# my questions concerning RC'ism



## LeeJUk (Mar 15, 2009)

Hey well recently I've been looking into RC vs Protestantism.

So.. I've come up with a few questions.

1) Is it true when Catholics say historical Christianity, backs them up on the bread and wine not being merely purely symbolical? and that only when the reformation happened did this idea of it being symbolical come into the equation. e.g. those who learned from the apostles and church Fathers, had more RC views?

2) How do protestants respond to the Scott Hahn's interpretation that 
there is a sheol in the OT which where the wicked and the saved went, and this is "hades" in the NT seperated from gehenna. and so this he claims (according to him the church fathers agree) that the 1 cor 3:10 is talking about hades where Christians will be basically purified and hades=purgatory.



TY.


----------



## LeeJUk (Mar 15, 2009)

ok hold the phone here...



> Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD
> 
> "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again... Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Epistle to the Smyreans)
> 
> ...




It would seem they are right?


----------



## Hippo (Mar 15, 2009)

LeeJUk said:


> 1) Is it true when Catholics say historical Christianity, backs them up on the bread and wine not being merely purely symbolical? and that only when the reformation happened did this idea of it being symbolical come into the equation. e.g. those who learned from the apostles and church Fathers, had more RC views?



Not just historic Christianity, Luther, Calvin and the whole reformed tradition did not think that the bread and wine are purely symbolic. Of course the anabaptists and perhaps Zwingli may have disagreed.


----------



## LeeJUk (Mar 15, 2009)

uhhh i always assumed that the reason mass was blasphemy was because they said that the bread and wine we're actually the body and blood of Christ...
therefore I thought we we're only really doing it in remembrance of the broken body of Christ and his precious blood, a reminder of him.

It's not something i've really looked into much but from hearing various sermons it seemed that was the reformers problem with it.

so was their only problem the fact that the RC's said that
1) it had to do with salvation and 
2) that the priest was "creating" Christ?


----------



## Hippo (Mar 15, 2009)

The problem is that the RC's believe that the sacrifice is being repeated, over and over again rather than it being a once and for all atonement. 

The key factor though is that it is a sacrament, and that means it is a mechanism for the provision of grace, that is after all what a sacrament is.

The reformers argued long and hard about the actual mechanism by which grace was granted and my feeble understanding is that Christ is present spiritually rather than physically at the lords supper (Lutheran) or that there is a spiritual dimension to the sacrament by which grace accrues (Reformed). 

I am happy to be corrected here but the key point is that the sacarments have real spiritual power that goes beyond our own sinful natures.


----------



## Croghanite (Mar 15, 2009)

LeeJUk said:


> Hey well recently I've been looking into RC vs Protestantism.
> 
> So.. I've come up with a few questions.
> 
> ...



Check out _The Roman Catholic Controversy_ by James White.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 15, 2009)

Something to remember also. There is a reason we stick to the Bible. The Patristics shouldn't be ignored but they are not scripture. If the Galatians can botch up soteriology in a matter of years, maybe even months, we should not be astonished to see men many decades and centuries later adopting sub/anti-biblical teachings.


----------



## Croghanite (Mar 15, 2009)

Here is some free information on the subject from Mr. White


----------



## KMK (Mar 15, 2009)

Here is what the Reformers believed:



> WCF 29:VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, *receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ **being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.*



Just as the elements nourish our physical bodies, so does grace nourish our spirits yet the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 15, 2009)

Or from the Belgic:



