Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html

And by the way I still keep on reading writings of early Church Fathers and who knows maybe I will end like you.

God bless

Did you worship the bread in the monstrance? Do the Apostles, early Christians and Early Church Fathers especially those in the Ante-Nicene period do the same?

I believe you worship the monstrance because the bread is now transformed into our Lord Jesus Christ literal Body. He was confined inside that man-made monstrance. So every Catholic must go to the Church to worship because Jesus can only be found in the monstrance. I believe the Apostles and those that I mentioned do the same for why not and that’s really the literal real presence of Christ. So please give me a source that shows they did worship the remaining breads or wafer if you like.

God bless

God bless

@Ebouty, I found your post with a lot of hypothetical questions to be very confusing, and I don’t know what point you are making. Obviously you think they are significant questions, but I don’t quite get the point. I’m wondering a bit if you’re not a protestant, but from some other sect, but maybe not, I can’t tell.

One question I do understand is you’re asking how Jesus is with us, in spirit or also in flesh based on passages like “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Well, if you obey everything Jesus said, including consuming the eucharist, then he is present in flesh also, because believers have consumed his flesh.

Concerning your question, where the doctrine comes from if not John 6, well it comes from various places, a literal interpretation of the gospels: “this is my body”, as well noting Paul’s reference that those who consume it unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, which would seem strange if it were just a symbol or just the spirit of the Lord.

I’m not sure why you are disparaging my comments about Augustine. As far as I see, every Protestant I’ve ever seen has to make the Church fathers contradict themselves in order to make them support Protestant doctrine. I take the view that the Fathers were smart people, they knew what they believed, and they probably didn’t contradict themselves all that often. That means we should try and understand them with the assumption that their teachings can be harmonised. If you think they contradicted themselves at every turn, then I hope you don’t mind if I twist your words to contradict yourself too. 😉

Not being Roman, your reference to Mt 16:18 is like water off a duck’s back.

Orthodox don’t use a monstrance as such, but venerate the elements, as the body of the Lord. You ask for reference the apostles did. You show me a reference that they disrespected the body of the Lord. Hint: 1Cor 11:27

*****I’m not sure why you are disparaging my comments about Augustine. As far as I see, every Protestant I’ve ever seen has to make the Church fathers contradict themselves in order to make them support Protestant doctrine. *****

Yes I did that because you are trying to make St. Augustine looks confusing which in fact he clearly understood the Lord’s presence in Spirit.

Aren’t you an Orthodox? So what kind of Orthodox are you?

*****@Ebouty, I found your post with a lot of hypothetical questions to be very confusing, and I don’t know what point you are making. ******

We all have brains and don’t pretend that my hypothetical and confusing thus don’t know what point I was trying to make.

That can happen to someone who cannot deal with such questions.

********Orthodox don’t use a monstrance as such, but venerate the elements, as the body of the Lord. You ask for reference the apostles did. You show me a reference that they disrespected the body of the Lord. Hint: 1Cor 11:27 ********

So are you telling me that after the Eucharist rite you did nothing to the remaining bread, you just venerate it during the Eucharist. Am I right? Because if that so then I agree with you.

What so funny then is when you ask me back instead of just giving me a source. Is not that shows a lack of evidence?

And by the way, we all show respect to the bread and wine, because they are sacramental signs of the Body and Blood of our Lord shed on the cross once and for all.

But my point in asking is in order to understand really that the bread, in the sense of the Apostles, is the literal Body of Christ and if that so then they should have collected the remaining bread,keep it maybe in a plate and hide it in a sacred place or put it on the Alter, but wait do they have an Altar too or they just eat the bread around the table?

All such things I just want to know, but instead you shows me lack of understanding by saying and I quote:

“I found your post with a lot of hypothetical questions to be very confusing, and I don’t know what point you are making.”

Keep it up and God bless

@Ebouty,

Actually the first Christians DID reserve the host, “bread”, that was left. This comes from one of the early saints, I believe St Justin martyr? I would need to track that down for you.

Now this is seen as a fulfillment of the Old Testament Jewish practice of keeping holy bread always in a holy place in the temple, called “the bread of the presence”, or literally, I believe, “the bread of the face”. So the Bread of the Presence is a “type”, or foreshadowing of, the Bread that is Christ, the Eucharist.

Now that you are tracking that down for John, we need then to deal with my questions one by one. First explain to me why Jesus really want to go?

“But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.”

God bless you

Oh I forgot Irene. I just mentioned keeping the remaining bread only. You also need to provide sources showing the Apostles bowing and worshiping that remaining bread. Is that OK for you? But please show me a direct evidence, I mean the practice of the Apostles.

I want to have a lot of information, so please show me, because I still trying to find it in the scripture. But I don’t believe i can get it till end of age.

God bless

******Not being Roman, your reference to Mt 16:18 is like water off a duck’s back. ********

I believe the site I gave you has no effect on you, but my point is just showing you that the selectively quoting is not the practice of Christian Protestants. It is your Sister’s practice; Roman Catholic Church which I do believe is yours too, but not on Matthew 16:18.

By the way what kind of Orthodox are you in, because I just know one that is in the East, I guess; Eastern Orthodox Church. Are you then in that Church John?

God bless

@Ebouty: “you are trying to make St. Augustine looks confusing which in fact he clearly understood the Lord’s presence in Spirit.”

I listen to everything he says, not just some. Being present in spirit doesn’t exclude being present in body.

“We all have brains and don’t pretend that my hypothetical and confusing thus don’t know what point I was trying to make.”

Your style of writing in your first posts was to make quotes and assume everyone else sees what you see. You need to be clearer.

“So are you telling me that after the Eucharist rite you did nothing to the remaining bread, you just venerate it during the Eucharist.”

After the eucharist, the priests consumes anything remaining.

“What so funny then is when you ask me back instead of just giving me a source. Is not that shows a lack of evidence?”

There is a general lack of evidence of what happened in the 1st century. The best evidence we have is that as the church emerged into the light in following centuries, the church world wide had a common understanding of such things. There was never any arguments and splits and schisms in the early centuries about the real presence.

“And by the way, we all show respect to the bread and wine, because they are sacramental signs of the Body and Blood of our Lord”

Respect, veneration, worship, they are all just words that express a general concept. Getting hung up on labels doesn’t really solve anything. You “respect” the bread, we “venerate” it and Catholics “worship” it. Just words really.

“collected the remaining bread,keep it maybe in a plate and hide it in a sacred place or put it on the Alter, but wait do they have an Altar too or they just eat the bread around the table?”

Is that a question? Bread is consecrated on the “altar” if you want to call it that, and is in the usual case remaining is consumed. There are some cases in which it is stored.

“”my point is just showing you that the selectively quoting is not the practice of Christian Protestants.”

I’ve shown many examples on this blog. e.g. quoting Basil to make him look like a sola scriptura proponent, when he is probably the clearest proponent of the authority of tradition in all history.

