I'm not prejudiced against R.C.s BUT...

I repeat : the Roman church acknowledges Mary died in all official documents.


Dissenters don’t mean we don’t have official doctrine. Plenty of Catholics practice fornication. Doesn’t mean we don’t have official doctrine.
There’s no need to create doctrinal disunity with the orthodox where there exists none

 

With all this re interpretation you can even make the catholic doctrine sound Protestant lmao


I recommend the books for anyone who wants to have a serious further talk, because they present facts in a non polemical way and don’t quote mine.
Good night

 

No. You. Failed. To. Uphold. It.
Christ did not fail. His erring children did.

So is the Church of England.

No they most definitely do not. Not with the nonsense of the first Vatican and with all of the ridiculous dogmas of Rome. Your 'Apostolic' Churches may resemble Rome in praxis, but not in solid, basic doctrines.

You're the one who decided to base all of your feeble arguments on superficial similarities between Rome and the Eastern Churches.

You keep conflating all of Protestantism as though it were a monolithic entity. Bro. High-Church Anglicans. They have the sacraments without Marian glitter.

*Child on a playground* Are not! Is too! Are not!
And if the traditional Anglicans are right, and do have valid sacraments? Then what?

I quoted Cabasilas to you. I fiddled with the Byzantine church until half of it became so ludicrous to believe that I could only be convinced that it's another Rome. I'm not saying they're not saved. I'm saying that I won't join them in their medieval pretension to be the Church(tm). I'm not kissing pictures of Mary. I'm not joining HAH Bartholomew on an ecocrusade. Did you read the Toll-Booth exchange on this forum? That was enlightening.

And it's so insightful that the monks on Mount Athos are dying to join your ranks.

Wrong. They are the state Church of Byzantium sitting around after the collapse thereof. Besides, 'nations' is a useless term, too, since nation-states are mostly around after Westphalia as I understand it. And that's the most ludicrous argument I've heard on this thread. The Pentecostals aren't a national church. Neither are the Lutherans. How about the Methodists?

You are deluded. Literally hopelessly deluded. Like, that is not going to happen this century. I will be shocked if that happens. The Byzantine church cannot get over their Christological squabble with the Copts, and there is no way on God's green Earth that the Romans are going to give up on infallibility. They have been divided for the past millenium over just the Filioque. The Byzantines are not going to give up on Palamism. They are not going to accept Ludwig Ott's interminable list of supposedly infallible doctrinal statements.

This isn't just about the pope. Indeed, I would like to have a patriarch - that supports sound doctrine.

I actually blame Rome for this historically. Again. If it had done its job, there wouldn't have been a thirty-years-war.

And the Protestants recognize them as Christians and they are free to intercommune with us. We're not exclusive. You are welcome to take communion at any of the Protestant churches I know. Why don't you? Oh? Would it support schisms? We cannot commune with you. And each of your "Apostolic" churches maintain that every single person outside their denomination is in appalling heresy.

This is an awful argument. For all I know, the Waldensians could have been the church(tm) all along. That is the most rosy view of the calamity of the schisms of late antiquity that I have seen in my entire life. What if some of the Protestants are right? I believe that many of them are. I do not believe them to be actually outside of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I realize that I can't have a build-a-bear faith, but I will never say that Protestants need special, rare, dispensations of grace because they don't accept doctrines instituted by a fictitious magesterium.

 

Anglicans have the thirty-nine articles. Like I said. You have so many doctrines that you cannot possibly uphold them all.

 

Don't be snide.

 

Perhaps Anglicanism is the orthodoxy of the English Speaking peoples.

 

I should have reread this and edited so it wasn’t incoherent rambling and poorly argued.
Moreover, I shouldn’t have made some of these statements about the Byzantine church, so I apologize (again ^_^’); I really do love them, but I’m not going to be one.

 

According to the 2011 Pew survey, there are several thousand Orthodox denominations in the world. Ukraine alone has 4 separate orthodox denominations.

