ on the faithful.” There was an outcry. Rome foisted Eucharistic adoration on the people of Europe in the 11th century, and when she did, there was an outcry.
Thanks,
Tim
Walt,
“as the Romish mind is seared and the conscience is founded in hypocrisy”
You are such a clown.
Tim,
“There was no sacrifice of the Mass in the Early Church. Ignatius of Antioch, when taken in his natural context, clearly saw the altar as the place where Christians gather to offer thanks with a pure conscience…”.
Altar? Altar? Not merely a table? What happens at an altar?
Jim, you asked,
More importantly, what is offered on it? As I wrote, and you quoted, Ignatius “clearly saw the altar as the place where Christians gather to offer thanks with a pure conscience.” What you ought to do, but cannot, is prove that Ignatius saw the altar as a place where bread is sacrificed to God.
Thanks,
Tim
From Wikipedia:
ALTAR
An altar is any structure upon which offerings such as sacrifices are made for religious purposes. Altars are usually found at shrines, and they can be located in temples, churches and other places of worship. Today they are used particularly in Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Taoism, as well as in Neopaganism and Ceremonial Magic. Judaism used such a structure until the destruction of the Second Temple. Many historical faiths also made use of them, including Greek and Norse religion.
Protestant Churches
A wide variety of altars exist in various Protestant denominations. Some Churches, such as Lutheran and Methodist have altars very similar to Anglican or Catholic ones keeping with their more sacramental understanding of the Lord’s Supper. In Calvinist churches from Reformed, Baptist, Congregational, and Non-denominational backgrounds, it is very common for the altar-like table to have on it only an open Bible and a pair of candlesticks; it is not referred to as an “altar” because they do not see Communion as sacrificial in any way. Many of these groups use a very simple wooden table, known as a Communion Table, adorned perhaps with only a lengthwise linen cloth, again to avoid any suggestion of a sacrifice being offered. Such Communion Tables often bear the inscription: “Do This in Remembrance of Me”, which they believe indicates Holy Communion as being a memorial rather than a sacrament. Such a table is normally not consecrated or blessed in any manner, and may be temporary, being moved into place only when there is a Communion Service. Some Protestant churches have no altar or Communion table, even if they have the practice of the “altar call” or at most bring in a Communion table when needed… Having or not having a Communion table was a subject of dispute within Scottish Presbyterianism in the 17th century, with the Independents opposing its use.
And your point is? The only sacrifices from the altar/ table in the Early church was thanksgiving and praise, and a broken and contrite heart. NO BREAD WAS OFFERED, and therefore no re offering of Christ’s body. The one on the cross covered ALL sins. The Efficacy is in Christ received by faith alone, for which we REMEMBER His sacrifice and commemorate it, not in doing it ex opere operato ” the WORK of the people” as referred to in Romanism. But we understand why you must cling to the altar, because the bread is the sacrifice of your sin, as you earn your salvation through adding your merits to christ’s gifts. If you haven’t learned by now on this site, that CANNOT save you. Protestants rejoice over a Lord who is in heaven, and we rejoice for a salvation we ALREADY possess, Our righteousness is in heaven, not on an altar. He already died. It is finished. Tim’s articles have been the death of the sacrifice of the bread at the altar. And no matter how big your Wikipedia post, it is irrefutable. Your only left with repenting of this abomination and following Christ in faith alone. Hope everyone is having a beautiful day. K
KEVIN–
What does it mean when you say “this is my last post”?
Does it mean “forever” or “just until I want to post again”?
last [last, lahst] adjective
1. occurring or coming after all others, as in time, order, or place:
“the last line on a page.”
2. most recent; next before the present; latest:
“last week; last Friday.”
3. being the only one remaining:
“my last dollar; the last outpost; a last chance.”
4. final:
“in his last hours.”
5. ultimate or conclusive; definitive:
“the last word in the argument.”
6. lowest in prestige or importance:
“last prize.”
7. coming after all others in suitability or likelihood; least desirable:
“He is the last person we’d want to represent us.”
I am trying to discern the truth in your words.
Bob,
I means until after lunch.
I’m just supplying the usage of the altar if anyone is interested.
No outcry! Jim, that is such a simple and frankly child like question. Sometimes those are the hardest to answer. I’m embarrassed I never thought of it.
Can you imagine? The church commanded that all Christians worship a loaf of bread and no one revolted! All these holy men who were willing to be burned alive than worship a pagan god sat silently and did what the church commanded!!!!
Tim in all your exhaustive research did you find any early church father leave the church because of this so called offensive pagan ritual?
CK, have you read the articles. They didnt sacrifice bread in the early church, and transubstantiation wasnt around. So the early church didnt worship the bread. Transubstantiation is a 12 th century novelty, as is the wafer god adoring chapels. Thats the whole point of the article, NO church father ever, ever offered the bread. The broke the bread and gave it, the offered thanksgiving and praise. Dont miss this, there was no sacrifice of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine that was propituous for sins. None. Bread was never offered to God. Thanks was offered, bread was given to the people. Read The rise of Roman Catholicism, all theses things were piled on the cross. K
Kevin are you telling me that the until the 12th century the church did not believe that the Eucharist is Christ’s body?
Transubstantiation as an explanation was not used but the belief was there.
Let’s say they invented this in the 12th century. Are you tellng me everyone went along and turned pagan? There were no real christians?
CK, what do you think Tim has detailed here through profound research and impeccable citings and interpretation. He hascshut the door the transubstantiation or the offering of bread to God for sins ever, ever, ever, existed in the early church. As he did with baptismal regeneration, he has turned Roman apologists on their ear. The washing and laver of rengeneration is the Word thru the Agency of the Spirit, and only thanksgiving and praise were offered to God, not bread. Until you read his articles fully and see the breath of the work he has done in the Fathers, youbwouldnt even be asking that question. As to your second post, no I do not believe Catholics are Christians. I believe they are idolators, and submit to a gospel of gracious merit, of which participation in the Mass is a must for them to be saved. One cannot add their merits to Christ’ gifts and be saved. The scripture is clear. Most Catholics are lost in this system and will never come out. Its all they know. But we share the gospel as God has asked us and God will call his elect out of her, Rome.
Kevin the Eastern Orthodox (11th century schism) Oriental Orthodox (5th schism) and others believe the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Jesus. Not in spirit not a symbol but the actual body and blood. There goes Tim’s novelty theory. There are ancient writings discussing positions and reasons for these schisms. You would think that the orthodox belief that bread became God would be a major point of contention with the early Christians but we don’t hear a peep. Could it be that they all believed this? It’s not like they were shy about their opinions and beliefs.
If you point me to where Tim addressed why these early beliefs were not denounced I will read it.
CK wrote:
Kevin the Eastern Orthodox (11th century schism) Oriental Orthodox (5th schism) and others believe the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Jesus.
Response:
Then Transub. as an explanation is simply redundant. The words of the Orthodox already explained the belief in words that were somehow “the same” and “different” from Transub. Transub. wasn’t used “until the 12th century”.
I will grant that the Orthodox are proof of the belief before Transub. was used as an explanation. Now, after the grant, please distinguish the “belief” from “an explanation” when the Orthodox talked about it. I’m assuming that any words used by the Orthodox, at any given period of time, was accepted and binding on all Orthodox.
It’s my opinion that you can’t distinguish “belief” from “explanation”. The best proof for this is Jesus and the Apostles.
CK wrote:
Transubstantiation as an explanation was not used but the belief was there.
Response:
That means Transubstantiation was an explanation of a belief. You must agree that Jesus and the Apostles didn’t transmit their belief by substance/accident language. However, those terms and philosophy were available to them for use.
We know they DIDN’T use this language to transmit the belief. No RC will doubt it. Why should anyone think their (Jesus/Apostles) belief is explained by Transub ? Your church knowingly adopts a form of explanation that was, in principle, available to those who transmitted the alleged belief. Look at the discontinuity. Jesus and Apostles didn’t use it, but your church centuries later did use it.
You have no proof, and no good reason, to think Transub. belief existed before its explanation. The ONLY reason and proof you can offer is authority, and nothing more. Authority transmitted the belief and authority explained it later, much later.
The only way you can begin to meet this challenge is to consider doubting your authority. Just meet me on the hypothetical level.
Eric W – See my post above.
Eric W – can’t you say the same thing about the Trinity? Mother of God? It took hundreds of years to explain this.
These terms were created to explain something that was always true. God is three persons and Jesus is both God and human.
CK,
I’m no ally with you on points of doctrine. I wrote….
The only way you can begin to meet this challenge is to consider doubting your authority.
Jesus and the Apostles are included in your authority claims. This is the hypothetical I’m talking about.
————————
Incidentally, Mary, as Mother of God, is not the only way to defend Jesus’ true humanity. How Jesus relates to King David can be enough. Trade Mother for King.
Even the term Trinity is subject to creedal adjustment. Good reasons can be given to support Tri-Unity. You can correct me on this, but isn’t it true that scripture doesn’t use one term, like Trinity, to address the three persons simultaneously.
Eric W the bible plainly states that the bread IS His body and the wine IS His Blood. Jesus also says you must eat His body.
It comes down to authority. You studied the subject, challenged your own authority and using your authority concluded that the Eucharist is NOT the body and blood of Christ.
I’m not sure what your hypothetical is supposed to prove. I admit that I submit to the Church. You pretend you don’t submit to yourself only.
CK,
You’re unable to meet me at the hypothetical level. I’m removing you from the apologist list. You’re nothing but a simple yes-person for Rome.
———–
You wrote:
the bible plainly states that the bread IS His body and the wine IS His Blood. Jesus also says you must eat His body.
Response:
That, in an indirect way, demonstrates explanation and belief are the same for you. If I say we should sit down and determine the meaning of those words, then you readily stand up and shout I BELIEVE…etc.
It’s your belief that explains the revelation.
Here’s a brain teaser. If Jesus’ words are plain to yield agreement with Transub. explanation, then why the explanantion. You read his words and concluded some form of Transub. explanation. With that conclusion, you sought and found a communion that agreed with the conclusion.
Behold the three-legged stool ! Scripture-Tradition-CK
———————-
You wrote:
I admit that I submit to the Church. You pretend you don’t submit to yourself only.
Response:
You submit to Rome because you believe Rome should receive submission. Since Rome will not acknowledge you as a true believer, then we have no reason (based on authority) to think you are a RC. We don’t know, within the Roman System, if you are a credible witness to the understanding of Rome’s teachings.
CK,
I find it easier to talk to you since you’re no longer an apologist. I was looking for one verse that captures the essence of our authority conflict.
Judge for yourselves…1Cor. 11:13
During your many days of saying Yes to Rome, did you ever come across an authoritative directive like that ? Does Rome ever tell you to judge ? The answer, if there is an answer, will hurt that silly charge of “submit to yourself only”.
CK, please read Tim’s article. The belief wasnt there, thats the point of his articlds. He meticulously shows bread wasnt offered, transubtantiaion didnt exist.
Kevin -the Orthodox did not believe that the Eucharist is the blood and body of Christ? When did they start teaching this and why didn’t anyone specifically challenge them? I would expect to hear something like “there are heretics that believe the Eucharist IS the blood and body of Christ blah blah blah” but you have none of that.
CK, I have provided Augustines quotes, and Tim has done numerous articles with all quotes from the fathers against th ed real presence. One folld blog ” Evidence against the real presence in the Fathers destroys the real presence. But you wont read them. And you probably think the first 1500 years of the church was Roman Catholic. It wasnt. But you will never know because you are just a propaganda regergitator of RC stuff off the internet. Read Tim’s articles. Dont shut yourself off from biblical truth. K
CK, two questions. Have you read Tim’ series here, and any of his articles? 2. Are you required to do the Mass to be saved? Two easy questions.
Yes Kevin you must worship God to be saved. I glanced over his articles. Didnt see a timeline showing when the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) start worshiping bread.
The easy question (since you say Tim addressed it) when did the Orthodox start believing that a loaf of bread become the body and blood of Christ?
CK, you glanced at his article. I will take that as a no. Its to bad because hevmeticulously proves bread never offered to God, never. Only praise and thanksgiving. If bread was never offered, then tgere can be no sacrifice of the Mass. If the Mass isnt a sacrifice, it isnt efficacious for sins. And if it isnt eficacious for sins, the it cant save a Catholic. The Mass is as Knox said an invention of man. And whats sad is its you security blanket. You have to believe in the real presence, its the continual work to earn
more grace. ” if its by grace, its no longer by works, or grace is no longer grace. Men are saved by faith alone in Christ, not by continualy eating the Roman wafer. If you dont let Him off the cross and altar, He cant save you. He is risen, never to die again. K
Kevin based on your theory Roman Catholics started offering bread in the 12th century, Eastern Orthodox ??? Church of the East??? Using your reasoning the Orthodox did not start worshiping bread sometime after the 12th century (after Rome introduced this never heard of practice. A novelty). Is that what Tim the historian and you are claiming? Remember Catholics aren’t the only ones that believe the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ.
CK, bread was never offered to God. The Mass sacrifice is the the SUMMIIT of yourcfalse religion. Its a lie. Not one early father offered bread as a sacrifice to God. Not one. Read the articles.
Kevin wrote to CK:
Not one early father offered bread as a sacrifice to God. Not one. Read the articles.
