Protestantism existed as long as the RCC existed, but those protestants were not us. The Catholic Church did not exist until the 4th Century BC (it was born of the Roman Empire, not Christ).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Transubstantiation…
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
Jackson Dickerson
New Member
The Catholic Church was mentioned well before 4th century... along with her practices (do we really even have to provide references for this?) The vast majority of Protestant nonsense (baptism/reception of eucharist not required for salvation, sola scriptura, sola fide, etc, etc,,,) didn't even start until the 2nd millennium. In reference to the OP, why would anyone say that magic is involved in transubstantiation? Would a protestant say that magic is involved in procuring their salvation? Maybe I'm not entirely understanding the background of the original post. In regards to the cannibalism charge, i do like this post:
Are Catholics Cannibals? | Catholic Answers
Constantine became emperor in the year 306 A.D. If there was no Catholic Church before him, what Church were these men pope of?
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296)
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
Furthermore, perhaps you are unaware, but Constantine supported the Arians. If he was the Church's founder, why didn't Arianism win out at Nicea?
Why doesn't the Bible ever call Peter a Pope?
And what does the Bible say how a person becomes a Saint?
Saint Salty
Well, we know Peter wasn't a pope, but he was an Apostle.
The issue is not that there was once a catholic church but that there was not during the first few centuries a Catholic Church. While the Catholic heresy may have started with Constitine (as it was born apostate in principle), it fell by degrees as truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ was diluted and the Cornerstone discarded.
Jesus is the Corner Stone of Catholicism in the Eucharist, and Peter the Rock of Christ’s government on Earth.
Catholics have maintained, one and the same belief from Apostolic times, it is others that have scattered in their beliefs.
The catholic church (the universal body of Christ) is mentioned not only before the creation of the Catholic Church but also by Protestants in describing themselves as members of the catholic church.
The fact remains, however, that the Catholic Church was not that original church anymore than the Church of Christ is the only true church because of its name and false claim to antiquity.
Well what does antiquity say about the name, but tell of the same phenomenon that exists today.
“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life…–not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations…so does her authority…the succession of priests…[a]nd so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church…” Augustine (397 AD)
“The Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).
We can test this same phenomenon today, by asking anyone you meet in any place, where the Catholic Church is and see where it is they direct you.
The Catholic Church today is the same Church as these fathers, with the same faith and belief.
“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390).
Quoting these Catholic Fathers, Bishops in Jerusalem and Africa Cyril and Augustine, what did they believe regarding the Eucharist.
“‘And was carried in His Own Hands: ‘how carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.'” Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1,10 (A.D. 392-418).
“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).
“Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXIII:7 (c. A.D. 350).
“‘And was carried in His Own Hands: ‘how carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.'” Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1,10 (A.D. 392-418).
“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).
“Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXIII:7 (c. A.D. 350).
Yes, I agree the Catholic Church existed in the 4th century.
Do you think any of these 'protestant churches' looked anything like your modern day evangelical church?
Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist successionism are conceding that this “trail of blood” view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes:
'Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers.' (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)
Any bids on the third century? Before Constantine.
”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).
“’…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae ( ), 4 (A.D. 251).
What’s this Catholic Church Cyprian is talking about, with the Chair of Peter in charge in the middle the third century.
No, I don't.
I agree with Cyprian if "this oneness of Peter" refers to the "Rock" upon which Christ said He would build His church. We have to also remember that there was not "one chair" in the Catholic church until the 11th century AD.
I also agree with his conclusion regarding bishops or "overseers". A church is a congregation of believers under an "overseer" with Christ at her (the church's) head.
Read the early church writings. Take Origen for example. He strongly denounced the concept of the Roman Catholic Church in his rebuttal to pagans in Rome (when he explained the nature of the church). Granted, he would not have imagined Rome merging with the church....more importantly he never would have imagined the church merging with Rome.
Roman Catholicism, however, is not Christian at all. It is a pagan Christian themed cult. Thankfully there are plenty of people who are saved, not through but despite, its doctrine.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I’ll try again. Please answer this question…
@Cathode, @Walter, @Campion
When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper He sat at the table with His disciples, passed the bread and wine around and said “this is My body…this is My blood…”
Did the disciples literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus who was sitting at the table with them?
peace to you
@Cathode, @Walter, @Campion
When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper He sat at the table with His disciples, passed the bread and wine around and said “this is My body…this is My blood…”
Did the disciples literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus who was sitting at the table with them?
peace to you
Yes, Jesus gave Himself entirely in Covenant not just Body and Blood, but His Soul and Divinity, His entire Being.
This was the “New and Everlasting Covenant “ in Christ’s Blood.
This is Covenant where the one dies to give unity and life to the two. The Wedding Feast of the Lamb, and His Bride the Church.
As in the marriage Covenant where the individual dies and two become One.
Jesus was unassailable His whole ministry until that night when He gave Himself over completely in Covenant.
It was only when Jesus gave Himself entirely over to the hands of men in this Covenant that He could be betrayed to the power of men.
“ He who eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood, abides in Me and I in Him “ the Covenant exchange of Persons, where two become One in Covenant Communion.
“But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)” John 6:64
“After Judas ate the piece of bread, Satan entered him. Therefore Jesus told him, “What you’re going to do, do quickly.”
Better had Judas left Jesus and no longer followed Him with others that had deserted Jesus, than to later attend the Covenant feast without belief, and no garment of Faith.
There truly was grinding of teeth in the outer darkness.
Jesus Flesh is Real food and His Blood is Real Drink, ask The Father of Mercy for the Faith to believe, the Faith to enter this Covenant is only granted by The Father.
It was only when Samson gave himself completely over to Delilah that he could be betrayed and handed over to the power of men.
Those who eat and drink unworthily, eat and drink their damnation. The Covenant has great blessings for those who believe, but horrifying curses for those who don’t.
Believe Jesus words even when you do not see, and even when you do not understand.
With your eyes you will only see bread, but only with Faith you will recognise the Lord at the breaking of the bread. Believe Jesus words beyond your understanding, this is Faith. Believe.
Last edited:
I took canadyjd question in post 57 (which you quoted in post 58) simply requiring only a "yes" or "no"
So please amuse me - is the answer to his question yes or no?
I call you brothers and followers of the Lord because you have come this far in your journey with Him.
But the Lord is not the lord of half measures, He asks an extraordinary thing from you all, a total belief in His words, because they are Spirit and Life, and can only be received in Faith granted by The Eternal Father.
Who else can you go to, Mohammad, Buddha, if you want easy things to believe go to them.
Happy those who do not see me, yet still believe.
I would carve a side of bacon from me so you would believe Jesus words as little children. To realise your total belief in Him is to realise the Joy of your Salvation.
That Joy we receive, that none can take from us, is in knowing that we believed Lord and His every Word, for this was He sent by The Father.
But the Lord is not the lord of half measures, He asks an extraordinary thing from you all, a total belief in His words, because they are Spirit and Life, and can only be received in Faith granted by The Eternal Father.
Who else can you go to, Mohammad, Buddha, if you want easy things to believe go to them.
Happy those who do not see me, yet still believe.
I would carve a side of bacon from me so you would believe Jesus words as little children. To realise your total belief in Him is to realise the Joy of your Salvation.
That Joy we receive, that none can take from us, is in knowing that we believed Lord and His every Word, for this was He sent by The Father.
- Status