Anti-non-catholics (catholics) Fear This

[Winchester]

Don't forget the Waldensians, who lived in secret (so secret, there's no documentation of their existence!) and preserved the real Christianity from those pagan Catholics!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Jul 13 2004, 03:12 PM'] Don't forget the Waldensians, who lived in secret (so secret, there's no documentation of their existence!) and preserved the real Christianity from those pagan Catholics! [/quote]
[url="http://www.baptistboard.net/board/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=14"]http://www.baptistboard.net/board/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=14[/url]


All different faiths, but some baptists claim that they were "real" Christians.

How could they be when they all had a different faith?

Where is the one faith?

Only in the Catholic Church.

Yes... there have always been heretics... but they all believed something different.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]well then, to prove this "church" is wrong, i would only have to refute one of the 173 articles on this page. correct? if i refute one of his beliefs, then his "teaching" would be in error.
[/quote]

Are you implying that if you prove him wrong then you've disproved non-catholics? I assume by the nature of your post that is what you are implying.

[quote]I want you to refute non-catholic christians such as this who do not insist all their beliefs are necessarily totally infallible. If you can refute this man, you can refute all of them. [/quote]

First a clarification of one of my beginning posts since people must not have read it very well. (don't just read the last sentence, not paying attention to the one before it... then I also do admit I could be clearer) When I say refute him, I mean refute the notion that christianity is believing in what makes honestly makes sense to you based a honest search of arguments*. [i]Even if that means you will err along the way.[/i] What I don't mean is if you can refute any of his tenets, then that notion* is necessarily false. Obviously you could find a few flaws.

[quote]If Christ said the Church would never be overcome is True
If the Catholic Church was the First Church and the only Church that was around in 33 AD.
Then the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ[/quote]

If you would read the website that I put up and my other posts in the past then you realize that you can not use your second premise to prove your conclusion. First you have to prove that premise. Use some logic to prove your assumptions first. Don't just put something up about how I should read. I'm knowledgable enough and honest enough about both sides of the debate.

[quote]We are not interested in attacking others.
We are interested in defending the Church that Christ left us.[/quote]
I could respond to your thread that I copied that "I am not interested in attacking others. I am interested in defending the Church that Christ left us." My main purpose in starting this thread is to turn the table on you. It's pretty ironic this is how you respond. Try to think out side the box and into other people's perspective instead of just making unfounded statements.

In your thread you are asking us to disprove something that did not exist.. disproving a negative or something like that. (like proving that God does NOT exist) Maybe I am asking you to do the same. I just want some honesty instead of people thinking that just because their faith can be defended means that it's true.

[quote]we find overwhelming testimony in a literal Real Presence in the Eucharist.[/quote]
Since I provided you with that website, instead of regurgitating mass quotes, it would be effective for you to respond to his rebuttals.
[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/a179.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/a179.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/a173.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/a173.htm[/url]

From these three links you may find yourself thinking that we can't really know for sure what was believed back in those days. If this is the case one may wonder who [i]if anyone[/i] (other than God of course) has the authority to tell others what is true.

When responding to these links and to your basis of authority, and all other arguments for that matter, it would be beneficial not just to show how your beliefs can be defended but also how your beliefs are better or better yet can be proven or are at least be probable. It would be noble of you to present both sides of the issue and to acknowledge your assumptions when choosing the probabilities and one view over the other.

When I debate with Catholics for example, usually their assumption is "the truth needs to be outside of the person and readily accesible to everyone therefore the Catholic interpretation must be true since the pope can do this." I agree that the catholic church is the only physical entity that could be this most likely. But of course that's not necessarily true that we need that outside source. We could grow and follow the holy spirit on our own. Theology could be so complex that to think you can make statements that apply to everyone is too narrow. Then you could argue that the Catholic Church is finding those exceptions by development of doctrine then I could ask debate about that. (I could get into "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" vs "salvation outside of the Catholic Church" contradiction for example) But anyway I don't want to debate philosophy, I'm just showing an example to state your assumptions. Mine would be somewhere along the lines of theology is too complicated to make generalizations and something about how your proofs for the papacy and other claims resulting from that are not clear enough given man's inclination to bring power to himself.

since I can respond to this post. and since this is where we'll end up I'll get us started on this topic too.
[quote]There are hundreds of quotes to support Catholicism before 600 AD, let's go subject by subject, you pick.[/quote]
I pick this one:
Firmilian, Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 & 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]

Edited July 13, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]I pick this one:
Firmilian, Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 & 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253][/quote]
That isn't a subject, it's just a citation for further reading on Peter and the papacy.