If Tim and Kevin are right, then you must do penance for the bread. Rome offends true bread everyday.
CK, said in her post ” started offering bread in the 12th, and started worshiping bread…..” Ah yes, this is the key. There would be no need to worship it if it wasnt offered, and we no it was never offered. So why worship it. So lets review the Roman Catholic inventions not done in the early church. Misinterpreted that bread was offered, it wasnt. Made the bread into the body,
blood, soul, divinity as an offering. It was never offered to God. Makes that offering of glorified body the sacrifice for their sins. But bread was never offered, and the sacrifice for our sins was unglorified flesh. Roman invention. One of the many inventions of the Roman religion. But some love idolatry and mystycism more that Christ himself. One thing you will always find with true believers, thru simple faith alone in Christ alone we they are complete in Christ, Colossians 1.
GENTLEMEN–
Just in case any of you would like to read about the Eastern Orthodox belief on the Eucharist, here it is in part from http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist:
“It is strictly understood as being the real presence of Christ, his true Body and Blood mystically present in the bread and wine which are offered to the Father in his name and consecrated by the divine Spirit of God.
“In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.
“One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.
“The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him “in their hearts.” In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord’s last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.
“On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term “symbols” for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a “mystery” and the sacrifice of the liturgy a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice.” These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.
“The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality—the world and man himself—is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself “the bread of life” (Jn 6:34, 41).
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).
“Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word “symbolical” in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: “to bring together into one.”
“Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul:
“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 broken 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 you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26).
“The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist—and Christ himself—is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is “not of this world.” The eucharist—because it belongs to God’s Kingdom—is truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.”
BOB cited:
“The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist—and Christ himself—is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is “not of this world.” The eucharist—because it belongs to God’s Kingdom—is truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.”
Response:
And….anyone who teaches this stuff belongs to God’s Kingdom. The teachers are truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.”
And…anyone who attempts to defend and teach this stuff with their own words belongs to God’s Kingdom. The defenders, with their own words, are truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.”
Isn’t that so ?
Eric W said ” the teachers arecfreecfrom earth born logic” In my favorite Eric W quote ever, how do we know that the bread is not the glorified real presence of Christ, ” look at it” Does God trick our senses, no. What does Augustine say clearly. You are not to eat this flesh that you see, nor drink the blood poured out from His side, but understand spiritually what I tell you. The words I Speak are Spirit, the flesh profits nothing. Those who didnt take his words spiritually, were unbelievers. Mathew 7″ Narrow is gate, few are those who find it. Enter by the narrow gate. Hebrews, without FAITH it is impossible to please Him. Not eating his physical body, but faith saves a man.
St. Augustine (c. 354 – 430 A.D.)
“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 BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)
“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)
“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 [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)
“How this [‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)
“Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, 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.” (Letters 98:9)
“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.” (City of God 10:20)
“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.” (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)
“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.” (Letter: Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)
“But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body 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. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death.” (Sermons 172:2)
“…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)
Tim has addressed all this, but you have never read. So what good does it do. You come here not to learn, but as a propagandist regeritator of RC prpaganda. Your in the wrong place to covince Reformed here. We know scripture and have understood the church fathers. We will never buy your salvation of grace sponsored salvation by works. ” for they had a zeal for God but not in accordance with knowledge, for not knowing about the righteouness of God and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God” Grace is free, but you really, really have to work hard for it, right. Im becoming more justified every day right. Go to Mass and earn your salvation, we on this site will trust in Christ alone.
CK–
Wow! Excellent post. And no, Kevin, Tim has not addressed all of this. Most of this Tim did not cite because it is too damaging to his case. This is what CK and I were talking about when we said Tim strategically leaves these quotes out of his blogs. It is up to the readers to actually do the extra research to call him on it.
Bob, on November 27, 2014, at 11:05 PM, I replied to CK as follows:
You can see the rest of the conversation and my comments to CK on several of the quotes from Augustine in the comment section for “If the Light that is in Thee be Darkness (the Bowls, part 5).”
At no time have I claimed to have addressed all of the quotes from Augustine. I only said that I would get to them, and that I would take them one at a time. Taking one’s time to sift through the data is hardly worthy of your charge that I “did not cite [Augustine] because it is too damaging to [my] case,” or that I “strategically leave these quotes out of his blogs” to conceal something.
I have never had a blog entry devoted entirely to Augustine’s view on the Eucharist, and even in my post, The Rise of Roman Catholicism, I explicitly acknowledge that my survey of early church fathers was not exhaustive, but was simply illustrative:
Also, in another citation from Augustine in The Blonde Kids Are On Our Ticket, I acknowledged that Augustine had shifting views on Romans 2:13 throughout his writing years:
Of course it is the “up to the readers to actually do the extra research to call him on it,” and nobody has ever been discouraged from doing so. I also deny the charge that I have strategically avoided citing Augustine because “it is too damaging to my case.” How a post-350 AD Church Father can possibly damage my case about the Niceæn and Ante-Niceæn Church Fathers is quite beyond me. (But he does have some rather interesting things to say about the Donatists going over the Pope’s head to settle a matter of doctrine in 314 A.D…..)
So as things stand, I told CK that I was looking at the citations provided, and that I would look at them one at a time. I have never claimed to have addressed all of CK’s quotes, I have never had a blog entry dedicated to Augustine’s view of transubstantiation, and when I have cited him formally in my blog entries that refer to him, I acknowledge that he said other things, and some of them are at variance with what I believe, and sometimes at variance with himself.
So, unless you think I need to cite everything Augustine wrote every time I so much as mention his name, I don’t see how the charge can stand:
That shoe just doesn’t fit. Do you still believe the charge is true?
Thanks,
Tim
Kelvin,
You scold CK because he does not come to this site to learn.
Learn what? This site is nothing but mockery of the Church.
By the way, you guys are just waking up but over here the TV has been showing the shooting in Paris of a cartoonist who made a career out of mocking peoples’ religion.
The liberals ( John Kerry ) are trying to make the 10 cartoonist out to be “martyrs for liberty”.
No, they taunted violent men who didn’t like cartoonists doing to their violent religion what you and Tim do to peaceful Catholicism every day. It is to bad they were murdered. But they should not have been intentionally offending people just to taunt them like you do.
There isn’t a thing to learn on this site. Zero. It is just a place to come and monitor.
I know it and CK knows it.
Jim,
This blog isn’t a mockery of the Church but a testimony to Jesus Christ. If you’re willing, you can learn a lot. Please repent and trust in Him alone! He is the only One Who can save us. This testimony for Him is the heart of Tim’s blog. We Bible Christians don’t elevate Tim, we simply appreciate his work to defend the faith as once delivered to us.
And truly, Catholicism isn’t peaceful. Yes, the popes preach peace. But to preach peace is one thing, to work toward it is another. Sadly, this institution has murdered tens of millions – this is the record of history. And what I’m saying isn’t persecution of her, and of those who love her, but the truth.
The Catholic Church raised crusades against Bible Christians in the South of France, those who did object to saying that the bread and wine become the body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist, and objected to the Sacrifice of the Mass. These were the Valdois (Waldenses, Valdesi) and the Albigois (the Albigensians whom Rome has defamed by calling Cathars). Their joint 12th century treatise exposed the errors of Rome. It can be found online.
In more recent times, Rome signed a concordat with Adolph Hitler and supported National Socialism. Rome also supported the Catholic Ustachis of Croatia in their crusade against non-Catholics there (Serbian Orthodox, Jews, and others). The Ustachis’ reach wasn’t as long as that of the Nazis, but they were more brutal and their priests personally participated in the acts of brutality. But Pius XII sent a personal representative to Ante Pavelić’s government, and elevated Archbishop Stepinac within the Church, this after Stepinac was found guilty of war crimes. For further reading, look at The Secret History of the Jesuits by Edmond Paris (pdf available online).
There are probably Catholic authors who will not go so far as to agree with you that Rome is peaceful, but who are ashamed of her crimes, such as, the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of Huguenots (Reformed Christians of France). The Church of Rome isn’t peaceful, though it does speak peace and publicly pray for it. Its members are another story – they sincerely pray for peace, I believe.
Maria
Thank you, Maria. An interesting history indeed.
Tim
I’ve read Tim’s comments on Augustine. It sounded good until BOB, Jim, etc.. came along… I read Augustine in context and I disagree with Tim’s conclusion. Again the Orthodox (East and Oriental) believe the Eucharist is the body of Christ and have an altar so this is not a 12th century invention. Here’s a few more…
The Didache(c. 90 A.D.)
But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.
First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.
And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. ( 9:1-5)
On the Lord’s Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions SO THAT YOUR SACRIFICE MAY BE PURE. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord: “In every place and time let there be OFFERED TO ME A CLEAN SACRIFICE. For I am Great King,” says the Lord, “and My name is wonderful among the Gentiles.” (14:1-2)
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)
They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)
St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 – 165 A.D.)
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 – 202 A.D.)
…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 prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes 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 what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)
If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE — flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)
Tertullian (c. 155 – 250 A.D.)
Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the SACRIFICIAL prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE… (Prayer 19:1)
The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)
The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations… WE OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD on their birthday anniversaries…. We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground… (The Crown 3:3-4)
A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so, not to marry another husband…Indeed, she prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, SHE OFFERS THE SACRIFICE. (Monogamy 10:1,4)
Origen (c. 185 – 254 A.D.)
We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.(Against Celsus 8:33)
You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Joshua 2:1)
But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a ‘commemoration’ which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that ‘Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,’ that shewbread which ‘God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,’ and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, ‘Do this in commemoration of me,’ then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)
You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)
…now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: “MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK.” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – 216 A.D.)
Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word…The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. “EAT MY FLESH,” He says, “AND DRINK MY BLOOD.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. HE DELIVERS OVER HIS FLESH, AND POURS OUT HIS BLOOD; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3)
St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200 – 258 A.D.)
And we ask that this Bread be given us daily, so that we who are in Christ and daily receive THE EUCHARIST AS THE FOOD OF SALVATION, may not, by falling into some more grievous sin and then in abstaining from communicating, be withheld from the heavenly Bread, and be separated from Christ’s Body…
He Himself warns us, saying, “UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU.” Therefore do we ask that our Bread, WHICH IS CHRIST, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw from His sanctification and from His Body. (The Lord’s Prayer 18)
Also in the priest Melchisedech we see THE SACRAMENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD prefigured…The order certainly is that which comes from his [Mel’s] sacrifice and which comes down from it: because Mel was a priest of the Most High God; because he offered bread; and because he blessed Abraham. And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, WHEN HE OFFERED SACRIFICE TO GOD THE FATHER, OFFERED THE VERY SAME WHICH MELCHISEDECH HAD OFFERED, NAMELY BREAD AND WINE, WHICH IS IN FACT HIS BODY AND BLOOD! (Letters 63:4)
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)
Council of Nicaea (c. 325 A.D.)
It has come to the attention of the holy and great council that in some localities and cities deacons give the Eucharist to presbyters, although neither the canon nor the custom permits those who do NOT offer sacrifice to give the Body of Christ to those who do offer the sacrifice… (Canon 18)
Aphraates the Persian Sage (c. 280 – 345 A.D.)
After having spoken thus [“This is My body…This is My blood”], the Lord rose up from the place where He had made the Passover and had given His Body as food and His Blood as drink, and He went with His disciples to the place where He was to be arrested. But He ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood, while He was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented His own Body to be eaten, and before He was crucified He gave His blood as drink… (Treatises 12:6)
St. Ephraim (c. 306 – 373 A.D.)
Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: “Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread [of life], and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.” But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.
After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out…Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: “This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.” (Homilies 4:4; 4:6)
St. Athanasius (c. 295 – 373 A.D.)
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 Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ….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 is His Body confected. (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 A.D.)
For just as 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 Blood of Christ…(Catechetical Lectures 19 [Mystagogic 1], 7)
This one teaching of the blessed Paul is enough to give you complete certainty about the Divine Mysteries, by your having been deemed worthy of which, you have become united in body and blood with Christ. For Paul proclaimed clearly that: “On the night in which He was betrayed, our Lord Jesus Christ, taking bread and giving thanks, broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying: ‘Take, eat, This is My Body.’ And taking the cup and giving thanks, He said, ‘Take, drink, This is My Blood.'” He Himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, “This is My Body,” who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said, “This is My Blood,” who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood? (22 [Mystagogic 4], 1)
Once in Cana of Galilee He changed the water into wine, a thing related to blood; and is His changing of wine into Blood not credible? When invited to an ordinary marriage, with a miracle He performed that glorious deed. And is it not much more to be confessed that He has betowed His Body and His Blood upon the wedding guests?(22 [Mystagogic 4], 2)
Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood 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 Blood of Christ.(22 [Mystagogic 4], 6)
Having learned these things, and being 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… (22 [Mystagogic 4], 9)
Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual songs, we call upon the benevolent God to send out the Holy Spirit upon the gifts which have been laid out: that He may make the bread the Body of Christ, and the wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches, that is sanctified and changed.(23 [Mystagogic 5], 7)
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.
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 to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this HOLY AND MOST SOLEMN SACRIFICE IS LAID OUT.