And there are at least several hundred Roman Catholic denominations. For example the Polish National Catholic Church. The Old Catholics. Sedevacantists. We have our own @PNCC Old Catholic as a member here — reach out to him. Maybe you’ll learn something more than what you’ve been told in your mythology narratives.

 

We are to believe that you weren't quote mining (on a smaller scale) when you quoted a snippet from Theodoret?

"Memorialist interpretation"--- sticks and stones. I have been advancing the Anglican 'Real Presence' understanding throughout this discussion.

I was responding to your statement, I’ve yet to find a single church father that didn’t believe in a literal mastication of the Body. I have provided many quotes of early fathers who did not believe this, as shown by their understanding that they are masticating earthly bread and wine when they partake spiritually of the body and blood of Christ. Feel free to share all your references where the early fathers say, "I chew on the flesh of Jesus with my teeth," or some such; I doubt they exist.

Jesus Himself put down the idea when His disciples asked him about his sayings. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life (John 6:63). (Good thing He did say that, or else impetuous Peter might have taken a bite out of His arm that day. )

Since you believe that you're chewing on Jesus' flesh in a physical sense, maybe you'll answer a question for me. Are you eating Jesus' mortal, pre-crucifixion flesh (as the disciples at the Last Supper must have eaten) or are you eating Jesus' resurrected flesh (called out of heaven and off His throne at the Father's right hand, for your dining pleasure)?

 

So another topic in the Anglican column then. Cheers bro.

Look you’re just afraid to acknowledge that we are Catholics, we have a Catholic doctrine of the sacraments, we have Catholic holy orders, and we receive the Catholic councils. The Church Fathers would have a beer with us probably more than any other Christian tradition alive. It’s just a fact.

On the other hand you’ve got madmen at the helm of your church, dangerously careening it into scary waters for many, many centuries. You’re seeing it enacted again now, in your lifetime, and feel powerless to stop it. So you come here, looking for converts who will make you feel that it wasn’t a bad idea to be subject to the madness, if you can all hold hands and endure it together.

 

Can you please provide a correct citation.

This example does not support your argument. You are claiming that an ecumenical council can depose a pope. This was not an ecumenical council. It was a synod called to resolve the problem of the papacy having three rival claimants. The synod determined that not one of the three claimants had any valid claim to the papacy and declared it sede vacante. Ultimately, all three claimants surrendered their claims and in at least two cases they had no real claim as they had attempted to claim the papacy by simony and not by proper election.

No!

Firstly, from you having provided no evidence that it can be done. Secondly, from knowing that a pope cannot be removed from office for any reason. You have tried to show deposition with untenable evidence. In the last two thousand years at least the odd pope must have gone insane. Can you demonstrate the removal of one by proper canonical process? A pope cannot be removed. If, say, Pope Francis goes insane then the Romanc Catholic Church will have to persevere with him until such time as he dies. If he goes insane he cannot resign. Therefore, if the Roman Catholic Church had an insane pope it would have to put up with him.

If you consult the Code of Canon Law (1983) of the Latin Catholic Church sui juris, the code currently in force, you will find that the pope, referred to as the 'Supreme Pontiff', is the highest authority in the Roman Catholic Church. There is no authority over him, not even an ecumenical council. Take a hypothetical situation. An ecumenical council is held. By chance every single Catholic bishop in the world attends (not likely but let us assume it happens). They vote unanimously (no votes against, no abstentions) to remove the pope from office. Nothing happens because an ecumenical council cannot do this. An ecumenical council cannot be held unless the pope summons one. He decides the agenda. He decides which of the council's decisions get implemented. Now why would the pope summon an ecumenical council and put his deposition on the agenda? It would be far more practical and would cost the Holy See a lot less money for him to simply resign.