Yes, I’m Eastern Orthodox

*****@Ebouty: “you are trying to make St. Augustine looks confusing which in fact he clearly understood the Lord’s presence in Spirit.” I listen to everything he says, not just some. Being present in spirit doesn’t exclude being present in body. *****

How about explain this comments from St. Augustine to me:

Now there would be no great merit and glorious blessedness in believing, if the Lord had always appeared in His Risen Body to the eyes of men. The Holy Ghost then hath brought this great gift to them that should believe, that Him whom they should not see with the eyes of flesh, they might with a mind sobered from carnal desires, and inebriated with spiritual longings, sigh after. Whence it was that when that disciple who had said that he would not believe, unless he touched with the hands His Scars, after he had handled the Lord’s Body, cried out as though awaking from sleep, “My Lord and my God;” the Lord said to him, “Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” This blessedness hath the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, brought to us, that the form of a servant which He took from the Virgin’s womb, being removed from the eyes of flesh, the purified eye of the mind might be directed to This Form of God, in which He continued equal with the Father, even when He vouchsafed to appear in the Flesh; so as that with the Same Spirit filled the Apostle might say, “Though we have known Christ after the flesh; yet now we know Him so no longer.” Because even the Flesh of Christ he knew not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, who, not by touching in curiosity, but in believing assured, acknowledgeth the power of His Resurrection; not saying in his heart, “Who hath ascended into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down; or, Who hath descended into the deep? that is, to bring back Christ from the dead.” “But,” saith he, “the word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, that Jesus is the Lord; and if thou shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”These, Brethren, are the words of the Apostle, pouring them forth with the holy inebriation of the Holy Ghost Himself.

Is your belief in the presence of the Body does not contradict the decision of the Council of Chalcedon on the Hypostatic Union?

For as you mentioned again Sola Scriptura then I need just to have a bit conversation on.

The doctrine of Trinity is “…based simply on the fact that Christianity began with the witness that Jesus is the Son of God, and the deity of Christ is at the heart of its message.”

Before the Council of Nicaea Eusebius brought before that Council a Creed which he states that it was one which he had learned from his childhood, from the bishop of Caesarea, and one which he accepted at his baptism, and which he had taught through his whole career, both as a presbyter and as a bishop. Here is that Creed:

“‘I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things both visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only begotten Son, the First-born of every creature, begotten of the Father before all worlds, by whom also all things were made. Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived amongst men, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come in glory to judge the quick and the dead. And we believe in one Holy Ghost. Believing each of them to be and to have existed, the Father, only the Father; and the Son, only the Son; and the Holy Ghost, only the Holy Ghost: as also our Lord sending forth His own disciples to preach, said, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:’ concerning which things we affirm that it is so, and that we so think, and that it has long so been held, and that we remain steadfast to death for this faith, anathematizing every godless heresy. That we have thought these things from our heart and soul, from the time that we have known ourselves, and that we now think and say thus in truth, we testify in the name of Almighty God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, being able to prove even by demonstration, and to persuade you that in the past times also thus we believed and preached.’”
If we read and examine that creed carefully, we will find nothing that cannot be found in the scripture. In other words, all we have in that creed are from the scripture. Now let compare again with a new Creed formulated from the former after being a hard debate at the Council of Nicaea on the Arian controversy:

“We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father [Original reads: the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten], God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father [Original reads: that is to say, of the substance of the Father].Through Him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary [Added in], and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered death and was buried.”

Again, there is nothing here that cannot be based on facts from the scripture only some additions to the former, but such additions are based on the scripture too. They all reason according to the Word of God concerning that doctrine, because they believed that there was but One Living and True God, as what the scripture said, so they must end with an accurate explanation concerning the relationship of the Son to the Father which in fact they did and likewise there must also be an explanation of the person of the Holy Spirit.

So you are absolutely right when you said that the doctrine of Trinity is one possible inference you could draw from the facts found in scripture as the word Trinity is nowhere in the scripture. But you are wrong when you said that it is to be found in the authority of tradition. The tradition you are referring comes from the scripture, unless you can show me one source to prove your point of the authority of Tradition which is in the creed but not in the scripture. Can you do that?

Allow me then to explain the notion that the doctrine of sola scriptura share the same way in its formulation with the doctrine of Trinity. There are a lot of passages from the scripture and other early sources that we can use for our possible inference to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and one good and very interesting one is 2 Tim. 3:14–17. But in order to explain this passage clearly, let use the universal interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church which she commonly used against Sola Scriptura:

“This passage shows two things – firstly, Paul is advocating the following of Tradition. And, secondly, Paul is revealing what he means by “Scriptures” – he means the Old Testament, the Seputagint as it was known. Timothy is urged to read the Scriptures which he has known all his life – the New Testament did not exist when Timothy was a child, the only Scriptures were the Jewish Scriptures. So, if this verse shows sola scriptura it in fact shows sola Old Testament – the New Testament should be abandoned. But, if we abandoned the New Testament, we wouldn’t have this verse – so we wouldn’t need to abandon the New Testament!”

This is one common defenses of the Catholic Church to bring down the importance of scripture to make it in-line with their loving and desiring Tradition. But if that so, then let me asked Roman them what exactly that Tradition St. Paul instructing Timothy to follow and that we cannot find it in the scripture? I don’t think they can give because there is none. Paul was referring here to their teaching of the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ that are not yet being put into writings, but being preach orally. Those traditions or teachings are now come to us in a written form like Irenaeus said and I quote:

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

Thus any latest or developmental teachings (Catholic Traditions) such as Transubstantiation, which is an invention of Radbertus and formally accepted by the Catholics as a dogma centuries later, or the assumption of Mary that comes from an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae and many more are not of the Apostles’ Tradition, because nowhere in the scripture and in the practice of the first century Christians could be found.

Now the more interesting one from that same passage is the word “scripture” or sacred writings. According to Romanism that sacred writings or scripture is not about the New Testament but the Old Testament. The New Testament is not yet being existed as a canon. Absolutely 100% right, but I asked what exactly Paul was trying to tell us here? What did Timothy knows from such sacred writings (Old Testament)? Is it about the exile of the Jews that Timothy knows? Is it about how the angels slaughter the first born son of the Egyptians? This is really makes me astonished due to the fact that Romanism and those who share the same hatred of sola scriptura does not want to used the wisdom God gave them as a gift for the salvation of His people and this should be possible regarding their claim of the infallibility of the Pope, but instead the Pope and his church did the opposite.

Let read this conclusion from the quotation I gave above and then discuss it:

“So, if this verse shows sola scriptura it in fact shows sola Old Testament – the New Testament should be abandoned. But, if we abandoned the New Testament, we wouldn’t have this verse – so we wouldn’t need to abandon the New Testament!”