For I know that there are many who are saying this: ‘If a soul departs from this world with sins, what does it profit it to be remembered in the prayer?’…[we] grant a remission of their penalties…we too offer prayers to Him for those who have fallen asleep though they be sinners. We do not plait a crown, but OFFER UP CHRIST WHO HAS BEEN SACRIFICED FOR OUR SINS; AND WE THEREBY PROPITIATE THE BENEVOLENT GOD FOR THEM AS WELL AS FOR OURSELVES. (23 [Mystagogic 5], 8, 9, 10)
St. Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315 – 368 A.D.)
When we speak of the reality of Christ’s nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously — had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: “My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in Him.” As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God. (The Trinity 8:14)
St. Basil the Great (c. 330 – 379 A.D.)
To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly: “He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week…and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint. (Letter of Basil to a Patrician Lady Caesaria)
St. Gregory of Nazianz (c. 330 – 389 A.D.)
The tongue of a priest meditating on the Lord raises the sick. Do, then, the greater thing by celebrating the liturgy, and loose the great mass of my sins when you lay hold of the Sacrifice of the Resurrection. Most Reverend friend, 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 of Gregory to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium)
St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – 394 A.D.)
This Body, by the indwelling of God the Word, has been made over to divine dignity. Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency, bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh. From the same cause, therefore, by which the bread that was made over into that Body is made to change into divine strength, a similar result now takes place. As in the former case, in which the grace of the Word made holy that body the substance of which is from bread, and in a certain manner is itself bread, so in this case too, the bread, as the Apostle says, “is consecrated by God’s word and by prayer”; not through its being eaten does it advance to become the Body of the Word, but it is made over immediately into the Body by means of the word, just as was stated by the Word, “This is My Body!” …In the plan of His grace He spreads Himself to every believer by means of that Flesh, the substance of which is from wine and bread, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, so that by this union with the Immortal, man, too, may become a participant in incorruption. These things He bestows through the power of the blessing which transforms the nature of the visible things to that [of the Immortal]. (The Great Catechism 37)
The bread again is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ. So too the mystical oil, so too the wine; if they are things of little worth before the blessing, after their sanctification by the Spirit each of them has its own superior operation. This same power of the word also makes the priest venerable and honorable, separated from the generality of men by the new blessing bestowed upon him. (Sermon on the Day of Lights or On the Baptism of Christ)
He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed.(Sermon One on the Resurrection of Christ)
St. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315 – 403 A.D.)
We see that the Savior took in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: “This is really Me.” And He gave to His disciples and said: “This is really Me.” And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, “This is really Me”; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of Savior. (The Man Well-Anchored 57)
Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 428 A.D.)
He did not say, “This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,” but “This is My Body and My Blood,” teaching us not to look upon the nature of what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood. (Commentary on Matthew 26:26)
It is proper, therefore, that 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 He did not say, “This is the symbol of My Blood,” but, “This is My Blood”; 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 [that we should] receive them as they are, the Body and Blood of our Lord. We ought…not regard the [Eucharistic elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the Body and Blood of Christ, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit.(Catechetical Homilies 5)
[If we have sinned], the Body and Blood of our Lord…will strengthen us…if with diligence we do good works and turn from evil deeds and truly repent of the sins that befall us, undoubtedly we shall obtain the grace of the remission of our sins in our receiving of the holy Sacrament. (Catechetical Homilies 16)
At first [the offering] is laid upon the altar as mere bread, and wine mixed with water; but by the coming of the Holy Spirit it is transformed into the Body and the Blood, and thus it is changed into the power of a spiritual and immortal nourishment. (Catechetical Homilies 16)
St. John Chrysostom (c. 344 – 407 A.D.)
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? (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)
Christ is present. The One [Christ] who prepared that [Holy Thursday] table is the very One who now prepares this [altar] table. For it is not a man who makes the SACRIFICIAL GIFTS BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ, but He that was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest stands there carrying out the action, but the power and the grace is of God, “THIS IS MY BODY,” he says. This statement TRANSFORMS the gifts. (Homilies on Treachery of Judas 1:6)
Let us therefore in all respects put our faith in God and contradict Him in nothing, even if what is said seems to be contrary to our reasonings and to what we see. Let His WORD be of superior authority to reason and sight. This too be our practice in respect to the [Eucharistic] Mysteries, not looking only upon what is laid out before us, but taking heed also of His WORDS. For His WORD cannot deceive; but our senses are easily cheated. His WORD never failed; our senses err most of the time. When the WORD says, “THIS IS MY BODY,” be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the REBIRTH and the RENEWAL….How many now say, “I wish I could see his shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.” ONLY LOOK! YOU SEE HIM! YOU TOUCH HIM! YOU EAT HIM! (Homilies on Matthew 82:4)
Take care, then, lest you too become guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ [1 Cor 11:27]. They slaughtered His most holy body; but you, after such great benefits, receive HIM into a filthy soul. For it was not enough for Him to be made Man, to be struck and to be slaughtered, but He even mingles Himself with us; and this NOT BY FAITH ONLY, but even in every DEED He makes us His BODY. How very pure, then, ought he not be, who enjoys the benefit of this SACRIFICE? (82:5)
…if everywhere grace required worthiness, there could neither then be Baptism nor Body of Christ nor the sacrifice priests offer…..now He has transferred the priestly action [of ancient times] 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….What is that Bread? The Body of Christ! What do they become who are partakers therein? The Body of Christ! Not many bodies, but one Body….For you are not nourished by one Body while someone else is nourished by another Body; rather, all are nourished by the same Body….When you see [the Body of Christ] lying on the altar, say to yourself, “Because of this Body I am no longer earth and ash, no longer a prisoner, but free. Because of this Body I hope for heaven, and I hope to receive the good things that are in heaven, immortal life, the lot of the angels, familiar conversation with Christ. This Body, scourged and crucified, has not been fetched by death…This is that Body which was blood-stained, which was pierced by a lance, and from which gushed forth those saving fountains, one of blood and the other of water, for all the world”…This is the Body which He gave us, both to hold in reserve and to eat, which was appropriate to intense love; for those whom we kiss with abandon we often even bite with our teeth. (Homilies on Corinthians 8, 1[2]; 24, 2[3]; 24, 2[4]; 24, 4[7])
“So also was Christ offered once.” [Hebrews 7-10] By whom was He offered? Quite evidently, by Himself. Here [Paul] shows that Christ was not Priest only, but also Victim and Sacrifice. Therein do we find the reason for the words “was offered.” “He was offered once,” [Paul] says, “to take away the sins of many.” Why does he say of many and not of all? Because not all have believed. He did indeed die for all, for the salvation of all, which was His part….But He did not take away the sins of all men, because they did not will it….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 one Sacrifice. (Homilies on Hebrews 17, 2[4]; 17, 3[6])
Not in vain was it decreed 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 stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome SACRIFICIAL VICTIM is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have DEPARTED in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf. (Homilies on Philippians 3:4)
Apostolic Constitutions (c. 400 A.D.)
A bishop gives the blessing, he does not receive it. He imposes hands, he ordains, he OFFERS THE SACRIFICE…A deacon does not bless. He does not bestow blessing, but he receives it from bishop and presbyter. He does not baptize; he does not OFFER THE SACRIFICE. When a bishop or a presbyter OFFERS THE SACRIFICE, he distributes to the laity, not as a priest, but as one who is ministering to priests. (8:28:2-4)
St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 333 – 397 A.D.)
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. And even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. For 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 Psalms 38:25)
A priest must offer something in sacrifice and according to the Law he must enter the holy place through blood. Therefore, because God had repudiated the blood of bulls and of rams, it was necessary for this Priest, as you have read, to enter into the Holy of Holies, penetrating the heights of heaven, by means of His own blood, so that He might become an eternal oblation for our sins. Priest and Victim, therefore, are one and the same. But the priesthood and the sacrifice are a duty of the human condition; for like a lamb He was led to the slaughter, and He is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. (The Faith 3:11:87)
“My flesh is truly food and My blood is truly drink.” You hear Him speak of His flesh, you hear Him speak of His blood, you know the sacred signs of the Lord’s death; and do you worry about His divinity? Hear His words when he says: “A spirit has not flesh and bones.” As often as we receive the sacramental elements which through the mystery of the sacred prayer are transformed into the flesh and blood of the Lord, we proclaim the death of the Lord. (The Faith 4:10:124)
Perhaps you may be saying: I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the Body of Christ? It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! Let us prove that this is not what nature has shaped it to be, but what the blessing has consecrated; for the power of the blessing is greater than that of nature, because by the blessing even nature itself is changed…Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: “For our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink” (1 Cor 10:2-4; 15:44). For the body of God is a spiritual body. (The Mysteries 9:50; 9:58)
You may perhaps say: “My bread is ordinary.” But that bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments; where the consecration has entered in, the bread becomes the flesh of Christ. And let us add this: How can what is bread be the Body of Christ? By the consecration. The consecration takes place by certain words; but whose words? Those of the Lord Jesus. Like all the rest of the things said beforehand, they are said by the priest; praises are referred to God, prayer of petition is offered for the people, for kings, for other persons; but when the time comes for the confection of the venerable Sacrament, then the priest uses not his own words but the words of Christ. Therefore it is the word of Christ that confects this Sacrament….Before it be consecrated it is bread; but where the words of Christ come in, it is the Body of Christ. Finally, hear Him saying: “All of you take and eat of this; for this is My Body.” And before the words of Christ the chalice is full of wine and water; but where the words of Christ have been operative it is made the Blood of Christ, which redeems the people. (The Sacraments 4:4:14; 4:5:23)
St. Jerome (c. 347 – 420 A.D.)
Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the Apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ, and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians… (Letter of Jerome to Heliodorus)
The flesh and blood of Christ is understood in two ways; there is either the spiritual and divine way, by which He Himself said: “My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink”; and “Unless you shall have eaten my flesh and drunk my blood you shall not have eternal life.” Or else there is the flesh and blood which was crucified and which was poured out by the soldier’s lance. (Commentaries on Ephesians 1:1:7)
After the type had been fulfilled by the passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood. (Commentaries on Matthew 4:26:26)
CK cited:
St. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315 – 403 A.D.)
We see that the Savior took in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: “This is really Me.” And He gave to His disciples and said: “This is really Me.” And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, “This is really Me”; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of Savior. (The Man Well-Anchored 57)
Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 428 A.D.)
He did not say, “This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,” but “This is My Body and My Blood,” teaching us not to look upon the nature of what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood. (Commentary on Matthew 26:26)
Response:
The spirit of Theodore of Mopsuestia rebuked the spirit of St. Epiphanius of Salamis. Theodore wanted everyone to know that Jesus didn’t say “This is really Me.” Ephiphanius raged with great offense, saying, “That is the meaning of “This is My Body.” Fearful of his rage, Theodore said, ” You are right my brother.” Jesus never said, ” This is the symbol of My Body.” But he did mean “This is really Me.” Since he meant this, then you have FULL RIGHTS to change the actual words.
” for it is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. Its power. As to its power He means to say even of its grace. ” This is me” and none disbelieve his word. And anyone who does not believe thebtruth in what Hecsays deprives himself of the savior.” This isnt talking about real presence. The power of the Eucharist is believing his word that he died for us. Its in the grace of faith. Anyone who does not believe God’Word is deprived of the Savior. Iow when we come to the supper we must come in faith that He diedcfor us and paid for our sins. These men spoke in passionate language. He says without faith its round in shape and his death means nothing. K
Kevin and Eric W are right. The Church Fathers never offered bread as a sacrifice.
( Who ever said they did?)
They both like to call God bread./death wafer. I find it offensive.
We find the fact that you won’t let our savior off the altar or the cross offensive. It is finished! He is risen!
Amen, Kevin.
Jim said ” the Early Fathers never offered bread as a sacrifice” excatly Jim, so how can the Roman church offer it as a sacrifice for sins under the guise of transubstantiation. RC piled all their ex opere operato on top of the gospel, and as Tim said failed to capture one soul from hell.
This is the best post i have ever received from Tim. It is the most concise description of Roman Catholicism. He left it to me on his series on Baptismal regeneration, the third part. I think all the Catholics on this site should read this. ” Kevin, Roman Catholics would deny that ex opere operato is an affront to the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit. Rather, they would respond that in His sovereignty, the Spirit elected to impart grace, justification, and life through Baptism, in the same way that we hold in His sovereignty, He effects regeneration and faith by preaching the Word of God. Thus, the real point of contention is this: Roman Catholic position requires that man put his faith in the church, while Christian position is that a man put his faith in God. The Scriptures affirm the latter and reject the former, as apparently did the Early church. Roman Catholicism, as religions go, came late, and piled on its ex opere operato onto of the gospel, along with the veneration of Mary, invocation of the martyrs, priestly celibacy, papal primacy etc, that in fact might obscure and occlude the Gospel entirely. To that end, Roman Catholicism has been a failure in the sense that its sorcery and Priestcraft have failed to capture a single elect child of God. It has also been a failure in the sense of its gospel of gracious merit, the abominable sacrifice and endless chain on mediation have also failed to rescue a single soul from either the real fire of hell, or the imagined fire of Purgatory. Not one breeze in the winds of history has blown outside of God’s eternal decrees. Rome’s deception must end as surly as it’s rise could not have been prevented. Our burden therefore is not to stop antichrist, but to minister the Gospel to the elect who must and will come out of her. ” I doubt anyone has ever said it better. Catholics, humble yourselves, read and listen. God bless
Kevin Failoni–
Tim said to you “Roman Catholics would deny that ex opere operato is an affront to the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit. Rather, they would respond that in His sovereignty, the Spirit elected to impart grace, justification, and life through Baptism, in the same way that we hold in His sovereignty, He effects regeneration and faith by preaching the Word of God. Thus, the real point of contention is this: Roman Catholic position requires that man put his faith in the church, while Christian position is that a man put his faith in God.”