 

This pretty much sums it up. Two bishops cannot have ordinary jurisdiction over the same territory. One must give way to the other. It’s clear from the 4th century canons that the Pope had a kind of appellate jurisdiction, in that he could appoint a different bishop to hear a case if it was appealed after the ordinary had rendered his decision. That’s fine. That’s what the canons describe, and the actual history of ecclesiastical controversies from that period support that overall picture. To say that he had ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese contradicts his appellate role unless the bishops of those dioceses weren’t really bishops in the full sense. It’s one or the other. They can’t have it both ways.

 

@Stalwart @Rexlion @Distraught Cat

Since no one bothered to look at the books I said I’m just going to copy paste straight from it:


1)Justin martyr (135 AD):


“Hence God speaks about the sacrifices which were then offered

by you, as I said before, through Malachi, one of the twelve (prophets):

My will is not in you, says the Lord, and I will not receive your sacrifices from your hands; for, from the rising of the sun to its setting,my name has been glorified among the nations,and in every place incense is offered to my name and a pure sacrifice,for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord, but you profane it.

3 He is prophesying about the sacrifices which are offered in every place by us,the nations,that is the bread of the eucharist and likewise the cup of the eucharist, saying that we glorify his name, but you profane it. . .

117.1 So God bears witness in advance that he is well pleased with all the sacrifices in his name, which Jesus the Christ handed down to be done, namely in the eucharist of the bread and the cup,which are done in every place of the world by the Christians.





2)Hippolytus apostolic tradition (AD 215):


9 he took bread and gave thanks to you, saying, ‘Take, eat; this is my body, which shallbe broken for you.’ Likewise also the cup, saying, ‘This is my blood, which is shed for you;

10 when you do this, you make my remembrance.’

11 Remembering therefore his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the cup, giving you thanks because you have held us worthy to stand before you and minister to you.

12 And we ask that you would send your Holy Spirit upon the offering of your holy Church; that, gathering them into one, you would grant to all who partake of the holy things (to partake) for the fullness of the Holy Spirit for the confirmation of faith in truth


3)Liturgy of the apostles Addai and Mari ( 3rd century):


You, Lord, through your many mercies which cannot be told, be graciously mindful of all the pious and righteous fathers who were pleasing in your sight, in the commemoration of the body and blood ofyour Christ, which we offer to you on the pure and holy altar, as you taught us. And grant us your tranquillity and your peace for all the days of this age, (Repeat.) People: Amen,




4)Sarapion (340-360 AD):


Fill also this sacrifice with your power and your partaking; for to you have we offered this living sacrifice, this bloodless offering.

To you have we offered this bread, the likeness of the body of the only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of the holy body. For the Lord Jesus Christ, in the night when he was betrayed, took bread, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat; this is my body which is broken for you for forgiveness of sins.’

Therefore we also,making the likeness of the death,have offered the bread, and beseech you through this sacrifice: be reconciled to us all and be merciful, O God of truth. And as this bread was scattered over the mountains, and was gathered together and became one, so gather your holy Church out of every nation and every country and every city and village and house, and make one living catholic Church.

We have offered also the cup,the likeness of the blood:for the Lord Jesus Christ, taking a cup after supper, said to his disciples, ‘Take, drink; this is the new covenant, which is my blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.’ Therefore we have offered the cup also,presenting the likeness of the blood. O God of truth,let your holy Word come on this bread,that the bread may become body of the Word;and on this cup,that the cup may become blood of the Truth; and make all who partake to receive a medicine of life for the healing ofevery disease, and for strengthening of all advancement and virtue; not for condemnation, O God of truth, and not for censure and reproach.




5)St Cyril of Jerusalem (350 AD):


To we partake with all assurance as of the body and blood of Christ.For in the figure of bread his body is given to you,and in the figure of wine his blood; that, by partaking of the body and blood of Christ, you may become one body and one blood with him . .


Then, after the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless service, has been perfected, we beseech God over that sacrifice of propitiation, for the common peace of the churches, for the stability of the world, for emperors, for armies and auxiliaries, for those in sickness, for the oppressed; and praynig in general for all who need help, we all offer this sacrifice.