Edited July 13, 2004 by thedude

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 13 2004, 04:56 PM'] That isn't a subject, it's just a citation for further reading on Peter and the papacy. [/quote]
subject, topic, theme -- (the subject matter of a conversation or discussion; "he didn't want to discuss that subject"; "it was a very sensitive topic"; "his letters were always on the theme of love")

If you mean a theological topic you will have to clarify then. Subject can be used easily to refer to a particular paper or series of letters.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I meant subjects like: the ECF on the Real Presence, or the ECF on Confession, etc.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Jul 13 2004, 02:12 PM'] Don't forget the Waldensians, who lived in secret (so secret, there's no documentation of their existence!) and preserved the real Christianity from those pagan Catholics! [/quote]

[Guest JeffCR07]

Dairygirl: although in one breath you say that by disproving his "tenents" we do not disprove him, then in another you provide specific links for us to disprove in order to be correct, I will take the first link now:

[b]Ignatius[/b]

[quote]Ignatius states that the Eucharist is the body of Christ without given any details about the nature of the change, if any, in the elements.[/quote]

The best that can be done then, if he is correct, is for Ignatius to be thrown out entirely, because, according to him, it is impossible to determine whether he speaks of the Real Presense or simply a sign.

[b]Tertullian[/b]

[quote]Rather than saying that the bread ceases to exist, he calls it the “the figure” of the body of Christ and maintains a clear distinction between the figure and what it represents, namely the “veritable body” of our Lord.[/quote]

He makes the fundamental error of confusing modern terminology with the ancient connotation of the word. In the time of Ignatius, Tertullian, and the early Church Fathers, "figure" had only one meaning and that was the physical manifestation of a thing. Think of the term "human figure," it is a direct reference to the body, and is the closest connotation that is still in use. Thus Tertullian argues that the eucharist IS the body of Christ, and this could not be if Christ did not have a body.

Moreover, his argument would not hold if he meant "representation" when he said "figure" because the docites believed that there was a "representation" of Christ that was not in truth an actual body.

[b]Justin Martyr[/b]

[quote]Clearly, while Justin believed in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, he also believed that the elements remained bread and wine given in remembrance of Christ. Therefore Justin Martyr's view on the Eucharist is dissimilar from the Roman Catholic transubstantiation, and as such he is anathemized by the Roman Church.[/quote]

Just because Justin Martyr makes reference to the bread and wine does not mean that he believed that they remained fully bread and wine. I can refer to the eucharist as bread and wine (because that is what, by the Grace of God) my senses perceive, and still understand that it is fully and totally the body and blood of Christ.

Moreover, he would not be "anathemized" by the Church, even if he didn't believe it, just as St. Thomas Aquinas is not "anathema" because he didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception, in fact, Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church.

[b]Augustine[/b]

[quote]Augustine believed that the bread and cup were signs, which he defines in this manner: “a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself” (On Christian Doctrine, 2, 1). Therefore, when we see the bread, something else comes to mind, namely, the body of Christ. The mistake of the modern Catholic Church is to confuse the sign with the reality it represents..[/quote]

The problem with this premise is that it presumes that a single thing cannot be both "sign" and subtance in the same being. This is simply not the case. Christ refers to the "sign of Jonah" in Mt 12:38-40 as protoevangelic of His death and rising, but those events were most certainly also true. Thus it was both sign and substance.

Moreover, consider another of Augustine's quotes:

"He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring." (Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9)

Now if, as the author of that peice argues, Augustine views that taking a sign for anything more than a sign is akin to terrible bondage and weakness, then Augustine must be contradicting himself.