Isn’t that funny John? Does your logic agree with that assertion too? Let me show you what exactly Paul really mean of the word “scripture” in his writing to Timothy.

The focal point so imperative of the Old Testament to St. Paul is the Gospel Message. Paul was referring to the Old Testament prophesies of the Messiah’s birth, death, resurrection etc. that would be able to make Timothy wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ. This is known to me as the beginning of the Gospel Message that Timothy knows about from the Old Testament when he was a child; the coming of the Messiah, and later in his life comes to believe all such prophecies being fulfilled by the Person the Apostle told him about; the One and only One Lord Jesus Christ. And what more important from that Tradition (teaching) is the Atonement –“The center of Christ’s work, the main event to which the whole Old Testament pointed and to which the whole New Testament expounded was Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross. Christ’s death is the very heart of the Christian faith. It is the central theme of Scripture.”

Due to the aversion of Sola Scriptura by Romanism and others for some reasons, they try with all possible means to limit that passage to the Old Testament without thinking of logical possibilities. But limiting it in that way does not help them to their cause. This is because there is a true connection between the Old and the New Testament (i.e. the Apostles’ tradition or teaching), and that connection, as I mentioned already, is the Gospel Message, and that message leads Christians in the early Church life to come to believe that Jesus is really their Messiah, because everything they have known from their Childhood same with Timothy i.e. of the Old Testament writings has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. And for centuries later after the Apostles gone, Christians comes to believe that Gospel Message as the Old Testament pointed and to which the whole New Testament expounded, the Apostles’ teachings. This is truly the case when Irenaeus, as I did quote earlier, said:

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

The first generation of Christians, as we all know, did not have the New Testament, and so Catholics are right, but they kind of overlooking several vital facts which I believe they do have knowledge on, but something make them blind:

“First, the early first Christians at that time have the Old Testament as their Bible. (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15‐17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6). Second, early New Testament believers did not need further revelation through the apostles in written form for one very simple reason: they still had the living apostles to teach them. And thirdly, their argument wrongly assumes that there was an apostolic succession. The only infallible authority that succeeded the apostles was their infallible apostolic writings; the New Testament.”

Additionally, some Early Church Fathers made some comments on how important the scripture is such as:

John Chrysostom (354-407AD) says: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is a great cliff and a deep abyss. Not knowing the Scriptures is the cause of all evils.” Then St. Jerome (347-420AD) said even more insensitively flank: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”

If we look into the ignorance of the Roman Catholic Church of the scripture we can prove those Fathers statements to be veracious. The act of the Roman Catholics throughout history truly ignores the importance of scripture and I believe they endure to do so. One good example of the Catholic practice and teaching that ignores the Tradition of the Apostles for their lustful desire is the crusade and torturing and burning of heretics. St. Paul says in his letter to the Ephesians. We will examine thoroughly the following passage(s) and see if they agree with the Roman Catholic’s purposeful effort to Christianize people:

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh (for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds), casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ;…” (2 Cor. 10:3-5)

So if we do not war according to the flesh, then what kind of weapons Christians must use in their war? Let the Tradition of the Apostles, which is now known as the scripture tells you:

“Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Wherefore take up the whole armor of God that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; withal taking up the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one . And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: with all prayer and supplication praying at all seasons in the Spirit, and watching thereunto in all perseverance and supplication for all the saints,” (Ephesians 6:10-18)

Now did the infallible Pope, the Successor of Jesus on earth, follow his Predecessor’s, teaching? Absolutely did not, thus we might believe that the Gospel he followed is a gospel of another Jesus. Paul says:

“But continue you in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing of whom you have learned them;” (2 Tim. 3:14)

So is not 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 and Ephesians 6:10-18 are the Apostles’ teaching? And why did the infallible Pope ordered Christians to kill others? If he did not follow such teaching, then where did they get the idea opposite to the teaching of the Apostles that comes from God and can be found only in scripture? And who is the chief Planner of the Pope? Satan? I might come to believe so. Beside, the Pope, as they claim, was infallible and how come he does not know such things he wrongfully did that contradicts the Apostles’ teaching? Maybe (I’m guessing here) there is a time only when the Holy Spirit lives in him (infallible) and a time He does not (impeccability), and when the Holy Spirit does not then he can do what he want; allow the killing of people for the sake of his kingdom, that Jesus absolutely contradict it.

So that wasn’t the right way it should be, so like I said, and with no doubt that comes from the ignorance of scripture. So what can we say about those Popes and those who are in obedience to them including those inventors, which they claim of their invention of truly the teaching of the Apostles, but just lately developed? Let the scripture says so:

“And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed. And yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in all ways. The Lord be with you all.” (2 Thes. 3:14-16)

Isn’t that passage above so wonderfully amazing? Paul says that you should count anyone who does not obey their teaching not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Did the Roman Church who claims to be the true Church, because she was apostolic do that? I don’t think so.

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope.” Romans 15:4.

“Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written;” (1 Cor. 4:6)

Therefore, returning to our point of discussion, the doctrine of Trinity is “…believed and affirmed, not on the basis of either antiquity or the infallibility of the Church, but on the sure and certain warrant of Holy Scripture.” and so the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. What is there about Trinity is from the Scripture, nothing more nothing less. So, don’t mine if I use yours in saying, I think it’s fair to say that sola Scriptura is one possible inference you could draw from the facts found in scripture. It’s orthodoxy as the correct set of inferences, as opposed to other possible inferences, is to be found in the authority of Scripture alone. Hence without the Apostle’s Tradition (not one in the mind of Catholics and others) or later known in a written form as the New Testament, there is no such doctrine of Trinity. Don’t you agree with me? In the scripture alone, comes all the teaching of the Church and if so, the Church then is the foundation and pillar of the truth. But if not only from the Scripture, but something else then, as we have already seen, they would not know Christ and will follow Satan’s wish. It is true, and don’t tell me that it not true. You have seen an example of the real ignorance of the scripture because they thought something was the same authority with it, their own desiring teachings (Tradition).

We must pray that God will help us to understand His truth in order to walk with Him in His direction without boast of our Tradition and jealousy of others.

God bless us all

I believe John that some of the point I mentioned above are not applicable in your case except your hatred to the Scripture alone as the only authority of the Church.

God bless

*****There is a general lack of evidence of what happened in the 1st century. The best evidence we have is that as the church emerged into the light in following centuries, the church world wide had a common understanding of such things. There was never any arguments and splits and schisms in the early centuries about the real presence. ******

You are wrong John, there is, and that between Radbertus and his opponent on the belief in Spirit and Literal. Read it here:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.xxi.html

God bless

****After the eucharist, the priests consumes anything remaining. *****

So you are telling me that the Apostles consumes the remaining bread even if it is more than 12 baskets left and some tiny pieces of bread left on the table, and even the wine they will drink full even if they have plenty left?