“…we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ Sacrificed for our Sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves. “


6)Apostolic constitutions (375 AD):


For in the night he was betrayed, he took bread in his holy and blameless hands and, looking up to you, his God and Father, he broke it and gave it to his disciples,saying,‘This is the mystery of the new covenant: take of it, eat; this is my body which is broken for many for forgiveness of sins.’

Likewise also he mixed the cup of wine and water and sanctified it and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from this, all of you; this is my blood which is shed for many for forgiveness of sins.Do this for my remembrance; for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim my death,until I come.’

Remembering then his passion and death and resurrection from the dead, his return to heaven and his future second coming, in which he comes with glory,and to reward each according to his works, we offer you King and God, according to his commandment, this bread and this cup, giving you thanks through him that you have deemed us worthy to stand before you and to be your ..”

7)Gallican liturgy (doesn’t say, early liturgy before western liturgies became replaced with the Roman rite):

SECRETA(institutionNARRATIVE) (privately)

Who, the day before he suffered for the salvation of us all, standing in the midst of his disciples and apostles, took bread in his holy hands……. Likewise after supper he took the cup in his hands, looked up to heaven to you, God the Father almighty, gave thanks, blessedit,and handed it to his apostles,saying,‘Take, drink from this….” In addition to these words he said to them, ‘As often as you eat from this bread and drink from this cup, you will do it for my remembrance, showmg my passion to all, (and) you will look for my coming until I come (again).’

POST SECRETA or POST MYSTERIUM

(aloud) Therefore, most merciful Father, look upon the commandments of your Son, the mysteries of the Church, (your) gifts to those who believe: they are offered by suppliants, and for suppliants they are to be sought;

through Jesus Christ your Son, our God and Lord and Saviour, who, with you. Lord, and the Holy Spirit, reigns for ever, eternal Godhead, to the ages of ages.





8)Mozarabic liturgy (similar time period to gallican):


Priest: It is fitting and right, almighty Father, that we should give you thanks through your Son Jesus Christ, the true high priest for ever, the only priest without spot of sin; for by his blood, which cleanses the hearts of all, we sacrifice to you the propitiatory victim, not only for the sins ofthe people, but also for our offences that by the intercession of our high-priest for us, every sin committed by the weakness of the flesh may be forgiven;to him rightly all angels cry unceasingly and say…”

Priest (aloud): Bless Lord, this victim that is offered to you in honour of your name, and sanctify the minds and purify the wills of those who partake of it. Amen.



9)St Ambrose ( 397 AD):


“Therefore, remembering his most glorious passion and resurrection from
the dead, and ascension into heaven, we offer you this spotless victim, reasonable victim, bloodless victim, this holy bread and this cup of eternal life; and we pray and beseech you to receive this offering on your altar on high by the hands of your angels, as you vouchsafed to receive the gifts of your righteous servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and that which the high-priest Melchizedek offered to you.


10)Roman rite (700 AD):


We offer you Lord,the cup of salvation,and pray that of your kindness it may ascend in the sight of your divine majesty for our salvation and that of the whole world, in a sweet-smelling savour.

Receive,Lord,our humble spirits and contrite hearts;and may our sacrifice be performed today in your sight so as to please you. Lord God.

Come, Sanctifier, almighty, eternal God, and bless this sacrifice prepared for your holy name.

Through the intercession of blessed Michael the archangel, who stands at the right of the altar of incense, and of all the elect, may the Lord vouchsafe to bless this incense and receive it as a sweet-smelling savour; through Christ our Lord.”


As you can see every single liturgy offers the Eucharist, Christ himself, the Lamb of God, as a sacrifice.
This is undeniable.
notice several parts where the liturgies streets that they are following the commandment of Jesus Christ.
I wonder why?
It’s because he commanded us to do it in remembrance of him.
The Greek word is anamnesis.