> Christ, that he might represent unto us this spiritual and heavenly bread, hath instituted an earthly and visible bread, as a sacrament of his body, and wine as a sacrament of his blood, to testify by them unto us, that, as certainly as we receive and hold this sacrament in our hands, and eat and drink the same with our mouths, by which our life is afterwards nourished, we also do as certainly receive by faith (which is the hand and mouth of our soul) the true body and blood of Christ our only Savior in our souls, for the support of our spiritual life. Now, as it is certain and beyond all doubt, that Jesus Christ hath not enjoined to us the use of his sacraments in vain, so he works in us all that he represents to us by these holy signs, though the manner surpasses our understanding, and cannot be comprehended by us, as the operations of the Holy Ghost are hidden and incomprehensible. In the meantime we err not, when we say, that what is eaten and drunk by us is the proper and natural body, and the proper blood of Christ. But the manner of our partaking of the same, is not by the mouth, but by the spirit through faith. Thus then, though Christ always sits at the right hand of his Father in the heavens, yet doth he not therefore cease to make us partakers of himself by faith. This feast is a spiritual table, at which Christ communicates himself with all his benefits to us, and gives us there to enjoy both himself, and the merits of his suffering and death, nourishing, strengthening and comforting our poor comfortless souls by the eating of his flesh, quickening and refreshing them by the drinking of his blood. Further, though the sacraments are connected with the thing signified, nevertheless both are not received by all men: the ungodly indeed receives the sacrament to his condemnation, but he doth not receive the truth of the sacrament.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 15, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Or from the Belgic:
> 
> 
> 
> > But for the support of the spiritual and heavenly life, which believers have, he hath sent a living bread, which descended from heaven, namely, Jesus Christ, who nourishes and strengthens the spiritual life of believers, when they eat him, that is to say, when they apply and receive him by faith in the spirit. Christ, that he might represent unto us this spiritual and heavenly bread, hath instituted an earthly and visible bread, as a sacrament of his body, and wine as a sacrament of his blood, to testify by them unto us, that, as certainly as we receive and hold this sacrament in our hands, and eat and drink the same with our mouths, by which our life is afterwards nourished, we also do as certainly receive by faith (which is the hand and mouth of our soul) the true body and blood of Christ our only Savior in our souls, for the support of our spiritual life. Now, as it is certain and beyond all doubt, that Jesus Christ hath not enjoined to us the use of his sacraments in vain, so he works in us all that he represents to us by these holy signs, though the manner surpasses our understanding, and cannot be comprehended by us, as the operations of the Holy Ghost are hidden and incomprehensible. In the meantime we err not, when we say, that what is eaten and drunk by us is the proper and natural body, and the proper blood of Christ. But the manner of our partaking of the same, is not by the mouth, but by the spirit through faith. Thus then, though Christ always sits at the right hand of his Father in the heavens, yet doth he not therefore cease to make us partakers of himself by faith. This feast is a spiritual table, at which Christ communicates himself with all his benefits to us, and gives us there to enjoy both himself, and the merits of his suffering and death, nourishing, strengthening and comforting our poor comfortless souls by the eating of his flesh, quickening and refreshing them by the drinking of his blood. Further, though the sacraments are connected with the thing signified, nevertheless both are not received by all men: the ungodly indeed receives the sacrament to his condemnation, but he doth not receive the truth of the sacrament.



As Dr. R. Scott Clark once said in one of his lectures, "with the Reformation the sacraments became Gospel again." Or words to that effect. In Catholicism they are law. Rightly administered they are confirming and strengthening the believer in what has been done.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 15, 2009)

Lee, these are certainly good things to be looking into. The difference between us and the Romanists is not that they believe Christ is present in the supper, and we believe it to be a bare symbol. The difference lies 1.) in the _manner_ in which we say he is present in the supper, and 2.) in the means by which the participant receives him. Also, as you hit upon, we differ on what we consider to be additions and distortions to the supper by way of the mass: they have added a sacrificial nature to the supper which we do not allow (for us, the sacrifice is one of praise and thanksgiving, whereas for them it is an actual "atemporal" continuation of Christ's sacrifice on the cross), and along with this, we do not attach any expiatory value to the supper itself, as they do. Another difference, stemming from the manner in which we say the Christ is present, is that we do not worship Christ as bodily in the host, as they do. But we all acknowledge the supper to be more than a bare symbol. I hope this was helpful.


----------



## LeeJUk (Mar 15, 2009)

I read the WCF and Lious Berkoff Sys. Theology just now, it's cleared it all up.

I never really before took the time to look into the matters.

Thanks a lot though guys


----------



## SolaGratia (Mar 15, 2009)

Also, there are these two Great websites.

New Testament Research Ministries


Christian truth || The Christian Resources Website (enter and go to Articles -> RC'ism)


----------



## MW (Mar 15, 2009)

LeeJUk said:


> 1) Is it true when Catholics say historical Christianity, backs them up on the bread and wine not being merely purely symbolical? and that only when the reformation happened did this idea of it being symbolical come into the equation. e.g. those who learned from the apostles and church Fathers, had more RC views?



I think you are on the right track by noting the symbolic view of the sacrament in contrast to RC realism. According to reformed theology, the sacraments are signs and seals, nothing more and nothing less. They are outward signs to the senses and seals to faith. When dealing with patristic statements it is virtually impossible to distinguish whether the reference is to the sacrament as presented or as grasped by faith; that is because the fathers had not come to see the necessity of such a distinction because their simple teaching had not as yet been perverted by the mystery of iniquity. The fact is, though, that they often ascribe the efficacy of the sacrament to faith, not to the opus operatum (the work worked), and so they must be viewed as regarding the sacrament as basically symbolic by nature.



LeeJUk said:


> 2) How do protestants respond to the Scott Hahn's interpretation that
> there is a sheol in the OT which where the wicked and the saved went, and this is "hades" in the NT seperated from gehenna. and so this he claims (according to him the church fathers agree) that the 1 cor 3:10 is talking about hades where Christians will be basically purified and hades=purgatory.



Basic linguistics shows that this is nonsense. Sheol and Hades are sometimes used in connection with the terminating point of life, or the state of corruption to which all men are subject. In such contexts they are not describing a place to which souls are confined but simply the condition of being dead, or, to adopt biblical language, a state in which the body is without the spirit.