Where did you get that, could you please show me a source that you come to know it from?

God bless

@Ebouty, wow long post. I get truncated when I try and post so much.

Augustine: Yes but that quote is not about the Eucharist. When he actually talks about the Eucharist, then I think we find his doctrine of the eucharist. When he talks about Christ being in the flesh in his time in the 1st century, I assume he is talking about that. You might say that a very literal interpretation of what he says here would seem against real presence, but I don’t want to hyper-literalise his writings to say something on a topic that he isn’t actually discussing in this passage. Again, as I said, if you want to make Augustine and all the Fathers to be self contradictory at every turn, go ahead. I prefer not to do that.

Trinity: Yeah, but the Arians quoted scripture too, And Eusebius is usually thought to have been rather Arian. And his creed which you quote approvingly, about Christ being “firstborn of creation”, was probably interpreted by Arians as being created as first. Yes, scripture says that, and an Arian interpretation is a possibility.

You asked some Roman Catholics for traditions not in scripture, and they couldn’t tell you any? Really? How many did you talk to? 😀

I’m not sure what aspect of transubstantiation you think was invented by Radbertus since the earliest Fathers teach that the bread and wine becomes really Christ’s body. There is less development by far than for the trinity.

The assumption of Mary comes from an apocryphal gospel? How do you know? Just because it is mentioned in an apocryphal gospel doesn’t mean that is the origin. A resurrection is mentioned in ancient Egyptian stories. Does that mean the Christian gospels “come from” there? That’s a major logical fallacy you’ve got cooking there. And its not in scripture for the obvious reason that it happened after scripture was written.

I stumbled on this and was pleased to see some fine comments. Keeping it simple here: I do not believe Jesus would make such a strong statement as “unless you do X, you do not have life within you” and make it impossible to do. If that were the case, everything the atheists say about our God being a malevolent sadist would be right on point.

I’d like to throw Lanciano in there and see what effect that has on the conversation…http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

@Ebouty You say that in 2Ti 3:16 Paul is referring to central prophesies about Christ’s death and resurrection? If you want to say that is the context, then he’s not talking about all doctrine, but just these important issues, and thus you lost this verse as a proof of sola scriptura.

If you want to abandon that argument and say it is about all doctrine, then the sola-old-testament argument comes into force. Either way, it doesn’t teach sola scriptura.

You seem to concede the 1st century Christians didn’t practice sola scriptura, because of your reasoning “they still had the living apostles to teach them”. Well yes, and in fact, it is impossible they could have followed sola scriptura, since the apostles were teaching them new stuff not in the OT, so they certainly could not be sola scripturaists. And if they weren’t sola scripturaists, then we can infer that the apostles didn’t teach sola scriptura. In which case, you’ve conceded twice in your posting that 2 Ti 3:16 doesn’t teach sola scriptura.

I don’t think sola scriptura is even a possible inference from scripture. In that respect, it’s even shakier than Arianism. Nothing in scripture teaches it, and nobody in scripture practices it. The OT prophets don’t practice it, the apostles don’t practice it, and Christ didn’t practice it. The Church NEVER practiced it, and the Fathers taught against it. That means it is basically without any support at all.

And if the apostles didn’t teach it, which you’ve conceded, and the 1st century Christians didn’t practice it, why should I? In point of fact the church NEVER followed it, which is unsurprising if the apostles didn’t teach it, which you conceded. Would you expect the 1st century Christians to monitor the death of the last apostle, then form a church council and say to themselves, hey, we’d better switch to sola scriptura now? Well they didn’t of course, and had they held such a council, then it wouldn’t be based on sola scriptura!

@Ebouty You quote Chrysostom on the importance of scripture. Sure. But I can quote him on the importance of tradition: “Hence it is clear that the Holy Apostles did not deliver everything by epistle; rather many things they handed down via the spoken word which is also trustworthy.”

Both are important

Yeah, Rome is in error to burn heretics. Protestants were in error when they burned, hung and tortured heretics. A plague on both your houses.

You mention Radbertus as referring to some who didn’t believe in the real presence. Well, the 9th century isn’t exactly “the earliest centuries” is it?

You ask the question “So you are telling me that the Apostles consumes the remaining bread even if it is more than 12 baskets left and some tiny pieces of bread left on the table, and even the wine they will drink full even if they have plenty left?”

You seem to assume firstly that the eucharist in the 1st century was an actual meal, which is not even a point of agreement among Protestants. You also seem to assume its a very important question, and I don’t see why it is.

Also, a few words about invincible ignorance:

1) I’m sure it is still possible, but in the age of the internet, it’s less probable. If you have heard that a major Christian church considers something a mortal sin, I’m going out on a limb here but I am about 99.9% certain that you are not invincibly ignorant and are to some extent culpable for making the choice to reject that information.

2) It is a dangerous game of Russian roulette. Ignorance is to knowledge (of the truth) as mediocrity is to excellence — it’s not a desirable situation at all. This is addressed here: http://www.catholic.com/video/does-god-judge-us-on-what-we-know

*****Yeah, Rome is in error to burn heretics. Protestants were in error when they burned, hung and tortured heretics. A plague on both your houses.****

Wow, I don’t know what to say to such an amazing defense. Never mind, I will decide to answer or to continue my unclear questions or points.

By the way, Protestant were also in error when they burn or tortured heretics. Do you think John before answering that? Who claims to be infallible and Vicar of Christ and who claim to be the true Church of Christ that continue the apostolic teaching, Protestant or Catholics?

God bless

*****You asked some Roman Catholics for traditions not in scripture, and they couldn’t tell you any? Really? How many did you talk to? *****

Yes, some whom I did ask them and shall I give the names? I don’t think so for their own sake. Oh, I forgot, maybe those whom I asked lack understanding. So how about you? Now let me ask you then show me what Traditions Paul was referring in his letter to Timothy, and that wasn’t written in the scripture, but practiced by the Church from the first century till now. Don’t tell me the latest diversion from the true Gospel of Christ.

I think, regarding the Tradition, you have come across this quotation too from Basil, if I’m right of him as the author.

“For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” and “Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.” One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If, as in a Court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our acquittal? I think so; for “at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established.”

Could you please tell me again what TRADITIONS he referred in the above quotations? Is that about Transubstantiation? Veneration or worshiping of Mary and the Saints? The worshiping of Mary by the Apostles?

God bless

*****@Ebouty You say that in 2Ti 3:16 Paul is referring to central prophesies about Christ’s death and resurrection? If you want to say that is the context, then he’s not talking about all doctrine, but just these important issues, and thus you lost this verse as a proof of sola scriptura. *****

Wow, don’t know what to say again. Nice try and keep up your good work. I know that the Gospel Message is not important to you, but the wisdom of men is. That’s really really good.