Cognate: 364 anámnēsis (from 363/anamimnḗskō, "bring to mind") – properly, deliberate recollection, done to better appreciate the effects (intended results) of what happened; active, self-prompted recollection especially as a memorial (memorial sacrifice)


Anamnesis was understood by Jews as a sacrificial word, and like the memorial sacrifices of the Old Testament. Christ is the fulfillment of all them.
The sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered to God, and we ask for propitiation. All these liturgies say “We offer for…” and procede to intercede for all people of the church and government. They offer the Eucharistic sacrifice for them.
This is what Christ commanded us to do.

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


Memorial and anamnesis did NOT mean the same thing that it does to modern memorialist (and I consider anyone who denies the true Eucharistic sacrifice a memorialist).

You can’t escape the fact every single ancient liturgy offers the Body and Blood of our Lord as a sacrifice which is “pleasing to God,” as Malachi prophesied, and as St Justin martyr rightly recognized; the pure offering offered to God is Christ himself. Protestant churches don’t fulfill this promise. They therefore cannot be the true church.


Instead of going into hyper denial mode and saying it’s all false, try and realize literally 35 years after the apostle John died Justin martyr is saying he offers the Eucharist to God as sacrifice.
Maybe, just maybe, you don’t understand the significance to Jews of the rite of the last supper and the word anamnesis.
And also how are these liturgies all teaching the same thing?
Obviously it’s because the apostles taught these people it’s a sacrifice offered to God, and the sacrifice is Jesus Christ the Lamb of God.
Maybe realize “me and my own Bible interpretation” isn’t going to cut it.
If the early church was doing a ritual which you consider blasphemous, maybe it’s because your interpretation is wrong. Consider that instead of making weird conspiracy theories about mass apostasy or the papal anti christ rewriting history.

consider also the fact they believe they offer the literal Body and Blood, and yet sometimes they say it’s the “anti type” of the Body and Blood.
Rome affirms this as well.in fact all apostolic churches do:

Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter 1:

Declaring Himself constituted a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek, He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.


The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and yet the Eucharist still looks like bread and wine.
Bread and wine are the outward symbols or anti types of the Body and Blood we cannot see, even though a transformation into them has occurred.

Protestants do not know how to interpret the church fathers and look at them through their own memorialist Lens.

The doctrine of the Catholic Church has been that the Holy Eucharist is the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ offered up to God for the living and the dead. This is not a re sacrifice of Christ, but Anamnesis, of the sacrifice which has no end.


Consider the book of revelation, written about the heavenly liturgy:
“I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭1:10‬ ‭


“And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.”
‭
And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭5:11-14


The book of revelation is about the heavenly liturgy. The Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, is in heaven, “slain before the foundation of the world.”
Jesus Christ is out mediator. How does he mediate?
He stands before the Father pleading the sacrifice of himself. His mediation is sacrificial. He shows himself forever to be the Lamb slain for our salvation. In the earthly liturgy, the bread and wine are outward symbols of the Body and Blood, and are themselves transformed into the things they symbolize. We offer them to God, as priests of the new covenant, through the sacrificial mediation of Jesus Christ in heaven, where he is ever interceding for us.
As Malachi says, “every place incense is offered to my name and a pure sacrifice,for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord.”
This is the anamnesis, the memorial, the true and living sacrifice God wants on our earthly altars. By this we “proclaim the Lords death until he comes.”
We gloriously offer the Body and Blood as Christ once did, and only by imitation of our savior can we truly ask for intercession of the living and the dead

The liturgies all testify this. The Protestant memorialist sacrifice is a dead wrong interpretation no matter which way you spin it.


This is also why all apostolic churches believe in the intercession of the Saints. We arent doing the liturgy in a vacuum. The earthly liturgy is a dark looking glass of the continuous heavenly one. We worship God along with all the elders, angels, and Saints, prostrated before the Lamb Himself. This is why we call upon them. It’s odd to know people in heaven are worshipping with you and pretend like they don’t exist.


Here is the ignorant John Calvin with his novel heresy of denying the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in His Holy Supper:


“ Satan…blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the Mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins.”