The real point of contention is all on your part. There is no contention as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. The Holy Spirit elected to impart grace, justification, and life through the sacraments, as well as in His sovereignty, He effects regeneration and faith by preaching the Word of God. It is not “either/or” but “both/and”. That is why there are two parts of the Mass–the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. If Tim is/was a Roman Catholic, then he knows this.
He also said “Roman Catholic position requires that man put his faith in the church, while Christian position is that a man put his faith in God. The Scriptures affirm the latter and reject the former, as apparently did the Early church.”
Apparently this statement is false. Roman Catholics, as Christians, not only put their faith in God, but actively participate in the authority Jesus gave His Church.
Jhn 14:11“Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.12“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.13 Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.15 If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.19 After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also. 20 In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.21 He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”
“Otherwise believe because of the works themselves”–ex opere operato.
“he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” –ex opere operato.
“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth”–the actual “operator” of the ex opere operato.
Tim denies the power of the Church given to it by Jesus Christ through the workings of the Holy Spirit. So all that happens with Tim is that people get wet with baptism and just eat crackers and drink grape juice together and just pretend it is pleasing to God. And the really dangerous thing that Tim does is he attributes those works of the Holy Spirit as the power of Satan.
Mat 12:31 “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”
Matthew wrote:
It is not “either/or” but “both/and”.
That looks very much like either/or. It appears to be stated with great confidence and authority. I guess Matthew is the only one allowed to use the either/or. Let me try. Either Matthew is right, or he is wrong. Since Matthew doesn’t have authority over the liturgy, then he doesn’t know when something is both/and, and not either/or. Until Matthew has authority, we will be left ignorant if he is right or wrong.
Matthew,
Let me add….If an authority comes along and says your right, then you are able to recognize truth as truth without being an authority. See Matthew, you play the authority. Amazing ! You are just like your fathers. They play authority without any permission from their professed authority.
Mathew said “Tim denies the power of the church given to it by Jesus Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit” Romans 1: 16 ” For i am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of GOD for salvation to everyone who believes” The “power that you say we deny is not in the church but the gospel. We don’t believe churches connect us to God. And no church owns God. He meets us in the gospel by his choosing. The church isn’t the Holy Spirit. And certainly God has not only the prerogative to reject a false church, but He will judge it. Salvation is form the Lord it says in Jonah, not the church. We deny Rome as a true church, but we affirm the church of Jesus Christ. K
Mathew said” Roman Catholics as Christians, not only put their faith in God, but actively participate in the authority Jesys gave his church” This is a fatal axiom and to Tim’s point of the fallacy of ex opere operato to capture one soul for glory. Here is why. Before God said go into the world and make disciples… He said all authority has been given to ME in heaven and on earth. We are not exrensions of incarnation or his redemptive work. This uniquely belongs to Christ. We dont execute a plan for redemption, or and an ideal by participating in his redemptive work. He accomplished this, He redeemed us. We simply believe and obey Him and carry on His mission. Thx K
Tim,
Thank you for showing that by its own testimony the early church did what Jesus told us to do:
1) they shared bread and wine in memory of His death among themselves, and also sent some of this memorial meal to those who were absent,
and
2) they offered thanksgiving to God because of His death on our behalf.
This the simplicity that is in Christ –
Sharing bread and wine in memory of His death
Offering praise to the Father because of His death
Lord bless you for making things clear.
Maria
Thank you, Maria.
Tim
Maria, your words remind me of the simplicity of the gospel, and the statement you made was profound. The Lord’s supper is sharing the bread and wine in memory of His death. My wife makes similar type statements. Right to the point. We come in faith for a salvation we already possess. Scripture says all things are ours. The one thing peoplelose going to Rome I assurance. Its a womderful thing in the Protestant church. K
Hi, Kevin, as usual you’ve encouraged me. Simplicity is what we need. The hard work has to be done, as Tim has done, but this work supports the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
TIM–
You said: “I acknowledge that he said other things, and some of them are at variance with what I believe, and sometimes at variance with himself.”
I am glad that you acknowledged that. And you cite those variances that you agree with to bolster your case, and leave out the ones that don’t.
BOB: “Most of this Tim did not cite because it is too damaging to his case. This is what CK and I were talking about when we said Tim strategically leaves these quotes out of his blogs.”
That shoe just doesn’t fit. Do you still believe the charge is true?
Yes, it does. And yes, I do. You are just giving excuses to buy yourself more time to try and figure out a way to refute the Real Presence. If it truly is refutable, it would have been done long ago. Like Jim said, the absence of outcry is deafening.
Bob,
Jim did not ask “Where was the outcry about the True Presence.” He asked “why there was no outcry when Rome supposedly foisted her ‘bread worship’ on the faithful.” I have answered that. Eucharistic adoration was unknown until the 11th century, which anyone can validate by reading the strained histories of Eucharistic adoration. The citations in which Augustine is alleged to support Eucharistic Adoration, I have addressed. When Rome foisted her bread worship on Europe in the 11th century, there was an outcry. Not everyone was willing to bow down to the image. Some of them were killed.
You wrote,
Am I? How do you know this? You continued,
That is what they said to Copernicus.
At the moment, I am in the midst of a series refuting the Roman claim that the early church believed that Malachi 1:11 is fulfilled in the Sacrifice of the Mass. After I am finished with that, I will have posts on other topics of my choosing. You are free to make invalid inferences about my motives.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim wrote:
You are free to make invalid inferences about my motives.
Great ! Christmas again ! I have one invalid inference: Tim doesn’t love the truth because he rebukes RCs.
I can hear some petty RC logician rebuking me, ” Eric W, your inference may be valid within a whole valid argument.” The logician is right. I wanted to say my inference is not true. It’s still a Christmas gift.
TIM–
You said: “When Rome foisted her bread worship on Europe in the 11th century, there was an outcry. Not everyone was willing to bow down to the image. Some of them were killed.”
What is your reference on this outcry so that I may look at it also?
You also said: “Am I? How do you know this?”
Because when apologists cannot answer a question immediately, they put it off until they can build their case or put it off indefinitely until it’s forgotten. This ain’t my first rodeo.
You also claim: “That is what they said to Copernicus.”
So you consider yourself an innovator of anti-Catholic apologetics, huh? What new discovery have you made that no one else has? So far all I have seen from you is the same old arguments which have garnered the same old responses. Your interpretation vs another’s interpretation.
You also said: “You are free to make invalid inferences about my motives.”
Only those who agree with you would consider my inferences invalid. Your motives are to shed as much bad light in the guise of truth on the Roman Catholic Church as you possibly can. From your mission statement– “Out of His Mouth is a blog written by a former Roman Catholic, Timothy F. Kauffman, with a passion for wielding the sword of truth in defense of the faith, and refuting the errors in which he himself was once enslaved.”
I am not questioning your motives. You have plainly stated them. I just recognize your method. It’s called “spin”.
spin: noun
: a certain way of describing or talking about something that is meant to influence other people’s opinion of it.
Bob, you wrote,
You have assumed that one possible cause is the only possible cause. There are other reasons for putting off answering. One possible reason is that the person being asked is in the middle of writing a series on a different topic.
Yes, I do.
Same old arguments? So you have heard from other apologists that Roman Catholicism came into existence in the latter part of the 4th century, that Daniel had 13 dioceses of the Roman Empire in mind when he wrote chapter 7, that the Eucharist is the image of the beast, and the apparition of Mary is the False prophet? Where have you heard this before? I would be very interested to know who else was advancing these opinions.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Bob says you do spin. This statement is only a personal attack, and doesn’t refute what you’ve shown here.
About Graven Bread. While, strictly speaking, there is nothing new under the sun and that is the truth, so that perhaps what you said in it has been said before by God’s children, I’ve never read it anywhere else. Be that as it may, the important thing is what you’ve shown in this series, that for the early Church “their praise was their sacrifice.” I for one am glad that they worshipped this way, because it is pure worship and that is our desire and God’s will for His people.
We need to worship Christ alone, and He is at the right hand of the Father in Heaven and not on any altar. When we’ve refused to worship the Consecrated Bread, we’ve been killed.
TIM–
You said: “I would be very interested to know who else was advancing these opinions.”
Jack Chick Ministries.
Bob,
You said Jack Chick also advances the opinion that Roman Catholicism came into existence in the latter part of the 4th century, that Daniel had 13 dioceses of the Roman Empire in mind when he wrote chapter 7, that the Eucharist is the image of the beast, and the apparition of Mary is the False prophet.
Can you show me where Jack Chick advances those opinions? I wasn’t aware that Jack Chick had advanced those opinions.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
Here’s a few more to add to the list:
Texe Marrs
David J. Stewart
Dr. David R. Reagan
and many more links to writers can be found on http://www.end-times-prophecy.org
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
I used to read this stuff all the time. So your anti-Catholic rhetoric is nothing new, Mr.Copernicus.
Bob said ” But when Apologist cant make their case immediately, they take time to build their case. It isnt my first rodeo.” Bob, since you have been through a few rodeo’s would you say you hypothesis would aply to the assuption of Mary in 1950. It took the Pope all that time to come up with his case? Ill wait fo r your answer?
KEVIN–
Of course it does. Here is what i have found:
“Pope Pius XII formally defined and promulgated this dogma in his encyclical Munificentissimus Deus (August, 15 1950). The fact of the Assumption was stated this way: “It is a dogma revealed by God that the Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven.” But we must also ask what the Holy Father hoped would be the pastoral benefit for the people of God.
The Historical Setting
Why did Pius think this was an important moment to proclaim Mary’s assumption? Most Catholics rarely connect the proclamation of this dogma with the world events during Pius’s pontificate. But in the year 1950 the world was still reeling from the devastating effects of World War II. The inhumanity of the National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany had decimated European Jewry, as well as slaughtering millions of Christians and other Gentiles who attempted to resist their demonic policies.
The German military invaded almost every European country; Italy was one of the last to be invaded. During the entire war, Pius XII spoke out against the inhumanity perpetrated by the German juggernaut. From the beginning of his pontificate in 1939 to the end of the war in 1945, Pius had defended the weak by speaking out against man’s inhumanity to man and by covertly arranging the protection of thousands of Jews in Italy.
With the memory of this human devastation still fresh in his mind, Pius XII encouraged a detailed study of Marian doctrine in the late 1940s in anticipation of proclaiming a new dogma for the benefit of humanity. The actual language used in the encyclical Munificentissimus Deus actually alludes to those events:
It is to be hoped that from meditation on the glorious example of Mary men may come to realize more and more the value of a human life entirely dedicated to fulfilling the will of the Heavenly Father and to caring for the welfare of others. We also hope that while materialistic theories [such as Communism] and the moral corruption arising from them are threatening to extinguish the light of virtue, and by stirring up strife, to destroy the lives of men, the exalted destiny of both our soul and body may in this striking manner be brought clearly to the notice of all men.
Pius XII clearly expresses his hope that meditation on Mary’s assumption will lead the faithful to a greater awareness of our common dignity as the human family. The Pope here reflects a truly Catholic perspective that has characterized those pontiffs who were and are great teachers, such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He, like his successors, thought that the real cause of such inhuman brutality could be found in the false ideas and sentiments that motivated the aggressors during the war.
Inner Transformation
The Assumption of Mary
The Assumption of the Virgin – Titian c1488-1576
Knowing that oppression is an ever-present danger, Pius was convinced that only inner transformation of the person could bring about the social results that lead to “caring for the welfare of others.” Without such a transformation, the systems of government and power would threaten “to extinguish the light of virtue” and eclipse “the exalted destiny of both our soul and body” so that men would forget their heavenly end.
What would impel human beings to keep their eyes fixed on their supernatural end and to desire the salvation of their fellow human beings? Mary’s assumption was a reminder of, and impetus toward, greater respect for humanity because the Assumption cannot be separated from the rest of Mary’s earthly life. Pius XII connected the Assumption explicitly to her Immaculate Conception:
The august Mother of God, mysteriously united from all eternity with Jesus Christ in the one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a virgin inviolate in her divine motherhood, the wholehearted companion of the divine Redeemer who won complete victory over sin and its consequences, gained at last the supreme crown of her privileges — to be preserved immune from the corruption of the tomb, and like her Son, when death has been conquered, to be carried up body and soul to the exalted glory of heaven, there to sit in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the ages.
By meditating on Mary’s participation in the redemptive work of her Son, the faithful would grow in their ability and desire to participate in God’s plan of salvation.