Keep up the good work

God bless

*****@Ebouty, wow long post. I get truncated when I try and post so much. Augustine: Yes but that quote is not about the Eucharist. ******

Yes, I was trying to at first. Never mind.

You are now the only one who told me that all such comments are not about the Eucharist. What a nice defense if someone cannot refutes the fact of truth.

God bless

******I don’t think sola scriptura is even a possible inference from scripture. In that respect, it’s even shakier than Arianism. Nothing in scripture teaches it, and nobody in scripture practices it. The OT prophets don’t practice it, the apostles don’t practice it, and Christ didn’t practice it. The Church NEVER practiced it, and the Fathers taught against it. That means it is basically without any support at all. *******

Really? Really? So what kind of book is the foundation and pillar of your Church as Irenaeus says, sources developed from men’s wisdom, a shakable and movable one?

Did really our Lord Jesus never practice Sola Scriptura? Have not Jesus used scripture against Tradition? Never mine, but I wasn’t surprise of that, because I have seen many Catholics who often shows their hatred to the scripture, but now I just know that even the Eastern Orthodox too; absolutely relying also on the lies of men.

God bless

*****I’m not sure what aspect of transubstantiation you think was invented by Radbertus since the earliest Fathers teach that the bread and wine becomes really Christ’s body. There is less development by far than for
the trinity. *******

Haven’t you read the site I posted for you to read? Read it and you will know what aspect of Transubstantiation I mean for Radbertus’ invention. But I think is not the aspect of Transubstantiation. The proper term you should use is real presence; the aspect of real presence. The idea of Trans. was invented by him.

It is a waste of time if you don’t read it.

God bless

@Ebouty: Who claims to be the true church of Christ, continuing apostolic teaching? Pretty much everyone claims that. 😉

What traditions was Paul referring to, in his letter to Timothy? Or Basil in his letter? Any traditions taught by the apostles. Which traditions might that have included that are not in scripture? Well first and foremost, it would include the correct interpretation of scripture. But if you want something not really taught in scripture, but practiced from the 1st century until now, I’m sure there are many, but if you want one with very good documentation also, there are a number I could mention. One would be the practice of fasting on Wednesday and Friday, a practice that is mentioned in the Didache (“teachings of the apostles), a document that is usually reckoned to date from the 1st century. This practice is considered the norm in Orthodoxy to this day. Another I could refer to is Christmation which was mentioned by 2nd century fathers all over the empire, which is inexplicable if it was not of apostolic in origin. It is mentioned by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Theophilus of Antioch, Pope Cornelius, Cyprian, Firmilianus of Caesarea, Origen, St Hippolytus, Cyril of Jerusalum, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Ambrosius, Didymus the Blind, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine and I’m sure others. That covers everything in early Christianity, both in time and geographically. How can it be, if it is not apostolic? This early support is much greater than support for some books in the NT. Why have Revelation in your bible, or 2 Peter, books with conflicting early support, but not practice christmation, something with universal support?

2Ti 3:16, your response is a non-response. Do you claim it as a proof text or not? If so, how, since you just preached to me it is only talking about central claims of Christ’s coming and resurrection and not all doctrine?

@Ebouty: Augustine: You seem enraged that I want to talk about context. As far as I see, it’s simply a plain fact that your quotes are not about the eucharist. But when I quote Augustine on the topic of the eucharist, you have nothing to say, no response. Seems you don’t want to interpret the fathers on their own terms.

You claim that the Holy Tradition of the church is “developed from men’s wisdom, a shakable and movable one”, but you provide no argument why we should accept your claim. In point of fact, Paul said to hold to the traditions whether in writing or taught orally. We know as a simple fact of history that the church had to hold to such oral teaching when there was no written Gospel. What you don’t tell us is why… the church having learned in its formative years to hold to such oral teaching… that it should have stopped doing such. If it were to stop, it would need an apostolic command to do so. Where is that command? There is none. Furthermore, there could never be one, because any apostle giving such a command would be treading on the toes of the other apostles, who for all they know, would be continuing to give oral teaching right up until their death.

No, sola scriptura is not only unscriptural, it’s historically impossible and inexplicable.

Did Jesus use scripture against tradition? Yes sure. Not the Holy Tradition though, but the “tradition of the elders”, some traditions used by certain sects. He also used his own teachings against scripture. Like in Matt. 5:31-33. Does that mean Jesus is against scripture? If you want to take one episode and extrapolate it to all tradition (in opposition to Paul!), then why wouldn’t we take this one episode and extrapolate it to all scripture too?

Anyway, you have no canon without tradition, so railing against the tradition of the Church ends up railing against yourself.

John even if St.Augustine talks on Eucharist, he was talking about Spiritual presence not real presence, not physical. What you are trying to do here is making St Augustine look confused which in fact does not. Do you believe St. Augustine can interpret John 6 as symbol and then on the other hand a literal? No way, its only happen to those who are hardly can find good reasons to support their friend’s wisdom.

“For he who does not believe the Spirit does not believe in the Son, and he who has not believed in the Son does not believe in the Father. For none “can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost,”and “No man hath seen God at any time, but the only begotten God which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

Then its your turn now to explain to me the difference between flesh and bones and SPIRIT.

****2 Ti 3:16, your response is a non-response. Do you claim it as a proof text or not? If so, how, since you just preached to me it is only talking about central claims of Christ’s coming and resurrection and not all doctrine?***

You cannot understand John. Without Christ what will you think? Can doctrines exist by itself? The idea in that passage is rightly preached to you, but I will not be surprised like anyone I have met. IGNORANCE, IGNORANCE always to get from them and now you.

One thing that you forgot to mention is TRANSUBSTANTIATION amongst the Traditions you listed. And by the way, have you read the site I gave you?

****@Ebouty: Who claims to be the true church of Christ, continuing apostolic teaching? Pretty much everyone claims that. ;-)*****

See, you even don’t understand my point. Its a waste of time I believe. Maybe I will make it clear after you explain to me the difference.

Good luck and God bless you

Oh, one more thing John, You have not shown me yet a source, maybe a written or documented Tradition showing the Apostles bow and worship the remaining bread that they cannot consume, because they were already full.

Please show me. I believe there must be, and maybe one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers wrote it.

Gog bless

You claim that the Holy Tradition of the church is “developed from men’s wisdom, a shakable and movable one”, but you provide no argument why we should accept your claim. In point of fact, Paul said to hold to the traditions whether in writing or taught orally. We know as a simple fact of history that the church had to hold to such oral teaching when there was no written Gospel. What you don’t tell us is why… the church having ****learned in its formative years to hold to such oral teaching… that it should have stopped doing such. If it were to stop, it would need an apostolic command to do so. Where is that command? There is none. Furthermore, there could never be one, because any apostle giving such a command would be treading on the toes of the other apostles, who for all they know, would be continuing to give oral teaching right up until
their death. ****

So after I received your explanation on the difference between flesh and Spirit, then I will answer your comments or post above an interesting one.