Book IV, Chapter 18 of the Institutes



This is a conspiracy theory, as well as recognizing the fact the Eucharist was always believed to be a true sacrifice. The most perfect and holy one at that.

Personally I trust the Fathers and apostles over Calvin, but that’s just me…

imagine how many years the church has had this “blasphemous” practice of the Eucharist sacrifice going on….
Basically since the time of the apostles?
The Protestant claim is it restores the church back to its former purity.
But what if this “former purity” never existed?
It is merely, then, the delusions of Protestants. The whole name gives it away. “Protesting” true apostolic tradition, which the apostolic churches have always upheld, and will continue to uphold for the end of time. No matter how many times Protestants call it blasphemous idolatry, we know, as the early liturgies testify, the liturgy of the apostles Addai and mari, that we offer the sacrifice as Christ has “taught us” and “commanded us” to do.

 

That's Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 117. The copy I have in my e-sword reference library reads as follows:

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 Eucharist 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 ye profane it.’ (Mal_1:10-12) 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 God268 which He endured is brought to mind...​

The sacrifice Justin refers to is not the sacrifice of Jesus on the altar. He's referring to the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving which is part of the Eucharist liturgy; our prayers and giving of thanks are the sacrifices we offer "in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup." Notice also that Justin called it "the Eucharist of the bread," which supports our view that the bread still remains bread even while it becomes spiritually, by faith and for us, the body of Christ.

We see the same language in many of the quotes you've reproduced. Hippolytus wrote, "we offer to you the bread and the cup," rather than 'we offer to you the flesh and the blood.' Sarapion likewise states, "To you have we offered this bread, the likeness of the body of the only-begotten. This bread..."

The Liturgy of Addai and Mari refers to "the commemoration of the body and blood of your Christ, which we offer to you." They're offering a commemoration (a calling to remembrance) of Jesus' broken body and shed blood.

I'm off to bed now, so I'll stop there. Perhaps others will chime in to address further points regarding your recent post. But don't forget to answer my last question: do you believe you're chewing on Jesus' mortal, pre-death flesh or His immortal, incorruptible flesh?

 

Good evening everyone. *sigh*
@BedtimePrayers , you are once again trying to take on the entirety of the Reformation by conflating several issues as one issue, and with a handful of quotes in a book of secondary scholarship, no less.

I will not be told about hyper-denial mode by a person who, again, thinks that Rome and the Eastern Churches are going to unite soon, and apparently redefines memorialist to mean anyone who doesn’t believe in literal transubstantiation:

I think you'll find that Jesus Christ, sovereign as He is, will show up in every Eucharist that He wants to. I hope you don't think that a correct understanding of the Eucharist is required for His presence, because that would be bad news for you too.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Is everyone in the Reformation a Calvinist to you?

NGL, you're starting to sound paranoid. Like seriously, calm down. Have you talked to some 'Anglo-Catholics' on this forum?

The actual etymology of the word Protestant, if I recall correctly, came from a group in Germany who protested the excommunication of Martin Luther. Again, your circular reasoning implies both of us need better things to do at this time of night: the Reformers were trying to take the Church back to the Apostolic faith. I never said they did so perfectly, but what many of them did was preferable to whatever nonsense is issuing from the Vatican right now, or pretending to be the one true church to satisfy our self-refuting ecclesiology.

I myself just pray that God will do whatever in the Eucharist is expedient for my salvation. I just doubt that it's literally transubstantiation.