It is much more plausible that Augustine viewed the Eucharist as both sign and Real Presense simultaneously.




Well, that was point for point. If someone else doesn't get to the other 2 links I'll do them when I have more time, but I g/g.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

Edited July 13, 2004 by JeffCR07

[CatholicAndFanatical]

In that 3rd link that Diarygirl provided it goes on quoting Church Fathers that were for the Real Presence of the Eucharist. The last paragraph and sentence is this:

[quote]
Evangelicals concur: the Eucharist is a sacrifice insofar as we offer our thanksgiving for what Christ has done for us. The Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise, and a remembrance of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Augustine writes: “Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament (Augustine, Contra Faustus, XX)

The claim that the Eucharist is also a propitiatory sacrifice is not supported by the Scripture. Like Evangelicals today, the early Christians considered the Eucharist as a sacrifice of praise.
[/quote]

Is this all the author could come up with to refute the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?? One paragraph from Augustine?

Come on now...


[quote name='"diarygirl"']
My main purpose in starting this thread is to turn the table on you. It's pretty ironic this is how you respond.
[/quote]

Turn the tables completly around all you want. You just want to deny the things that are directly before you (History, Scriptures, Common sense).

Fact is, in order to refute us you have to prove that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church isnt the same Church that the Apostles were apart of, that the Apostles [b]students and disciples[/b] were apart of.

Im not sure if you are aware of this but I'll tell you anyway.

St. Ignatius of Antioch was the 3rd Bishop there, he was a close friend of Polycarp and a Disciple/Student of the [b]Apostle John[/b]. I stress Apostle John because Ignatius (and Polycarp for that matter) recieved EVERYTHING they know from St John. Where did St John get his teachings from? Christ Himself!

To study St Ignatius is to also learn from St John, who taught what he was taught from Christ.

Also, to say St Ignatius is WRONG in his teachings, is to say St John is wrong and so is Christ.

So what does St Ignatius say?

[quote]
"They 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... Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Epistle to the Smyreans)

"Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God." (Epistle to the Philadelphians)
[/quote]

Deny it, refute it, ignore it all you want..this is fact not opinion, this is not a matter of translation. This, my friend, is Truth.

God Bless

Edited July 13, 2004 by CatholicAndFanatical

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]Ignatius of Antioch

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (Letter to the Ephesians 20 [A.D. 110]).[/quote]

[quote]Justin Martyr

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 [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ 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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).[/quote]

[quote]Irenaeus


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 unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become 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 and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).[/quote]

[quote]Clement of Alexandria


"Eat my flesh)" [Jesus] says, "and drink my blood." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).[/quote]

[quote]Hippolytus

"And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table" [Proverbs 9:1] . . . refers to his [Christ's] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper] (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).[/quote]

[quote]Aphraahat

After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], 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 [A.D. 340]).[/quote]

[quote]Cyril of Jerusalem


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

Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the body and 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 faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so. . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul (ibid„ 22:6,9).[/quote]

[quote]Theodore

When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, "This is the symbol of my body" but, "This is my body." In the same way when he gave the cup of his blood 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 receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup) but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).[/quote]

[quote]Ambrose of Milan

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! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).[/quote]

[quote]Augustine

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

What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).[/quote]
Source: [url="http://staycatholic.com/ecf_the_real_presence.htm"]http://staycatholic.com/ecf_the_real_presence.htm[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]That isn't a subject, it's just a citation for further reading on Peter and the papacy.
[/quote]

I'd like to discuss Firmilian in regards to the subject of the papacy.


[quote]although in one breath you say that by disproving his "tenents" we do not disprove him, then in another you provide specific links for us to disprove in order to be correct[/quote]

I want you to disprove the notion of the type of church he believes in. if you can do it with the website, great. Thought probably you can not disprove it because you do not know all that can be known with certainty of back in the early days. So I admit this thread is not the best, I am just somewhat copying ironmonk's to show the absurdity.

[quote]"figure" had only one meaning and that was the physical manifestation of a thing.[/quote]

Could you provide me with more information on this?