God bless

@Ebouty: Yet again, you don’t seem to have listened. Is John 6 talking about the Eucharist? Most Protestants claim no. So must I automatically assume yes in order to make Augustine self-contradictory? Why oh why?

Augustine always talked about a spiritual presence, not physical? Well, once you comment on my Augustine quotes where he refers to it as physical, then you might be enlightened.

Why do I have to explain the difference between flesh and spirit? Is there some dispute on this topic I am not aware of? Can I ask you to explain random topics too? Let me ask you, is blood a physical thing or a spiritual thing? Why would we say his blood is present if what we really mean is that his spirit is present?

2 Ti 3:16… An ad-hominem tirade about ignorance isn’t really a response.

Transubstantiation as a tradition? Yes, pretty much all the fathers listed the reality of the bread and wine as Christ’s flesh and blood. If you want to label that as transubstantiation, I don’t have a problem with it particularly, although that term is of RC origin. We have no answer about why his blood should be spiritually present, or even what such an odd concept would entail.

I don’t understand your point about who claims to be the true church? Maybe because your point is actually bogus.

You want a source that “the Apostles bow and worship the remaining bread that they cannot consume, because they were already full.”. Maybe if anyone in the history of the world made such a claim, we could look into it, what say you?

You refuse to to tell us how sola scripture will work, because you’ve issued a random request for me to explain what flesh and spirit is? Really?

******Another I could refer to is Christmation which was mentioned by 2nd century fathers all over the empire, which is inexplicable if it was not of apostolic in origin. It is mentioned by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Theophilus of Antioch, Pope Cornelius, Cyprian, Firmilianus of Caesarea, Origen, St Hippolytus, Cyril of Jerusalum, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Ambrosius, Didymus the Blind, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine and I’m sure others. That covers everything in early Christianity, both in time and geographically. ****

Is it Christmation or chrismation? Because I was new to that word, and when checking up on the dictionary it shows only chrismation, meaning putting Holy Oil on somebody. Is that right? So if it’s right is that nowhere similar to some practice in the scripture? And more importantly, is that the kind of Tradition with the others you mentioned having the same authority with scripture or just a practice existed from the authority of Tradition, but not scripture?

Now I kind of misunderstanding the meaning of Tradition in your context, thus still believe in Sola scriptura, and agreed with this following quotation:

“And then you turn around and find out that Eastern Orthodox polemicists use exactly the same arguments in favor of what they call their ‘Holy Tradition’ which is contrary to papal tradition. And so here you have two august Christian bodies (professedly Christian bodies) claiming the authority of tradition, and yet their authorities conflict with each other; their traditions conflict with each other. And yet, they laugh at Protestants for their ‘paper’ pope.”

So, because I cannot understand you on the word Tradition, I want you then to answer these following questions I took from the same source I quoted above in order to get your point:

What is it precisely that your Church accepts as a source of doctrinal truth and authority in addition to the Scriptures?

What is it that you accept?

What is it you would add to the Scripture? What do you mean by tradition?

“What are the proper bounds of authoritative tradition?”
Has all oral tradition now been divulged?

Has everything the Apostles taught now been given to the Church? Or are we still waiting for this to build and build and build?

Is tradition limited to what was orally taught by the Apostles? Is every tradition allegedly something that traces back to them (the Apostles)?

By what warrant, theological or epistemological, by what warrant does you accept this additional source of doctrine or ethical truth?

Give me an example of some doctrinal or ethical principle that is (1) not already in Scripture; (2) not contrary to Scripture; (3) based upon what is properly identified as tradition (that’s what all these introductory questions were about); (4) is necessary in some sense to the Christian life or Church (necessary); and (5) could not have been revealed during the days of the Apostles.

Can you even give me a convincing illustration of something that matches all these criteria?

What is a believer to do when Church traditions contradict each other?

What are we to do with the tradition that was alive in the early Church that said Christ would shortly return and establish an earthly kingdom?

If tradition is authoritative, what are we to do with conflicting traditions?

I believe you can answer those questions and please attempt all.

And by the way, here is an amazing and more convincing quotation that I’m sure of to believe than some form of human wisdom:
“This Bible, or the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, are the only complete guide to everlasting blessedness: men may err, but the Scripture cannot; for it is the word of God Himself, who can neither mistake, deceive, nor be deceived. . . From this word all doctrines must be derived and proved; and from it every man must learn his duty to God, to his neighbor, and to himself.” (Dr. Adam, Clarke, in “ Clavis Biblica” [“The Preacher’s Manual”], page 64.)

And you know what? That exactly the reason why St. Augustine says:

“When, however, a meaning is evolved of such a kind that what is doubtful in it cannot be cleared up by indubitable evidence from Scripture, it remains for us to make it clear by the evidence of reason. But this is a dangerous practice. For it is far safer to walk by the light of Holy Scripture; so that when we wish to examine the passages that are obscured by metaphorical expressions, we may either obtain a meaning about which there is no controversy, or if a controversy arises, may settle it by the application of testimonies sought out in every portion of the same Scripture.”

Wait a minute, is not that also refer to a Eucharistic passages that you take it literally from the Gospels?

God bless all

*****You claim that the Holy Tradition of the church is “developed from men’s wisdom, a shakable and movable one”, but you provide no argument why we should accept your claim. In point of fact, Paul said to hold to the traditions whether in writing or taught orally. We know as a simple fact of history that the church had to hold to such oral teaching when there was no written Gospel. What you don’t tell us is why… the church having learned in its formative years to hold to such oral teaching… that it should have stopped doing such. If it were to stop, it would need an apostolic command to do so. Where is that command? There is none. Furthermore, there could never be one, because any apostle giving such a command would be treading on the toes of the other apostles, who for all they know, would be continuing to give oral teaching right up until their death. *****

First of all, do the teachings of men by flesh and blood inspired? Because if they are then we should follow even though they contradict the Holy Scripture which I believe you would agreed with me that the scripture is indeed an inspired one, because it is God’s word. But if not, how can we rely on those Traditions for our salvation?

Now let get on to the point, first, you said that I didn’t provide argument why you should accept my claim. But wait are you sure you want to accept my claim even if it is the truth nothing but the truth? I don’t think so. Never mind. Now let starts with your interesting comments, a passage from the scripture that you quote from Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians right? And please bear with me and listen very carefully. That passage says:

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

Now from that passage above, it looks to me that there is something wrong in your thinking , because Paul doesn’t say, “Make sure you hold on to the oral traditions AND to the written traditions,” does he? What he says is, “So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, WHETHER by word, OR by epistle of ours.” Can you see the difference there John? Do you have one thing that comes to the Church in two ways? Or do you have two things that come to the Church?”

Secondly, you said and I quote: “If it were to stop, it would need an apostolic command to do so. Where is that command?” There is none.”