All I ever said was that you cannot sacrifice Christ again; this is another opportunity for Cabasilas, who does believe in transubstantiation by the way:


Of the sacrifice itself, and what is sacrificed.
Concerning the sacrifice itself, there is a question that deserves to be considered. Since we are not concerned with a mere figurative or symbolic shedding of blood, but with a true holocaust and sacrifice, we must ask ourselves what it is that is sacrificed: is it the bread or the Body of Christ?
... It seems impossible that it can be the Lord's Body which is sacrificed. For this Body can no longer be slain or stricken, since, now a stranger to the grace and to corruption, it has become immortal. And even if it were not impossible that it should suffer again, there would have to be executioners to perform the Crucifixion, and all those other elements which were present at that sacrifice - that is, if it were to be a true sacrifice, and not simply a representation...
But the transformation has been a double one; the bread, from being unsacrificed, has become a thing sacrificed, and it has also been changed from simple bread into the Body of Christ. It follows therefore, that this immolation, regarded not as that of the bread, but as that of the Body of Christ, which is the substance which lies beneath the appearance of the bread, is truly the sacrifice not of the bread but of the Lamb of God, and is rightly so called. (There's your creds)
Now it is clear that, under these conditions, it is not necessary that there should be numerous oblations of the Lord's body. Since the sacrifice consists, not in the real and bloody immolation of the Lamb, but in the transformation of the bread into the sacrificed Lamb, it is obvious that the transformation takes place without the bloody immolation. Thus, though that which is changed is many, and the transformation takes place many times, yet nothing prevents the reality into which it is transformed from being one and the same thing always - a single body, and the unique sacrifice of that Body.

 

Also, if you read through these forums long enough, you'll come across members (I think @Stalwart and @Invictus ) arguing a position that isn't too different from the Roman one; i.e, that the sacraments are the appointed means of grace, and that, through them, grace is granted to the faithful.

Also, to quote @Botolph :

 

lol this is an extremely orthodox (little o) understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice.
What, exactly, am I supposed to find wrong with it?
Do you think we believe we’re slaying Christ and making him shed blood over our altars or something?
The sacrifice of the Eucharist is like he said, the bread turning into the Body sacrificed. The reason this happens is
1) so we can offer it as a memorial to God
2) so we can partake of the Body and Blood of the Lamb
There is one body being offered everywhere. Same on heaven as in the earthly liturgy.


St. John chrysostom says :

“What then? do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death, and this3124 [remembrance] is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that3125 [Sacrifice] was once for all offered, [and] carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that [sacrifice] and this remembrance of that.3126 For we always offer the same,3127 not one sheep now and to-morrow another, but always the same thing:3128 so that the sacrifice is one. And yet by this reasoning, since the offering is made in many places, are there many Christs? but Christ is one everywhere, being complete here and complete there also, one Body. As then while offered in many places, He is one body and not many bodies; so also [He is] one sacrifice. He is our High Priest, who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done in remembrance of what was then done. For (saith He) “do this in remembrance of Me.” (Luke xxii. 19.) It is not another sacrifice, as the High Priest, but we offer3129 always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a Sacrifice.”

But he also says;

“For when you see the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood, can you then think that you are still among men, and standing upon the earth? Are you not, on the contrary, straightway translated to Heaven, and casting out every carnal thought from the soul, do you not with disembodied spirit and pure reason contemplate the things which are in Heaven? Oh! What a marvel! What love of God to man! He who sits on high with the Father is at that hour held in the hands of all, and gives Himself to those who are willing to embrace and grasp Him. And this all do through the eyes of faith! Do these things seem to you fit to be despised, or such as to make it possible for any one to be uplifted against them?”


So yup, we believe the same thing as Cabasilas. The fact that you think we don’t just goes to show you don’t understand the Eucharistic sacrifice


Also, it’s funny you think IM paranoid. If anything I’m absolutely shocked people on this forum believe Rome rewrote history and also that the church went through some mass apostasy lmao


I also do not think Rome and the orthodox will be uniting any time soon. Like at all. Idk why you say that. The only thing I’ve said is that we have pretty much the same beliefs except for the papacy.