Edited July 14, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest JeffCR07]

Certainly, the following is from the dictionary of etymology:

figure (n.) - c.1225, from O.Fr. figure, from L. figura "a shape, form, figure," from PIE *fig-, originally in Eng. with meaning "numeral," but sense of "form, likeness" is almost as old (c.1250). The verb meaning "to picture in the mind" is from 1603. Philosophical and scientific senses are from L. figura being used to translate Gk. skhema.

I have not included the end of the entry (which talks of the term "figurine" and "figurehead") but have copy/pasted everything else.

The terms shape, form, figure, and even "numeral" are used to connotate a physical reality. Moreover, the idea of "figure" being used as a mental representation "to picture in the mind" or a symbol of something else did not come about until 1603.

I will address the term "likeness" because you will probably turn to it as having the nearest connotation to something symbolic. However, this too, is not the case. If we understand, as the definition provides, that the term likeness could not mean "to picture in the mind," then it must merely be a reference to physical similarity.

All of this having been said, it would be a painful stretch to claim that Tertullian was saying that the bread is physically similar to the flesh of the son of man. Moreover, it would compound the problem that I brought up before (his debate with the docites) if this was his meaning.

The significantly more reasonable and probably view is that Tertullian's use of figure was to mean the physical form of Christ, particularly keeping in mind that the term "figure" could not have been used to mean "a thing that causes one to picture in the mind a seperate and distinct thing."

I should also note, perhaps most importantly, that the Latin "figura" meant ONLY "shape, form, figure" each of which have a physical, not symbolic, connotation. The symbolic usage of the word can, as I illustrated previously, only be dated as early as 1250 (the term "likeness") and, as I also illustrated, even then it is an extreme stretch.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

Edited July 14, 2004 by JeffCR07

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]his debate with the docites[/quote]

Could you provide more info on this too? Actually I did try to search myself but docites doesn't register anything in google or newadvent.

[phatcatholic]

i write an extensive reply to you, and you only respond to the first sentence?

[quote]Are you implying that if you prove him wrong then you've disproved non-catholics? I assume by the nature of your post that is what you are implying.[/quote] no, i'm not implying that. you asked us to prove that his "church" was not the Church of Christ. here are your words:[list]
[*]Prove the the Non-Catholic Church teaching is wrong with the Bible, by posting links to the parts of this believer's website and quoting verses in the bible...here is the link to a church:
[/list][list]
[*]As I said, here is a church I want you to refute:
[/list]if i can refute one of his doctrines i have completed that task, for the Church of Christ is never in error. therefore, i refuted his views on the Real Presence. if you don't agree that i have done this, then directly address my points.

secondly, you ask this of me:[list]
[*]2. For you to find writings from the First Christians, before 600 AD to show that this man's Church was not the Church that Christ built.
[/list]i completed this task as well. if christians before 600 AD do not provide testimony confirming the beliefs of this person's "church" than his "church" is not the Church of Christ. i proved this to be the case by showing that early church testimony defends the Real Presence, whereas this guy's "church" does not.

your challenge has been accomplished.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited July 15, 2004 by phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]i write an extensive reply to you, and you only respond to the first sentence?[/quote]

Actually I responded to two. Or if this isn't yours then it sums up what you wrote.

[quote][quote]we find overwhelming testimony in a literal Real Presence in the Eucharist. [/quote]


Since I provided you with that website, instead of regurgitating mass quotes, it would be effective for you to respond to his rebuttals.
[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/a179.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/a179.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/a173.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/a173.htm[/url][/quote]

His rebuttals give another interpretation for the quotes that you text dropped. You did not even respond to his rebuttals. I realize that usually from your perspective the Catholic Church is on the defense. But in this thread he is on the defense of his beliefs. You have to prove that guy wrong without a doubt. If you don't without a doubt, non-Catholics have just as much validity to their beliefs as Catholics. But if he can defend his position, you may argue that that doesn't necessarily mean he's right, and one of my points has been proven that it's shaddy when RC's assume defending a faith means proving it.

Edited July 15, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c