In Matthew 10:40 and I quote:

“He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.”

“Jesus explains the concept of an apostle known well in that day. He was sent by the Father, and Jesus turns and sends the Apostles into the world. And He says “the person who receives you (as My apostle) in fact receives Me; and in so doing, receives the Father Who sent Me!”

So the Apostles were spokesmen for Christ, authorized to speak His Word EITHER orally OR in writing. The Bible tells us that what the Apostles spoke they did not do so by their own will, nor speak according to human instruction. But rather they spoke by the revelation of the Father and the Son through the guidance of the Holy Spirit! “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” He does not say, and those whom they receive you can speak words according to their own will and desire.

Let me quote an article by Dr. Greg Bahnsen which I used throughout this:

“…the one who was speaking this word had Apostolic authority! Remember Jesus said, “He who receives you receives Me!” So when the Apostles went to various congregations and taught, that was to be received as the very Word of Jesus Christ Himself. When the Apostles speak the Word of Christ, then that binds the Church.”

“But how about other teachers? Is their oral teaching authoritative in virtue of it being oral? Do they carry Apostolic authority? How about Dr. Bahnsen?…What if I were to stand up here and say, “I want you to believe what I’m teaching you because I say it?” Do I have the right to do that? God forbid! And you wouldn’t flatter me if you say, “You know, I think you’re right because you’re so smart, or you’re Greg Bahnsen, or you’re a minister in the OPC,” or whatever it is, “therefore I’m going to believe it!” That’s not flattery! I have no right, and you aren’t under any obligation to receive my oral teaching just because it’s me speaking. I don’t have Apostolic authority. Paul, on the other hand, did! John, on the other hand, did! And when they taught orally, that was the truth passed down from God to the Church.”

The Apostles authorized to speak His Word, not their own as I said earlier. That is exactly the reason why they can teach either orally or in a written form because we know God’s spoke in them. Those who were authorized later are to speak God’s words being deposited into the Church by those Apostles, because words of the Apostles are not from their flesh and blood but from God. And the only way to know such Tradition to conform or consistent to the teaching of the Apostles is by scripture alone. So later Traditions that are not conformed or consistent with the teaching of the Apostles which are in the infallible scripture, an unshakable and movable one, are not from God but from their own flesh and blood unless they spoke what the Apostles originally taught them, which I believe are to be found in the infallible scripture. Therefore, those who spoke according to their flesh and blood don’t receive them (Apostles) and so they neither receive Christ. The Apostle speaks on behalf of Christ, and I truly believe they cannot err, because they are absolutely chosen by our Lord Jesus Christ.

So let me ask you, do we have other letters or epistles maybe from Popes or from your Patriarch (?) in your Eastern Orthodox Church or from the Early Fathers that can be added into the scripture now? Because if there is then there is no command to be stop and you’re right, but if no other writings could be added now or in the future, then that’s it. There is a command to be stop. Do you get it? And by the way, you are right when you said that “…there could never be one, because any apostle giving such a command would be treading on the toes of the other apostles, who for all they know, would be continuing to give oral teaching right up until their death.” But remember the command is not from them, I mean the Apostles it is from Christ alone.

“In Revelation 22, verses 18 and 19, John says: “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.”
Anyway, there are some quotations too I like to share with you:

Jeremiah 23:16, the prophet says, “Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they teach you vanity; they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Jehovah.”

Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:

Indeed, in the 15th chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, verse 6, our Lord Jesus condemned those who, He says, “make void the Word of God” because of their “tradition.”

“he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition.” (Matthew 15:6)

God bless all

John do you or do you not hold the same belief with Romanism that after consecration the bread and blood changes to physical or literal things?

Can you be clear on that, because that is why I asked you to define the difference because there is absolutely a debate going on regarding the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Most of the Romanist I asked them that question elect not to answer. Believe me. And I asked why and they just give me an answer Oh the incredible mystery.

So are you going to say that to me too and elect not to answer? So please tell me which side are you on my friend; literal or spiritual?

God bless

******Why would we say his blood is present if what we really mean is that his spirit is present? *******

Could you please be more specific. I can’t understand you. Are you saying that you don’t believe in physical presence but spiritual?

God bless

By the way, Lutherans do not use the word “mystery” to explain the teaching of the Real Presence.” We say that Christ said, “This is My Body, which is given for you.” He did not lie, because He cannot lie. That is all the reason that we need.

“Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”

In the above passage taken from the Gospel of Luke chapter 24:39, Jesus explain the difference between Spirit and flesh and bones.

I know that you are not 100% in agreement with Romanism. But I believe you are on a literal sense as well. Am I right?

So is Jesus lie and contradicting His words at the Last Supper when after the resurrection He said of the difference?

*****Augustine always talked about a spiritual presence, not physical? Well, once you comment on my Augustine quotes where he refers to it as physical, then you might be enlightened. ******

Maybe, who knows, but seems that I had already deal with your comments and more on other blogs that looks physical in the mind of men. But never mind that’s another place. But don’t worry I will add more with your previous quotes that looks physicality and explain it to you.

God bless

@Ebouty, how is it you can write such long posts and I can’t, are you an admin on this site?

Chrismation. Yes, I misspelled it. Is there a similar practice in scripture? There is anointing with oil in scripture, but not the specifics of the practice that was universally practiced by the church since the 1st century.

Does it have the same authority as scripture? Yes, for the reasons the fathers say it does. Since you seem keen on Augustine, we may as well quote him, but I could quote many others: “there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles” – Against the Donatists 5:23

You say that two Christian bodies, Orthodox and Rome claim the authority of tradition yet disagree. Well Protestants and Mormons, or Protestants and Muslims claim the authority of scripture yet disagree. Are you panicking?

What precisely do we accept as a source of doctrinal truth you ask? The Orthodox church.

What do we mean by tradition? The doctrinal teachings of the Orthodox church.

Has all oral tradition been divulged? You can’t tradition something that is not divulged. Tradition means to pass on.

Has everything the apostles taught been given? Your question is self-answering, unless you know of any apostles wandering around.

By what warrant do I accept this “additional” source of doctrine? Additional to WHAT? I accept it on the same warrant I accept scripture.

You want a doctrine that could NOT have been revealed in the days of the apostles? Why would I want to provide such a thing? Did I say there exists such a thing?

Wow, don’t know what to say. Seems that I have to decide to whether to rest my case on Sola Scriptura and stand by the facts or not; and let the reader decide.

God bless you John

What is a believer to do when Church traditions contradict each other? You should look to the Church for its opinion about such cases. What should YOU do about contradicting canons of scripture??

What are we to do with the tradition that was alive in the early Church that said Christ would shortly return and establish an earthly kingdom? You should look to the Church for its opinion about such cases.