This goal was, and is, what the world needs. It needs a process of transformation in becoming the agents of salvation who honor and promote human welfare. That’s the meaning of Mary’s life, death, and assumption into heaven, both body and soul. After a decade of unprecedented destruction, Pius XII knew that the Church’s acknowledgment of Mary’s assumption would be a compelling boon to a greater sense of humanity.”–Why Did Pius XII Proclaim the Dogma of Mary’s Assumption? by Kenneth J. Howell
Bob said ” Of course it does” Thats what I expected you to say. So now I can ask you this question. If you give the Papacy the slack to take 1550 years to come up with a doctrine that cant be found in Scripture, why would you criticize a man who searches and studies the scriptures and the fathers fervently for the time it takes him to come up with truth that does have biblical support? Ill wait for your answer. Thx
TIM–
You said: “When Rome foisted her bread worship on Europe in the 11th century, there was an outcry. Not everyone was willing to bow down to the image. Some of them were killed.”
What is your reference on this outcry so that I may look at it also?
Bob,
There are several sources you can look at. Here are a few:
If you read Francis’ Admonitions, Admonition 1 is that the bread and wine is God:
That there were some professing Christians who did not receive this teaching—and therefore would not bend the knee to the Eucharist—is evidenced by his acknowledgement of them in the same admonition:
He continues, saying that all those “who presume to receive” communion, but do not believe it to be God are condemned.
Therefore, there were people who rejected not only Transubstantiation, but also the Eucharistic processions and other forms of Eucharistic Adoration that were imposed on the people.
The Petrobrusians, rejected image worship and also admonished the people,
Since the Petrobrusians rejected the adoration of the cross, they would also fall into the category of those who rejected Eucharistic Adoration, as they rejected the whole Roman service of the altar.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Those poor saps who were persecuted for not bending their knee to the Eucharist, you say they were “professing Christians”, yes?
What could you tell us about them? Mormons “profess” to be Christians don’t they? Oneness folks too, right?
What exactly did these “Christians” actually profess about Christ? Did they deny anything other than the Eucharist?
Did their Eucharist denying beliefs exist in a vacuum? Something tells me you are not being 100% forthcoming.
Jim, you asked,
I answered that, and in response you asked what those people believed. Does this mean that you acknowledge that there was an outcry?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
Concerning the Petrobrusians, it seems there was a whole lot more to the story:
Peter of Bruys felt that crosses should not deserve veneration. Crosses became for the Petrobrusians objects of desecration and were destroyed in bonfires. In or around the year 1126, Peter was publicly burning crosses in St Gilles near Nîmes. The local Roman Catholic populace, angered by Peter’s destruction of the crosses, cast him into the flames of his own bonfire. Obviously, his public anti-Catholic provocation contributed to his own demise. You don’t just go around taking people’s stuff and burning it in the street without repercussion.
But not only his crossburning, his reputation on other things seemed to be a problem. He thought the Gospels were authentic but the other New Testament writings were not apostolic. To the New Testament epistles he assigned only a subordinate place as not coming from Jesus Christ, but rather being the work of men. He questioned the Old Testament and rejected the authority of the Church Fathers.
He denied that the baptism of infants and children played an essential role in their salvation from the ancestral guilt of original sin.
He taught that edifices for temples and churches should not be erected. The Petrobrusians are quoted as saying, “It is unnecessary to build temples, since the church of God does not consist in a multitude of stones joined together, but in the unity of the believers assembled.”
The Petrobrusians also denied sacramental grace, rejecting the rite of Communion entirely, let alone the doctrine of the real presence or transubstantiation. They say, “Oh, people, do not believe the bishops, priests, or clergy who seduce you; who, as in many things, so in the office of the altar, deceive you when they falsely profess to make the body of Christ, and give it to you for the salvation of your souls.”
Saying these things in front of a medieval Catholic public would be like making fun of Mohammed in the streets of Riyadh today.
It’s also interesting to note from the article that the term “transubstantiation”, was first used by Hildebert de Lavardin in about 1079. The theory had long been widely accepted as orthodox doctrine at the time of Peter of Bruys. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council officially declared transubstantiation the necessary, orthodox Catholic explanation of the Eucharist. 1079 AD is 438 years prior to the beginning of the Reformation. That is almost as much time as the Reformation has been in existence.
Peter of Bruys said ” it is unnecessary to build temples, since the church of God doesnt conssist in a multitude ofcsones etc.” Amen Peter. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit. The Priesthood of believers. The power of Bishops was out of control. We are the Priesthood of God. God doesnt dwell in buildings but the heart of his people. God bless Peter for denouncing the communion altar becoming a tomb for the body of Jesus. Just like Hus and Wycliffe, he denounced the Priest making the God out of bread on the altar at the ringing of the bell. God blessed Peter of Bruys.
KEVIN–
So do you worship God in a church building? I’ll wait for your answer.
TIM–
Berengarius of Tours was not much better. His beliefs of the Eucharist were all over the map so to speak. He would teach against that Christ’s Flesh was substantial in the elements, yet was present spiritually. Then later on, he would retract his opinions at a local Council and sign a profession of faith in favor of the substantial presence. then afterwards, he would teach against the very thing he professed to at the Council. He would defend it for a while, his friends would abandon him and then at a subsequent Council, would retract his opinions again and sign another profession of faith in favor of even a more explicit definition of the substantial presence. And even after that Council, he attacked the very profession he had signed. He did eventually make a final retraction and died in union with the Church.
There was no doubt that Berengarius denied transubstantiation before his final profession of faith. It is not clear, though, that he denied the Real Presence. His difficulty was in the mode–spiritual or substantial.
It is controversy such as Berengarius and the Petrobrusians that eventually prompted the Church to define the Doctrine of Transubstantiation at the Lateran Council in 1215.
And now you know…….the rest of the story.
Bob, there’s always “more to the story.” We still don’t know what his youngest daughter’s name was or what he had for breakfast the morning that he died. But just because there is “more to the story” is not a refutation. Jim asked, and you and CK echoed, “where was the outcry?” when Eucharistic Adoration was “foisted” upon the people of Europe. There clearly was one. I have repeatedly claimed that eucharistic adoration did not start until the 11th century, and I have provided a Roman Catholic source claiming that objections to eucharistic adoration began in the 11th century, at the same time.
Are you denying that there was an outcry?
Thanks,
Tim
KEVIN–
“If you give the Papacy the slack to take 1550 years to come up with a doctrine that cant be found in Scripture, why would you criticize a man who searches and studies the scriptures and the fathers fervently for the time it takes him to come up with truth that does have biblical support?”
Because Tim uses the exact same tactics everybody else uses. And the article told you why the Pope thought it was timely to formally declare the doctrine. Why don’t you peruse some of the references I gave to Mr. Copernicus? It will open your eyes.
Bob said why dont you pursue the references I gave to Mr Coprenicus.” I did, I looked through it all today and see no evidence of transubstantiation or bread being sacrificed. Looks like to me Mr Coprenicus has done his homework. In fact if you will scroll up, I gave a response to one of the Father’s quotes you highlighted, and it said totally opposite of what you thought it said. The further Tim takes us into the Early Fathers, as Maria said, it is a memorial meal of sacrifice praise and thanksgiving, and I couldnt say it better than one of your first Popes Gelasius ” the substance of the bread and wine remain. It was 11the century that the bread was hoisted and the communion altar became a tomb for the body of Jesus. If you need more proof than the overwhelming proof Tim supplied so far, look at Onefold blog. It is clear the Early church wasnt Roman Catholic K
ONEFOLD????
Thanks Kev. I am going to click on that site and take over.
( Hmmmmm? Shall I be Guy Fawkes or Jim? Or the Inquisitor?
Tim,
“If you read Francis’ Admonitions, Admonition 1 is that the bread and wine is God:
“And as He appeared in true flesh to the Holy Apostles, so now He shows Himself to us in the sacred Bread; and as they by means of their fleshly eyes saw only His flesh, yet contemplating Him with their spiritual eyes, believed Him to be God, so we, seeing bread and wine with bodily eyes, see and firmly believe it to be His most holy Body and true and living Blood.”
What?!?! Where does this say the bread is God? Please show me.
Do you mean,
“He shows Himself to us in the sacred Bread”?????
The verb is “shows”. Not “is”. Even if the verb was “is”, the preposition “in” would give the phrase at the very least a Lutheran definition of the Presence.
I can’t believe you are serious.
Speaking of your theory that the early Church did not offer anything more than a sacrifice of praise, do you recall, when you were still a Catholic ( I am beginning to doubt it ), ever being told to” offer up” your scraped knee, tummy ache, or broken toy by your mom or the nun at school? Yes?
Did your mom or the nun deny the reality of the Eucharist? No?
Do I have to connect the dots for you Tim?
Jim,
You asked, “What?!?! Where does this say the bread is God? Please show me.”
In Admonition 1.1 he says,
Thus, Francis believed that the bread was God.
As you may also know, Francis introduced Eucharistic Adoration to Italy and was one of its biggest advocates.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob said” because Tim uses the same tactics everybodty else does” Bob, let me ask you a question. What do you think a Christian should do if he thinks a church is in error? What do you do? Can you go to your church and confront your Priest if you think the church is in error. You must have a view of the people who the inquisition forced to confess things against their conscience? Paul and John continue to warn us of error? Would you recognise error in your church if you saw it? When Tim was in the Catholic church, where could he have gone if he thought that his church had perverted the Gospel? What would you have done? Ill wait for your answer. Thx
Kevin – We trust that the Church has it right on faith and morals (official teaching) whether we fully understand it or have doubts. We take the position that the Church is right and try to conform to it. We can leave but that would equate to walking away from Christ.
You take the position that you are right. If your church disagrees with you then you can go find one that agrees with you or start the church of Kevin. I don’t know how many different denominations you’ve been a member of but I’d bet you felt you belonged to the church that best followed the Gospel until you decided it didn’t and started looking again. The church you found is the one you happened to agree with and it may not be the last. What you thought was an error may not have been or vise versa.
Like you, many that said “This is a hard saying. Who can listen to it? “John 6.61 left Jesus and the Apostles as they preached the good news. In the Protestant world if YOU think your church is in error you leave. You submit to no one other than yourself. Solo Scriptura. You only have faith in your interpretatio of scripture, much like the Pharisees.
CK said ” we can leave but that would equate to waliking away from Christ” exactly, the Catholic church substitutes itslef for Christ. Iow you are taught that your there is no salvation outside the church. But Jesus said all power and authority has been given to ME. The church isnt the same as Jesus in the world. Churches dont connect people to God. No church owns God. Christ meets us in the Gospel thru the agency of the Spirit at his choosing. Jesus said the Spirit blows how and where He wills. The church cant substitute itself for the Spirit. It cannot insert itself between the Word and the Spirit. Since all authority has been given to Jesus, we arent extensions of the incarnation, his unique finished work. We dont have a plan of redemption, or finish his atonement. He procured all of this. Rome undermines the sufficiency of his work which perfected us. At the Paasover, the Jews werent thankful for an injection of sanctiying grace, but that God had paased over them. Forensic. Through faith alone God declares us righteouss, because we have received the righteouness of Christ by union with Christ thru the Spirit. It is a person that is offered, not a substance. Rome’s fatal axiom is that fallen human nature can receive grace. It cant. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden, and allcreated things will be destroyed. Salvation comes thru the supernaturl work of the Spirit only thru the gospel. No law or doing anything has the capacity to save us, especially Rome’s gospel of grace sponsored salvation by works. Thx
CK wrote to Kevin:
We trust that the Church has it right on faith and morals (official teaching) whether we fully understand it or have doubts….You only have faith in your interpretatio of scripture, much like the Pharisees.
Response:
How do you know this “Church” is worthy of your trust ?
Eric said to CK ” How do you know this “Church” is worthy of your trust” CK said ” We trust that the church has it right on faith and morals, whether we fully understand it or have doubts” There it is Eric, they trust this institution without fully understand it and thru doubts. But Scripture says we are to ” trust the Lord ( Word) with all of our heart soul and mind, lean not on your own understanding, acknowledge Him in all your ways , and He will make your path straight. Jesus said it is in the scriptures that we find eternal life. Without fully understanding and thru doubt CK puts trust in a church for salvation, But Jesus says it is in the Scriptures we find eternal life. When CK said to me when you dont agree with a church, you find one that you agree with. And I say, thats right We learn the scripture because in it we find eternal life, and we find a church that teaches us the scripture based on our understanding of the Word. Then when we search the Scripture we can know a false church from a true church. And because Catholics trust the church, and dont search the scriptures, they refuse to compare the church to the Word. I think why dont you read Tim’s articles search the scriptures, instead of implicitly trusting the church, since Jesus says salvation is in the scriptures. We are toldvto search the scriptuures, not have the church do it for us. K
KEVIN–
I couldn’t have answered it any better than CK just did.
CK, you wrote,
That’s interesting. Roman Catholics often make this criticism of Protestants. In fact, that is what Jason Stellman said when he argued that to be Protestant is to “paint your the target around your arrow” after you have shot it—a double-standard Roman Catholics use to affirm their own determination that their congregation of choice is the right one, but that Protestants cannot possibly be able to make such a determination on their own, like Catholics can.
Take for example, Taylor Marshall, in his post, “Are You Part of the Great Catholic Migration of the 21st Century?”, insisted that Roman Catholics open their Catechism, study it and then find a Catholic Church that teaches a message that is similar to their personal interpretation of the Catechism. Taylor Marshall says this because he is tired of the compromise and the liberalism that he is seeing in the Roman Catholic Church. He is migrating and taking people with him, and he wants his readers to “Begin migrating to the good” churches, too.