I suggest you read Cabasilas again, read the liturgies I posted, and then repeat this 3 more times. Maybe then you’ll understand they’re saying the same thing. We aren’t re sacrificing Christ. And the Eucharistic sacrifice is not this scary thing Protestants seem to think it is
Also funny you think Cabasilas is going to disagree with modern Eastern Orthodox doctrine when he’s an eastern saint.
Look through the liturgies I posted. Look through the orthodox church’s current liturgy of st chrysostom. Realize the Orthodox Church interprets this as a sacrifice offered for the living and the dead. Realize maybe they can interpret their liturgies better than you.
Realize the liturgies of the early church are offered for the living and the dead.

Also the denial is real on this thread. Liturgies literally say “we offer this victim” and people still sitting here telling me “oh but they didn’t really mean that!!”
Lol

 

“Book with secondary scholarship”

Did you read the book? Its literally just a compilation of all the surviving Eucharistic liturgies we have.
It’s also written by an Anglican.
Don’t tell me you think books with conspiracy theories about the western church not accepting the 7th council are scholarly but this basic book which is just a simple compilation of liturgies isn’t….


Feel free to look this liturgies up if you don’t trust his “secondary scholarship.”
He cites sources

 

The Catholic Church uses this same exact language in its liturgies.

Eucharistic prayer II:
“Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his Death and Resurrection, we offer you, Lord, the Bread of life and the Chalice of salvation, giving thanks that you have held us worthy to be in your presence and minister to you.”

Eucharistic Prayer I
“Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed Passion, the Resurrection from the dead, and the glorious Ascension into heaven of Christ, your Son, our Lord, we, your servants and your holy people, offer to your glorious majesty, from the gifts that you have given us, this pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.”



Eucharistic prayer III

“Therefore, O Lord, we celebrate the memorial of the saving Passion of your Son, his wondrous Resurrection and Ascension into heaven, and as we look forward to his second coming, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.”



I bet if I showed you these prayers and told you they were from the early church, you’d interpret it as fitting your beliefs

 

Nothing, really. I was just reminding you that there is only one sacrifice - that of Christ. Did you read what I posted? No. You didn't apparently. Because you seem to hate Protestantism without regard to what it is or who advocates it in any way or who tries to unite your Roman viewpoint to theirs.
The sacrifice is not performed more than once. I got the impression that you were saying otherwise.

That would be the implication of saying that there are multiple sacrifices.

I was talking about you.

Apparently you cannot read. I told you I don't believe in a Great Apostasy. The Romans did, however, rewrite a couple of things. Have you heard of the 'Donation of Constantine'?

You said "ecumenical talks". I cannot imagine what else you could have possibly meant by invoking them. And as many people have handily demonstrated, they most definitely do not believe the same things as the Roman church does. Off the top of my head, they reject the Filioque, anything whatsoever else advocated by St. Anselm of Canterbury. Most of their intellectuals have spent the past several centuries bashing St. Thomas Aquinas. Again, you aren't one of them either. You don't actually know what you're talking about, at least more than any other on this forum. @Invictus is a former EO, and @Stalwart is supposed to have been involved with them in some way. Why don't you ask them if they think that Rome and Constantinople believe that they have "pretty much the same beliefs except for the papacy." They disagree on so many levels. You went on a diatribe last time about how we were supposedly appropriating their beliefs. I submit that it is you who are appropriating their beliefs.

I suggest you thoughtfully read the whole of Calvin's institutes and compare him to Roman arch-theologian Thomas Aquinas before you start throwing salt.

Read the BCP.

Maybe then you'll understand that not all Protestants are whatever Baptist clique that rubbed you raw.

I'm glad that you're clear on that issue and that you will certainly use clearer, precise language to express yourself.

Read actual Protestants, please.

Because you apparently cannot read, it may not be useful to write here that I made no such claim.

Learn French and look through Stalwarts posts. Tu le peux faire; ce n'est pas trop difficile.

Again I was contradicting you. Also, realize that they can interpet their litugies better than you.

Indeed, Cabasilas says so. Actually, it was really fascinating because he backsasses the 'Latin' Church about this issue precisely.

This uncouth derision is precisely the reason for which I became so upset last night. Cut it out.