You quote Augustine about interpretation of scripture. But if you read Augustine in context, his purpose is to give a guide to interpreting scripture, his purpose is not to discuss whether scripture is the sole authority in the church. I’ve quoted Augustine before on that topic, and showed that he disagrees with you. As for his guidance on interpreting scripture, it’s fine as far as it goes on THAT topic, which is interpreting scripture.

Are the teachings of men of flesh and blood inspired? Last I checked Jesus and the apostles were flesh and blood, so I guess I have to answer yes.

If your complaint is that traditions were passed on by men, then I have to point out that so was scripture, and there are now some arguments about what is scripture because of that. Is Mt 16 scripture? John 7:53-8:11?

You say, “Paul doesn’t say, “Make sure you hold on to the oral traditions AND to the written traditions,” does he?”

What is your point? He says to hold to the traditions, doesn’t matter the mode, whether written or oral. I just follow what Paul says unquestioningly. Is it one thing passed in two ways, or two things? That’s a question for theological naval gazers. I just obey what Paul said and hold to the traditions.

@Ebouty,

You have tried pointing to differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church as regards tradition.
I would just like to point out that the Orthodox Church is the only other “church” recognized as a true church by the Catholic Church. To be precise, Protestant “churches” , Mormon “churches”, etc. are just ecclesiastical communities, not true churches. Catholics call the Orthodox Church the “other lung” of THE Church of Christ. She has a valid priesthood and sacraments, including the true Eucharist. The main difference between the two (Catholic and Orthodox) is the primacy of the successor of Peter, along with other finer points, and some points that are just differences in historical custom. But a Catholic could technically receive communion at an Orthodox Church, and receive absolution from an Orthodox priest if necessary.

My point to you is that there is no point trying to pick at the differences in Eucharistic traditions in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. As far the Catholic is concerned, there is no critical difference, and I am almost certain it is the same for the Orthodox.

*******@Ebouty, how is it you can write such long posts and I can’t, are you an admin on this site? *******

No John, I’m not an Administrator, I’m just one like you, but it looks like if you are a truth Seeker the knowledge God gave you will be useful. But if it just for your bias without a will to seek for the truth then that knowledge won’t work for His will. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be open. Just an opinion.

God bless you

@Ebouty You say that Mt 10:40 is a command to stop holding to the oral traditions? But you already admitted that the 1st century church by necessity followed the oral Apostolic teaching, and Mt 10:40 is a quote from Jesus that predates the church. So are you saying the church was in apostasy from AD 30 onwards?

There’s several other problems with your reasoning. Firstly I would take it that Jesus is expressing a general principle. If they accept me, they’ll accept the ones I sent, You. The principle extends that if they accept You, they’ll accept the ones you send too, ad infinitum.

Secondly, the apostles couldn’t be everywhere at once. An apostle might visit… oh say Corinth, give their oral teaching, and then move on. I take it that when the apostle left Corinth, the church didn’t hang out the “WE’RE FULL” sign, and ask any enquirers to come back later when an apostle is available. NO! People were joining the church all the time, and they were expected to hold to the oral tradition of the church, NEVERMIND there was no apostle available to give it first hand.

If you stop with the polemics for two seconds, you’ll realise this is a fact, and that holding to the oral traditions was never a command to only hold to them when received first hand. The church followed this practice BY NECESSITY, and you haven’t given us any verse saying that they should ever stop. Therefore, by sheer force of logic, your premise is untenable.

So your question about whether I have new pages from patriarches to add to scripture carries with it the false assumption that there aren’t oral teachings from the apostles and we can’t pass them on orally.

Rev 22:18, even Protestants acknowledge that it is a statement about Revelation. Anyway, Revelation was accepted into the canon very late, it can hardly be a command about cessation of oral tradition.

Jesus said not to “make void the Word of God” because of their “tradition.” That’s true. But he also followed non-biblical traditions. Like he followed the non-biblical feast of Hanukkah in Jn 10:22. There’s a difference between the Holy Tradition, and ungodly traditions. Just because feel unsure of the difference, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

You ask if “after consecration the bread and blood changes to physical or literal things?

That’s a very vague and ill expressed question. I don’t even understand the meaning of your question. I believe that after consecration it becomes the body and blood of Christ.

You say you don’t understand my question “Why would we say his blood is present if what we really mean is that his spirit is present?”

The point is, blood is a physical thing by its nature. It’s not a spiritual thing. As you quote, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”

He asks Thomas to touch, because a spirit can’t be touched. The bread and wine is physical, not spiritual. If Jesus wanted a spiritual presence, he wouldn’t want a physical manifestation. Because “handle me and see”. A spirit can’t be handled, can’t be touched. That’s Jesus’ teaching.

Why the hurry? Are you going to catch someone. If you do that then it will lead you into trouble. Don’t panic.

But I believe that that can be possible if you are a Scholar, but if not, which I believe you are not, if my guess is right from your answers, then you should take your time to answer one at a time. I’m not a Scholar or an Apologist. I’m just a truth Seeker.

Will respond to you soon on your last post.

Oh by the way, you still not tell me whether you are a literal or Spiritual Defender.

God bless

*****You ask if “after consecration the bread and blood changes to physical or literal things? That’s a very vague and ill expressed question. I don’t even understand the meaning of your question. I believe that after consecration it becomes the body and blood of Christ.**

I like to post these comments in order to understand you, because if I said literal, you don’t believe it. You just believe that after the consecration the bread becomes the Body of Christ.

This is your Church belief:

During the Eucharist, the Priest calls down the Holy Spirit (in Greek: epiklesis) upon the gifts (the bread and the wine). They then change into the actual body and blood of Christ. The precise way in which this happens is a divine mystery.

WHAT ACTUAL BODY YOUR CHURCH REFERRING TO? CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME?

Here is the belief of the Catholic Church:

As in Orthodoxy, the Priest invokes the Holy Spirit during the Mass. However, the consecration becomes effective through the Priest, who acts in the person of Christ. The gifts change completely into Christ’s body and blood and this change is termed ‘Transubstantiation’ i.e. the outward appearance remains the same, but the substance changes.

This (Catholic belief) to me seems to go further beyond your belief, because I know they mean the bread to be His real Flesh in a literal and physical. I know that from other Catholic Apologists I made a conversation with them.

Now just explain to me what you mean by ACTUAL BODY.

God bless

John it looks like you don’t know what you have said. You mentioned about St. Augustine as a proponent to the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, AND then in some place you said “That’s a very vague and ill expressed question. I don’t even understand the meaning of your question” when I ask you if after consecration the bread and blood changes to physical or literal things.

But wait I kind to know the problem. Let me rephrase my question.

After the consecration did the bread and wine changed to the literal Body of Christ or just a Spiritual presence as in the belief of Reformed Churches?

I believe you will understand that, but if not then I don’t know what to say. But I will also wait for your explanation on the meaning of ACTUAL BODY.

God bless