What escapes Marshall, however, is that liberal Catholics are doing the same thing. They are reading their catechism according to their own liberal world view, and then finding churches that agree with their interpretation of the Catechism, and joining those Catholic Churches. Some time ago, a liberal parish priest was letting women serve at the altar, and he lost his job. His parishioners complained that their priest lost his job, and all he had done was teach “what we believe.”
What escapes me, CK, is how you think that Roman Catholics are different on this point. I don’t know how many different Catholic congregations you’ve been a member of but I’d bet you felt you belonged to the one that best followed the Catechism, until you decided it didn’t, and started looking again. Catholics read their catechism, they interpret it for themselves, they find a church teaching what they believe, and then they go to that church. In other words, Catholics shoot their arrow, and then paint a target around it, and pat themselves on the back because they have submitted to the “true church,” unlike those silly Protestants.
You can read my thoughts on it at Painting a target around the arrow.
Enjoy,
Tim
Bob, I wanted you to understand why Reformed Christians fight the errors of Rome and its gospel of gracious merit. Please read the past tenseness of this passage in Ephesians so that you may compare the biblical gospel with the sacerdotal system of gracious merit which Paul said couldnt save anyone. Ephesians 1:7 ” In Him we HAVE redemption thru his blood, the forgiveness of our sins, according to the richness of his grace, which He LAVISHED on us , in all in all wisdom and insight. In Him we have OBTAINED and inheritance, HAVING BEEN predestined . In him you also HEARD the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and BELIEVED, WERE SEALED with PROMISED Holy Spirit, who is the GUARANTEE of our inheritance until we aquire possesion of it.” Bob, having believed the Word, the Gospel, we received forgiveness of all our sins ans salvation, and the meal is in memory and thanksgiving and praise, and not a sacrifice necessary for our salvation. That took place on the cross. He is the prpitiation of our sins, and surely He obtained this place for us at one moment in time. You can understand why we fight against a religion who denies this. Thanks k
KEVIN–
You said: “Since all authority has been given to Jesus, we arent extensions of the incarnation, his unique finished work. We dont have a plan of redemption, or finish his atonement. ”
Jesus gave us that plan:
Mat 28:18 ff And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
If we aren’t extensions of the Incarnation, then why should anyone listen to us?
John 20:21 ff So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”
Why did He give His authority of binding and loosing to men?
Bob said ” if we arent extensions of the incarnation, then why should people listen to us” Becausecwe carry on His mission not His atonement. Here is your faulty axiom. When Jesus says ” if you forgive the sins of any, their sinsvhave been forgiven them. ” This is a declaration about something that is already true, NOT the declaration makes it true. Get that. Again apply my rule. Read Roman doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth. Churches arent extensions of incarnation. We dont finish his atonement in the acts of the church. Rome cant usup what is uniquely his FINISED work. We can, believe, obey, and carry on his mission. Thats it.
Bob, also as I told you previously, and you provided the quote, Jesus said all power and authority in heaven an earth has been given to ME. He atoned for our sins, and the bible says past tense He obtained eternal redemption. The fact that you are trying to atone for your own sins thru Rome’s sacerdotal system, is soundly rejected by the NT. K
Bob asked, do you worship God in a church building. Why do you ask?
KEVIN–
Because you said “Peter of Bruys said ” it is unnecessary to build temples, since the church of God doesnt conssist in a multitude ofcsones etc.” Amen Peter. ”
Do you worship God in a building specifically built for the worship of God? Yes or no?
Bob, Scripture teaches clearly that I am a temple of the Holy Spirit. I worship God in from my heart. The Temple was destroyed, God no longer dwells in buildings. Thats the whole point of Hebrews, the veil has been ripped away. The people are no longer outside the Temple. We go directly into the throne room, where his altar is. Yes, I assemble with believers in my church andcreceive the word and the Lord’s supper. But I worship God whenever and wherever I can. I believe I am a member of the invisible catholic church invisible all those supperintended by the Holy Spirit. But I dont believe in a visible institution with a home office in Rome. And no institution like that can be found anywhere in scripture. I believe in visible churches. God didnt remove all the barriers between Him and man to put sacraments ex opere operato between us. This came late, and Cyprian was the culprit. Semi Pelagianism raised its ugly head many times in the.church. I agree with Tim, Rome’s salvation ex opere operato has failed to capture one sole from thecfires of hell. I hope I answered your question. K
KEVIN–
You said: “Yes, I assemble with believers in my church and receive the word and the Lord’s supper…. I believe in visible churches.”
Yes. That answered my question. The Petrobrusians were protesting even the building of a place of worship. I personally don’t see the harm of having a building specifically for worship. And yes, I agree with you in worshipping God any time and any where. The West Texas sunrises and sunsets make excellent “stained glass windows”. And a duck blind in the reeds of a playa lake makes a great pew to sit in on a beautiful October-November day.
Timothy F. Kauffman
JANUARY 9, 2015 AT 7:14 AM
Bob,
TIM–
“You said Jack Chick also advances the opinion that Roman Catholicism came into existence in the latter part of the 4th century, that Daniel had 13 dioceses of the Roman Empire in mind when he wrote chapter 7, that the Eucharist is the image of the beast, and the apparition of Mary is the False prophet.
Can you show me where Jack Chick advances those opinions? I wasn’t aware that Jack Chick had advanced those opinions.”
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1085/1085_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1096/1096_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0047/0047_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0047/0047_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1071/1071_01.asp
And these are only from Jack Chick. Check out the other list I gave you.
Bob,
Jack Chick teaches that “the Jesuit General” will be the antichrist and that a Pope will be the False Prophet. You can read a summary of this at the Catholic Answers web site: The nightmare world of Jack Chick at http://www.catholic.com/documents/the-nightmare-world-of-jack-t-chick
In that tract, the black pope enters the temple in Jerusalem and erects a statue of himself for worship. You can see it here: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5025/5025_01.asp
He clearly does not believe that the apparition of Mary is the False Prophet. And he clearly does not believe that the Eucharist is the Image of the Beast.
But you apparently have additional information to the contrary. Would you please provide it? You have pasted a list of hyperlinks as if that would suffice for such a charge that I am merely teaching the same thing that Jack Chick teaches. But here is what I asked,
Your response was that Jack Chick teaches all these things. So can you please tell me where Jack T. Chick advances those opinions? I was not aware that he had changed his eschatology.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “Your response was that Jack Chick teaches all these things. So can you please tell me where Jack T. Chick advances those opinions? I was not aware that he had changed his eschatology.”
Oh, I see now. You are splitting hairs. Let me rephrase to clarify what I meant.
“You also claim: “That is what they said to Copernicus.”
So you consider yourself an innovator of anti-Catholic apologetics, huh? What new discovery have you made that no one else has? So far all I have seen from you is the same old arguments which have garnered the same old responses. Your interpretation vs another’s interpretation.”
Your claims are just variations on a theme. The theme is that Satan controls the Roman Church. You are just adding your personal touch to it. It’s like the modulation of key to a repeating chorus of an old song written years ago. It may sound better, but it’s still the same old song. You are not an innovator like Copernicus, you are just adding your comments to his theory.
You don’t get the urge to burn crosses, do you?
That is a very nice try, Bob. You wrote, “So far all I have seen from you is the same old arguments.” Some of my arguments are that Roman Catholicism came into existence in the latter part of the 4th century, that Daniel had 13 dioceses of the Roman Empire in mind when he wrote chapter 7, that the Eucharist is the image of the beast, and the apparition of Mary is the False prophet.
Thus, you alleged that these were the same old arguments that have been made by Jack Chick. In fact I asked you where these same arguments were made by him, and you restated that Jack Chick was making these same arguments.
Unable to substantiate your allegation, you have resorted to ad hominem attacks like cross burning.
My statement about Copernicus was in response to your invalid argument that the longer a position is held to be true, the more true it must be, i.e., “If it truly is refutable, it would have been done long ago.” Well, that is what they said to Copernicus, Bob. The arguments I’m making here are a very far cry from the arguments made by Jack Chick. They are not the “same old arguments.”
So, Bob, go ahead and give it a whirl: show me where Jack Chick’s eschatology has changed so that he is making the same old arguments that I am. Don’t be shy. We consider all evidence here. But don’t just paste a bunch of hyperlinks and then move on to another topic. Make your case.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “Make your case.”
Well, then let me repeat myself:
Your claims are just variations on a theme. The theme is that Satan controls the Roman Church. You are just adding your personal touch to it. It’s like the modulation of key to a repeating chorus of an old song written years ago. It may sound better, but it’s still the same old song. You are not an innovator like Copernicus, you are just adding your comments to his theory.
That is my case. Obviously you don’t understand the concept of variations on a theme. The theme is Satan controls the Roman Church. You are just picking different ways to try to prove it. The cross burning comment was a reference to an idolatry argument that is centuries old.
You say they are your opinions. Good. These are mine.
Bob said ” the Petrobrusians eve b the building of the place of worship” No, they were protesting the perverted doctrines and idolatry of the c Roman Catholic church. And Satan is the father of all lies. K
TIM–
You said: “I have repeatedly claimed that eucharistic adoration did not start until the 11th century, and I have provided a Roman Catholic source claiming that objections to eucharistic adoration began in the 11th century, at the same time.
Are you denying that there was an outcry?”
If you want to call a small sect of people among the general population an outcry, then ok. Their was an outcry. That same source that you cited also said this:
” the term ‘transubstantiation’, was first used by Hildebert de Lavardin in about 1079. The theory had long been widely accepted as orthodox doctrine at the time of Peter of Bruys.”
John Hardon, S.J. said this: “The practice of reserving the Eucharist in religious houses was so universal that there is no evidence to the contrary even before the year 1000.” The reason for a pyx in the first place was due to the recognition of Christ’s Real Presence.
Hardon also says “Toward the end of the eleventh century we enter on a new era in the history of Eucharistic adoration. Until then the Real Presence was taken for granted in Catholic belief and its reservation was the common practice in Catholic churches”
Verb
take for granted
1) To assume something to be true without verification or proof.
2)To give little attention to or to underestimate the value of, to fail to appreciate.
Small “outcries” were an indication to the Church that the belief in the Real Presence was deteriorating to the point of disbelief. Having to fight that battle was cause for “what can only be described as a Eucharistic Renascence.”
re·nas·cence : noun
the revival of something that has been dormant.
Because the Real Presence was being called into question was what led the Church to address the issue–thus the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215
Mathew 5:11 ” Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.” God has surely blessed ” Out of His mouth”
To those who spread anti-Catholic rhetoric–
Mathew 5:11 ” Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.” God has surely blessed the Roman Catholic Church.
The Word of God is certainly a double edged sword.
Bob said ” the word of God is a double edged sword” Yes indeed Bob. Where your heart is, there your treasure wiil be. I often wonder with those who have a fixation on the real presence in the Eucharist, bread worship, and continual sacrifice. Since Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 10:9-10 so simply tells us we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone, the fixation on the need to physically knaw on Christ can only mean abscence of true faith. ” The words I speak to you are Spirit, the flesh profits nothing. Unless one comes to the table in Faith alone as a remembrance of a salvation that has already been obtained for us, it isnt true faith. K
Tim, I just read a quote from turtullian on one fold blog that dircetly deals with the understanding of John 6 spiritually as opposed to physically. The guy quotes it in response to Keating on catholic answers. Do you have that quote? I would post it here, but besides being a fool for Christ, I got no computer skills. Its the best I haveread, and clear teaching against Rome’s failed position. Can you bring I here when you have time? Thanks k
Tim, I thought I would just provide the article and the reference from Onefold blog. The article is called ” The bread of life: Why many disciples walked away. And the quote is Turtullian, ” On the resurection of the Flesh, 37.” I hope all will read. This is a sound refutation of Mr Keatings false suppositions. Thanks K
Bob said to Tim” obviously you dont understand varriations on a theme, or modulation” Well I was a Professional musician Bob, and what you dont understand is a completely new song. This song not only is in a different key, but the lyric and the melody are different. You saying its the same old thing because Satan controls the Roman church, is like saying the different songs both use notes. As we say on the band stand. Can you dig that. God bless.
Tim,
“We come in faith for a salvation we already possess.”
You elect Calvinists were never really lost were you?
You now say it was in the 11th century that Rome foisted the Eucharist on the sheep. No Tim, you say it happened in the latter half of the 4th century. I asked you about the outcry against the pagan innovation, then, not in the 11th century.
You selected that crazy date and I am holding to to it.
Jim, your question was not about when Rome “foisted the Eucharist on the sheep.” Your question was “why there was no outcry when Rome supposedly foisted her ‘bread worship’ on the faithful.” The celebration of the Eucharist predates the Rise of Roman Catholicism, but Eucharistic Adoration cannot be substantiated until the 11th century.
In any case, it seems that we must revisit this every few months to bring you back up to speed, so here goes:
Jim on October 29, 2014:
Tim on the same day:
Later that week, Walt responded to this exchange quite appropriately:
Let’s revisit this in April or so.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim,
Tim wrote the following:
“In any case, it seems that we must revisit this every few months to bring you back up to speed, so here goes:”
After I read your comments and Tim’s reply I just want to remind you that perhaps as you grow older, and this is a problem we all face, that you are not remembering even your own outcries. You seem to be confusing the issues Tim has neatly and accurately laid out that happened during the 4th century and the 11th century.
Bob is struggling I think with the same thing as he is desperately trying to argue very fine tuned dates on specific events, but avoids any specifics when labeling Tim’s views of eschatology with that of Jack Chick and the rest of the “crazy crowd” out there who mix futurism, preterism and historicism all together into one kettle, and are very different than the views of what Tim is suggesting. Bob wants specifics on dates when the adoration and real presence worship of the Eucharist begins, but seems unwilling to give specifics about his claims that Tim teaches the same thing as Jack Chick, etal.
Jim, come on brother. I know your mind is half way in this discussion and half way in likely many others on blogs around the net. Certainly, it must be fun for you to get so actively involved in popping in and out of these blogs posting the same arguments over and over, and then ignoring the answers. Then return later with the same issues, popping out again, ignoring the answers, and then returning later again and again.
At some point, what you need to do is perhaps write some of these answers down on paper in front of you, and then see if you can counter those answers specifically. This is be more productive to your intellectual and spiritual growth.
WALT–
“Bob is struggling I think with the same thing as he is desperately trying to argue very fine tuned dates on specific events…Bob wants specifics on dates when the adoration and real presence worship of the Eucharist begins, but seems unwilling to give specifics about his claims that Tim teaches the same thing as Jack Chick, etal.”
Struggling….desparate……I love it! I don’t have a problem with church doctrine or history. You guys are the ones trying to re-write it. For as much information as you try to get to prove that the Roman Catholic Church is apostate, there is plenty more out there to prove it is not. Granted, there are good arguments on both sides of the issue, but blogging isn’t going to change anything.
I am no apologist. I admit that. I am not here to become a better apologist. I just think this stuff is very interesting. I have really learned how to search the sources on the internet with my brief time here. I started off with biblechristian society.com and caught links to all these interesting places on the web. I followed Kevin over to whitehorse from CCC just to see what made him tick. It’s been a great ride so far. And I would not have even heard of Scott Eric Alt if it hadn’t been for this blog.
And what is really good about this blog is that anyone is welcome here to speak their mind without getting kicked off. Now that’s what I call good old American liberty.
Jim, ” at some point what you need to do is perhaps write some of these answers down in front of you, then see if you can counter those answers specifically. ” This is condescending and unchartible, coming from a man who bore false witness of me, and when confronted that I had this against him, answered in silence.
Maria wrote to Jim:
“In more recent times, Rome signed a concordat with Adolph Hitler and supported National Socialism. Rome also supported the Catholic Ustachis of Croatia in their crusade against non-Catholics there (Serbian Orthodox, Jews, and others). The Ustachis’ reach wasn’t as long as that of the Nazis, but they were more brutal and their priests personally participated in the acts of brutality. But Pius XII sent a personal representative to Ante Pavelić’s government, and elevated Archbishop Stepinac within the Church, this after Stepinac was found guilty of war crimes. For further reading, look at The Secret History of the Jesuits by Edmond Paris (pdf available online).”
Thank you Maria. This is really an incredible history that several have covered Pavelic’s reign of terror.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante_Paveli%C4%87
“German influence led to the persecution of Jews, despite the fact that the wives of several high-ranking army officers were Jewish as were the wives of some government ministers, including Milovan Žanić and Ivan Oršanić. Both Pavelić and Slavko Kvaternik were married to half-Jewish women.[92] Josip Frank, a noted representative of the Party of Rights of which Pavelić was a member, was a Jew who converted to Catholicism at the age of 18.[93] The actions of the Pavelić regime would result in the deaths of around 18,000 Croatian Jews.”
…..Through both forcible and voluntary conversions between 1941 and 1945, 244,000 Serbs were converted to Catholicism.[31]”
….Tito and his new Communist government accused the Catholic Church of harboring Pavelić who they stated, along with the Anglo-American “imperialists”, wanted to “revive Nazism” and take over communist Eastern Europe.[18][need quotation to verify] The Yugoslav press claimed that Pavelić had stayed at the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo,[125] while CIA information states that he stayed at a monastery near the papal residence in the summer and autumn of 1948.[128] In fact, Anglo-American Intelligence used former fascists and Nazis, as agents against the communists.[129]
For some time, Pavelić hid in a Jesuit house near Naples.[18][need quotation to verify] In the autumn of 1948 he met Krunoslav Draganović, a Roman Catholic priest, who helped him obtain a Red Cross passport in the Hungarian name of Pál Aranyos. Draganović allegedly planned to deliver Pavelić to the Italian police, but Pavelić avoided capture and fled to Argentina.[18][need quotation to verify]”
Now, after all this evidence and bloodshed, watch Matthew, CK, Jim, Bob, etal starting saying this disclosure of evil is only anti-catholic speech.
Can you see how confused those inside the RCC cannot take blame for any of their adherents in history?
WALT–
Now, after all this evidence[need quotation to verify] and bloodshed, [need quotation to verify] watch Matthew, CK, Jim, Bob, etal starting saying this disclosure of evil [need quotation to verify] is only anti-catholic speech.
Looks like I need a quote to verify.
Walt, you continue to bear false witness of me and have a unrepentant heart. I’ve told you I am not an anabaptist. I told you to stop bearing false witness of me and you continue to do it. You spend 90 % percent of your time judging the people here and the rest of your time telling us how many times you have read the bible. According to Tim this blog is open to all Protestants. We get it, you have told your Reformed brethren here that don’t attend the Presbyterian church that we aren’t brothers, but heretics and unbelievers, there is no salvation outside of the Reformed Presbyterian church. If you know that your brother has something against you and you approach the table, you sin. Please quit making unfounded accusations about me. Thank you.
I recommend you don’t make any comments in regard to what the reformed taught unless you can document it carefully and I will not say anything. If you continue to error about what the reformed teach, I will continue to correct you and warn others to stay away from you. This is biblical.
I recommend you quit making character assassination of me and others on this site. And, I recommend you stop bearing false witness of me. And the only Reformed error here has been on your part when you tried to tell Bob and Maria its hard to find the true church. I had to correct you with Calvin words that the church is visible for all to see. You have also said that the Reformed confession is infallible. And I had to remind you the WCF says reformed and always being reformed. Be careful Walt, in what you judge, you will be judged. You have bore false witness of me. You consider those who believe in sovereign grace of God who do not hold your position on Baptism and church government unbelievers. This is an extreme position. All because of a bad experience of trying to make a Baptist church into a Presbyterian church. I’m not interested on how informed you think you are on the Reformation or being reminded how many times you have read the bible. If you have not love, yo are a clanging symbol. You judge a brother, and are unloving to those who embrace the same gospel outside your church. K
MARIA–
You said: “I only spent a few years in an Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church with a pastor who was kind and knowledgeable.”
Wikipedia has a good article on the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. I found it interesting to note that Billy Graham grew up in that church before he became Southern Baptist. With a pastor who was kind and knowledgeable, why did you leave?
Hi, Bob,
We didn’t leave our small church, it closed.
I haven’t read this article at Wikipedia, and also didn’t know about Billy Graham’s background in this church. That’s very interesting.
Thanks for talking to me!
Maria
Kevin said:
“You have also said that the Reformed confession is infallible. And I had to remind you the WCF says reformed and always being reformed.”
Interesting. It would be hard finding those statements coming from me and the WCF.
I can see largely why people on this site really do dislike you Kevin. Watching the way you twist their words is amazing, and then proclaim they are sinning against you.
Walt, when confronted by another believer on your sin, you method is always to attack the character of that person, right. Then you never have to deal with it. You said ” I can see why people on this site really dislike you Kevin” There is another judgment. How do you know how people on this site feel about me? Are you omniscient? You have nothing but negative things to say about everyone on this site. You are one miserable cat. I have treated you like a brother Walt. You have not given me the same courtesy. But, instead you judge me and bear false witness of me. So if when confronted by a brother you are unwilling to repent, i ask you to please stop.
Kevin said:
“You are one miserable cat. I have treated you like a brother Walt.”
then he says:
“But, instead you judge me and bear false witness of me. So if when confronted by a brother you are unwilling to repent, i ask you to please stop.”
You might want to reflect upon your own teachings.
Walt, you show no evidence of being a believer. I confronted you with bearing false witness of me and judging me, and there is not one ounce of repentance or a desire to make it right. And you continue to deflect and attack my character. Maria stuck up for me, and you ignored that. You think demeaning my character exempts you from your sin. It doesn’t.
Excellent Commentary by Jim Dodson on Confessionalism and the Need for Creeds.
(Creeds and Sola Scriptura)
To the law (לְתוֹרָ֖ה) and to the testimony (וְלִתְעוּדָ֑ה): if they speak not according to this word (כַּדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֔ה), it is because there is no light in them. (Isa. 8:20)
Question.—What ought we to think of the doctrine of sola Scriptura with reference to creeds?
Answer.—The principle of sola Scriptura is the formal principle of the Protestant reformation. It is a Latin term, in the ablative case, which indicates that it is adjectival modifier of a verb—in this case the verb is judge. It describes the motion something (i.e., judgment) moves. Sola Scriptura is the claim that Scripture is the alone infallible rule of faith and life—it’s the only infallible authority. This was made against the contending claims of the Papistical faction which sought to add two additional formal principles of faith—i.e., sources of infallible authority:
1. The Magisterium. This is that ecclesiastical authority which lays down, or makes a deposit of, the authentical teaching of the Church. This is not merely the Church that cannot err by faith, but the Church that cannot err by reason of an infallible formal principle that is not Scripture.
2. Tradition. This is another formal principle of infallible authority that is transmitted from generation to generation, usually requiring the assistance of an Apostolical succession of bishops.
Against these views, sola Scriptura asserts a single formal principle—Sacred Scripture. The authority of Scripture is not dependent upon the authority of either the Church or some Apostolic succession. Rather, as Calvin notes, “[W]hen the Church receives it [i.e., Scripture], and seals it with her suffrage, she does not authenticate a thing otherwise dubious or controvertible; but, knowing it to be the truth of her God, performs a duty of piety, by treating it with immediate veneration.” (Inst. I.7.ii.)
Yet, we must acknowledge the supernatural character of the Church, which exists only by means of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 12:3. This is the Church which cannot err by faith, John 10:4, 5. All believers are born again by this incorruptible seed, the Word of God, 1 Pet. 1:23. But the representative Church is possessed of no such formal principle and participates in this supernatural character of the Church because and inasmuch as (quia et quatenus) its disciplinary decisions are taken in a real spirit of submission to Scripture, Acts 15:28.
Scripture is, then, the regula regulans, the rule ruling.
Scripture is the alone infallible norm and rule of faith and life, 2 Tim. 3:15-17. This, however, presupposes that Scripture must have the rule over matters of faith and its practice, Matt. 22:29.
Creeds, and confessions, are regula regulata, rules ruled. Their authority is derivative and, therefore, subordinate to Scripture, Luke 10:26. Rather than possessing the formal principle of faith and life to the Church, they contain the material principle of faith and life held forth by the Church, 1 Tim. 3:15. They contain the doctrine embraced by a particular Church and are, therefore, binding upon all that wish to live in fellowship with that Church, 1 Cor. 1:10. Though, in a formal sense, there are no dogmas in Scripture, 2 Tim. 1:13; yet, in a material sense all true doctrine is found therein, Acts 16:4; John 5:46.
Creeds, and confessions, as regula regulata, when displaying a proper regard to their formal principle are themselves to be allowed as material principles possessed of derivative authority, Heb. 10:23.
Creeds, and confessions, are necessary since the Fall, 1 Cor. 2:14; to bear a proper witness to the truth of Scripture, Rom. 10:9-11. Scripture possesses a priority of authority, being the infallible Word of God, John 10:35; but creeds, and confessions, possess a priority of pedagogy, being the material principles of the Church’s witness, or testimony, 1 Cor. 14:19.
Nonetheless, though they differ as to what is proper to each, the law, as well as the testimony, of the LORD, are to share a common inspired teaching, Ps. 19:7. The law does this by an immediate infallible claim of authority, Jos. 1:8; whereas the testimonies are mediate and dependent, 2 Tim. 3:14.
Because creeds, and confessions, when framed with due reference and respect to the Word of God, share a common inspired teaching, they are to be received as authoritative instruction, Matt. 18:19, 20. Mediate and derived authority is, in fact, yet authority, Matt. 8:9; and, in matters of religion, this principle of authority extends itself into all things necessary to governing, Col. 4:17; including the matter of attaching an authoritative sense to Scriptures themselves, Tit. 2:15.
The same Spirit that inspired the Scriptures, 2 Pet. 1:21; works in believers to declare the genuine sense of those Scriptures, 1 Cor. 2:13. The Scriptures and their genuine sense are not to be considered two different things but the instruction of the Spirit is chiefly to be studied, Neh. 9:20; Matt. 13:52.
Sola Scriptura is, therefore, not a principle which excludes any other authority, or even any other authority in matters of religion, but a formal principle which asserts that there is only one source of infallible authority in the Church in all matters of faith and life.
Beware of anyone who suggests that Calvin teaches to go into these unfaithful and backslidden churches and attempts to “quote” him without any references to the context of what Calvin really teaches, as follows:
“Some one will therefore ask me what counsel I would like to give to a believer who thus dwells in some Egypt or Babylon where he may not worship God purely, but is forced by the common practice to accommodate himself to bad things. The first advice would be to leave [i.e. relocate–GB] if he could. . . . If someone has no way to depart, I would counsel him to consider whether it would be possible for him to abstain from all idolatry in order to preserve himself pure and spotless toward God in both body and soul. ***Then let him worship God in private*** (in his home–RB), praying him to restore his poor church to its right estate (John Calvin, Come Out From Among Them, The Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John Calvin, Protestant Heritage Press, “A Short Teatise,” pp. 93-94, emphases added.
Notice how some on this blog claim that the true and faithful church is only those who preach the gospel, claiming this is what Calvin teaches, but Calvin does not agree.
“If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity: this is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name Christians, our profession is empty and vain. After these come the sacraments and the government of the church… (John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church [Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1544, reprinted 1995], p. 15).
“In this age of boasted charity, but really ‘detestable neutrality and indifferency,’ it is an irksome and painful task, but a duty, thus to bear testimony against churches, in which are to be found, no doubt, many precious sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty. But personal piety never was, nor possibly can be, the condition of fellowship in the visible church. To think so, and say so, is one of the most popular delusions of the present day. It puts the supposed pious man, speaking his experience, in the place of God, speaking his sovereign will in the Bible. This is the height of impiety. (Act, Declaration, and Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted Reformation, p. 175).
As Dodson notes, in his Open Letter to an RPCNA Elder, one should not, “confuse ‘schism’ with ‘separation.’ They are not the same thing. John Brown, of Haddington, states, ‘that schism in scripture, chiefly, if not solely, represents alienation of affection, and disagreement among those who continue the same joint attendance on the ordinances of the gospel,’ 1 Cor. 12:25; 1:10.
Augustine said, ‘It is not a different faith makes schismatics, but a broken society of communion.’ In no place, in the Bible, does the word ‘schism’ appear to signify ‘visible separation.’ Error in doctrine, corruption in worship and tyranny in discipline, render separation unavoidable, to escape the sin of schism. Your conception of what constitutes ‘schism’ is that of Rome.
If ‘schism’ is ‘separation;’ and ‘There is no precedent for schism [re: separation] in the Bible;’ then, on what basis did Protestants leave Rome? Every Reformer owned that Rome is, in some sense, a Church of Christ. After all, that man of sin is seated in the ‘temple of God,’ as they taught (emphases added).
CALVIN IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THESE PASTORS LIKE MACARTHUR and others:
“The catholic church comprehends all that profess the true religion. There is a lawful and necessary division of it into sections in respect of local situation.
***But when a number of people, bearing the Christian name, combine together as a distinct society, for the purpose of maintaining and propagating doctrines and practices, which, instead of belonging to the true religion, are contrary to it; they ought not, considered as such a combination, to be called a lawful section of the catholic church (i.e. constitutionally, according to their public character and profession–RB).***
It is not denied, that they belong to the catholic church (in as far as they, as individuals, profess the truth–RB);
***but it is denied, that there ought to be any such section or division in it. Thus, there ought to be no section of the catholic church, having for the peculiar end of its distinct subsistence, the support of episcopal hierarchy, unknown in the Scripture, of the propagation of antipaedobaptism, or of anti-scriptural doctrine, in opposition to that of God’s election, redemption, effectual calling and the conservation of his people, as delivered in the scripture; or for the support of ways and means of divine worship not found in Scripture.*** [AMEN-Walt]
If the catholic visible church were brought to a suitable discharge of her duty, she would abolish all such sections. But no society ought to be called such an unlawful section, while it can be shown that it subsists as a separate society for no other end, than for the maintaining of something in the doctrine, worship or government of the church which belongs to the Christian religion as delivered in the word of God, or for exhibiting a testimony against prevailing errors and corruptions which the scripture requires the catholic church to condemn. Such a profession of any party of Christians is no sectarian profession; and a union with them is not a sectarian, but properly a Christian union; and, being cordial and sincere, is a union in Christ; and communion upon the ground of this union is truly Christian communion.
***On the other hand, however much of our holy religion any body of Christians hold in common with others, and however many of them we may charitably judge to be saints, yet while their distinguishing profession is contrary to the word of God, communion with them, as a body so distinguished, is sectarian communion; as it implies a union with them in that which ought to be rejected by the whole catholic church (pp. 10-11, emphases added).*** [AMEN-Walt]
Maria, beware of men like Walt. He is his own Pope and Magisterium. There is no salvation or fellowship outside the his Reformed church. Sound familiar. He continues to attack people on this site and judge them. He bares false witness of me again saying I said ” Notice how some on this blog say that the true and faithful church is only those who preach the gospel” I did not say this. He lies. I quoted Calvin’s definition of the church directly out of Institutes. When confronted that he offended a brother and bore false witness, he is unrepentant, instead continuing to attack my character. He took communion on Sunday knowing he offended me. There is no humility or desire to confess his lies about me. He continues to lie and attack. Tim has said all Protestants are welcome on this blog. Even Reformed Baptists. And yet Walt treats us like unbelievers. Maria, that was a great quote from Revelation. Very well said.
Dear Kevin,
Don’t be distressed about this. The Lord knows those who are His own. Be of good cheer!
Maria
Maria, trust me I’m not distressed. I did some research for you. There are 2 great articles by Mark DeYoung a PCA Pastor that will really inform you. 1> ” Is John Piper Reformed? and the 2nd is on RC Sproul’s site Ligonnier Ministries ” Where and how we draw the line.” Check them out about essentials and non essentials. God bless.
Maria, his name is Kevin DeYoung sorry.
Maria, I thought I would give you the summation of Kevin DeYoung’s article on John Piper. ” The reason “Reformed” has not been confined in this country to those , and only those, who subscribe to the Three forms of Westminster standards, is because from the beginning the basic contours of Calvinistic theology pulsed through the veins of a variety of church bodies. Does this mean nothing but the basic contours of Calvinistic theology matter for life and Godliness? Certainly not-why else would Herman Bavinick go on to carefully delineate the intricacies of Reformed dogatics for 2500 pages. I am gladly Reformed, with capital R as big as you can find. Which is why my first reaction to the proliferation of even some Reformed theology is profound gratitude. Do I think TULIP is the essence of Calvinism? No. Do I wish many who think themselves Reformed would go ally farther back and dig ally deeper? Yes. But does it bother me that people think Piper, Mohler, and Dever as Reformed? Not at all. They are celebrating and promoting Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, and Bavinck and Berkof-not to mention almost all of the rich Scriptural theology they expound- in ways that should make even the most truly Reformed truly happy. ” Well said, don’t you think? God bless
Kevin, thank you for finding these! – I’ll try to read the articles. I’ve read and watched Dr. Piper and Dr. Sproul, but don’t know Kevin DeYoung, so I at least have some background to give these teachers a hearing.
God bless you!
Maria
Kevin,
Forgive me for not saying upfront that I have problems with some of these men. That said, I didn’t read Kevin DeYoung’s article at Ligonier, but I did read this:
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2013/11/07/is-john-piper-really-reformed/
It sounded good but I have objections with Dr. Piper and Dr. Sproul, ones I’ve had for a while. I’m very sorry but it’s true, and I should of hinted about this to you when first responding to your kind comments.
Now maybe I’m wrong, and if you or anyone wants to come down on me with both feet, you can. But, I’ve seen evidence, though I haven’t studied this in depth, that John Piper and Rick Warren are associates of some kind (go to desiringgod.org) and that Warren is on friendly terms with the Catholic Church. I deeply pity Warren and his wife, because they have suffered, but that can’t figure in here, in pointing him out as extremely problematic.
Therefore, I don’t see Piper as particularly Reformed, despite his doctrine, because he seems not to make much of Warren’s association with Rome, and to have forgotten history, our suffering and the reasons for separation, since he can easily fellowship with Warren who associates with Rome. If Piper were truly Reformed, wouldn’t he make clear distinctions and pure alliances, and stay away from associations with Rome on any basis?
I’d like to mention his book Desiring God. In it, he engages in what seems to me to be speculative theology (mysticism). I remember thinking while reading it, that he couldn’t know for sure what he taught about what God thinks about Himself. Knowing the Lord in such a way seems beyond us – the Lord didn’t reveal the things Piper said. (Perhaps I’m wrong.) But why did the book leave me with a bad taste in my mouth?
I only glanced at the article by DeYoung at Ligonier. Here is one of my problems with Ligonier. It promotes the celebration of Christmas, selling lots of things at that time of year for presents. But this celebration promotes the confusion of light and darkness, and the Lord is not the author of confusion.
So, how can Reformed Christians, or other Christians:
be on friendly terms with the Pope or with those who are friendly with him?
celebrate this Roman Catholic festival?
Are people being drawn back to Rome? We shouldn’t want to go back for any reason or mutual venture, because God delivered us and we must be grateful. Here, we have no continuing city.
Kevin DeYoung has spoken on behalf of Piper as Reformed, and has seemed to make a good case. I hope he’s right at least about the genuineness of Piper’s faith – he probably is. But, if only DeYoung would take Piper aside and speak with him.
God bless you, Kevin!
Maria
Okay, Walt, I have read this and appreciate it; I’ve even copied it into a document to study. But honestly, I’m out of my depth. I have more thoughts about it but probably nothing sound yet. I’ll go read your reply about whether Revelation can or should be used in the way I did.
Thank you!
Maria
Considering that the Arminian scheme includes some of the most pernicious errors of Popery, how reproachful it is to the memory of Calvin, to call such a base proposal, his plan revived and prosecuted? Did Mr. Calvin ever speak of independent churches in the one church of Christ? Or of promoting union, by holding sacramental communion with the professed teachers of false doctrine, as every Arminian teacher is, or with the professed defenders of superstition in the worship of God? By no means (Alexander and Rufus, p. 159).
Arminian? What world do you live in? I am a Reformed Christian. I promised Tim that I wouldn’t address this anymore here.
Maria, Thanks for response. You don’t need to apologize if you have problems with some of these men. Let me just say, your overall point on men who support the Catholic church I am in complete agreement with. We are to be up front with Protestants who hold hands in any way with Rome. I’m not sure the fact that Piper associates with Rick Warren in some way makes me throw out all the many rich truths that he has taught. I did not read Desiring God. I thought his book on justification was one of the best I have ever read. There are many things I don’t agree with Piper, specifically his view on the continuation of the the gifts ( charismatic). The one interview Piper does with Rick Warren, who I have a big problem with, Piper puts him thru a rather rigorous questioning about that so called book, The purpose driven life. If Piper doesn’t have a problem with Rick Warren’s friendship with Rome, that would be a problem for me too. Although, I am a big boy and can separate that out from the truths I believe he teaches. I’m not sure Maria that Dr Sproul celebrating Christmas disqualifies him from being Reformed or the many faithful years teaching Reformed theology. Maria, I think its important to remember, we all have error in our theology. For me some things are non negotiable. Other things not so. I won’t fellowship with a Roman Catholic, but I’m not going to not fellowship with someone who may hold a different view on eschatology. You said ” If Piper were truly Reformed wouldn’t he make clear distinctions and pure alliances, and stay away from associations with Rome on any basis.” Yes this is a good point. I’ll look into his association with Warren. I am actually on the same page with you on speculative theology and mystycism. I have always known Piper to be a sound exegete on scripture, but I will read Desiring God and make a judgment. I think Walt and Tim had a discussion about Christmas not to long ago. One celebrates it and the other doesn’t. But I can’t remember. They would have a better take on the Reformed Presbyterian perspective. For me, we celebrate it. I however wouldn’t throw out all the faithful wonderful teachings of RC Sproul because he celebrated Christmas. Reformed Christians can’t be friendly with the Pope, I agree. We can never forget 400 years of history, never. In Italian we have a saying la storia si ripeta sempre. History will repeat if we don’t lean its lessons. And the lessons from the Reformation are obvious. Maria, just so you know, We have lost all of our Roman Catholic friends sharing the gospel with them. One was the maid of honor in our wedding. It was necessary. Yes there are people being drawn back to Rome. And the whole ECT thing makes me sick. Incidentally Horton, Sproul, and MacArthur wouldn’t ever sign that document. I agree Maria no one should ever return to Rome. Trust me, Eric W attends a Baptist church and I attend a bible church, and we consider ourselves the ones who Reformed completely from Rome. I do not believe the scripture teaches a universal visible church with a home office. I believe in visible churches. I believe in the invisible catholic church of which i consider myself a part of. Great post Maria. God bless you sister. K
Kevin, I appreciate what you’ve written. Mi piace. (This is approaching the limit of my Italian. It was spoken in our home to keep me from understanding adult conversations.) Grazie, mio fratello! Lots of praying and thinking through where to worship in spirit and in truth. God bless you and Eleni!
Maria
Maria, your Italuan is great. Somehow I sensed you were Italian. La mia sorrella. Dio ti benedica!
e tu, Kevin! (This is what I remembered to say, but the translator says this is “and thou” not “and you”.)
I learned to get the gist of many adult conversations, but actually learned commands that children would be given: stop, wait, hurry, eat, let’s go – andiamo! Thank you for your fellowship in the Lord!!
Maria, actually you said it correctly e tu means and you. Mi Piace tuo Italiano, e Spero che God Ti benedica. K