Concerning 1 Cor. 3:15, "by fire" is simply a figurative way of saying that it is "with difficulty," Jude 23. The fact is that the apostle says the fire is the judgment itself, not a trial which precedes the judgment. Besides, the context makes it clear that the reference is to ministers in particular, not Christians in general, and this includes the apostle himself, whom RCs deny needed the flames of purgatory.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 15, 2009)

LeeJUk said:


> Hey well recently I've been looking into RC vs Protestantism.
> 
> So.. I've come up with a few questions.
> 
> 1) Is it true when Catholics say historical Christianity, backs them up on the bread and wine not being merely purely symbolical? and that only when the reformation happened did this idea of it being symbolical come into the equation. e.g. those who learned from the apostles and church Fathers, had more RC views?


Not it is not true at all. There have been diverse voices throughout church history on that issue. But the debate really heated up in the medieval period between Radbertus and Ratramnus, one arguing for transubstantiation, the other for a memorial-type view. It didn't become official Catholic doctrine until the 13th century. 



> 2) How do protestants respond to the Scott Hahn's interpretation that
> there is a sheol in the OT which where the wicked and the saved went, and this is "hades" in the NT seperated from gehenna. and so this he claims (according to him the church fathers agree) that the 1 cor 3:10 is talking about hades where Christians will be basically purified and hades=purgatory.



The Scriptures never depict Sheol or Hades as a place of purification.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 15, 2009)

If you can find them in a library (or I believe they may be available electronically), you might consider reading John Owen's short discourses on the Supper, which he would deliver to his congregation. These, in a very pastoral and yet highly profound way, communicate the symbolic nature of the supper (which, as Rev. Winzer emphasized, is all that can be said of the elements themselves, apart from faith), and the Spiritual reality which is received by faith through the symbols, and how Christ is present and received thereby. These discourses were perhaps the most formative thing in my understanding of the sacrament.


----------



## DTK (Mar 16, 2009)

LeeJUk said:


> Hey well recently I've been looking into RC vs Protestantism.
> 
> 1) Is it true when Catholics say historical Christianity, backs them up on the bread and wine not being merely purely symbolical? and that only when the reformation happened did this idea of it being symbolical come into the equation. e.g. those who learned from the apostles and church Fathers, had more RC views?



As an aside, please pardon me for giving vent to a _pet peeve_ of mine, but I don't think we ought to grant Romanists the very indescriptive title of "Catholic." I don't know of any group more "uncatholic" in spirit and in creed than Romanists who make such exclusive claims for their communion. In short, I don't see anything "catholic" about a Romanist. Moreover, you can always count on Roman apologists (such as Hahn) to twist the facts of history in order to try to make them conform to later Roman dogma. In fact, there is no language of the ancient writers of the church that is not subject to the death of a thousand qualifications when manipulated by the hands of Roman apologists. Besides, not all of the Reformers regarded the bread and wine as purely symbolical, but it is certain that their views were often representative of men in the early church before them. I'll offer just a few examples...

*Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): *Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, *This is my body, that is, the figure of my body*. _ANF, Vol. 3, Against Marcion_, 4.40.

*Augustine (354-430): *“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. *To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. *_NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John_, Tractate 25, §12.

*Augustine (354-430):* Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe on Him. *For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.* A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. _NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John_, Tractate 26, §1.

*Augustine (354-430): *The Lord did not hesitate to say, this is my body, *since he would give a sign of his body*. See Turretin, Vol. 3, p. 479. See also John Daillé, _A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers_ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856), p. 109.
*Latin text:* Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere, _Hoc est corpus meum_; cum signum daret corporis sui. _Contra Adimantum Manichaei Discipulum_, Liber Unus, Caput XII, §3, PL 42:144.

*Augustine (354-430):* Not in vain then was the voice of the. Physician as He hung upon the tree. For in order that He might die for us because the Word could not die, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” He hung upon the Cross, but in the flesh. There was the meanness, which the Jews despised; there the dearness, by which the Jews were delivered. For for them was it said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And that voice was not in vain. He died, was buried, rose again, having passed forty days with His disciples, He ascended into heaven, He sent the Holy Ghost on them, who waited for the promise. They were filled with the Holy Ghost, whom they had received, and began to speak with the tongues of all nations. Then the Jews who were present, amazed that unlearned and ignorant men, whom they had known as brought up among them with one tongue, should in the Name of Christ speak in all tongues, were in astonishment, and learnt from Peter’s words whence this gift came. He gave it, who hung upon the tree. He gave it, who was derided as He hung upon the tree, that from His seat in heaven He might give the Holy Spirit. They of whom He had said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” heard, believed. They believed, were baptized, and their conversion was effected. What conversion? *In faith they drank the Blood of Christ, which in fury they had shed.* _NPNF1: Vol. VI, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament_, Sermon 30, §5. 

*Jerome (347-420) on Psalm 147: *We read the Holy Scriptures. I believe that the Gospel is the body of Christ. I believe the Holy Scriptures to be his doctrine, and when he says, He who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood, although this may be understood of the mystery, *yet the word of the Scriptures and the divine doctrine is more truly the body of Christ and his blood. *If at any time we go to the mystery, whoever is faithful understands that if he falls into sin he is in danger; *so if at any time we hear the word of God, and the word of God, and the flesh of Christ, and his blood poured into our ears*, and we are thinking of something else, how great is the danger we incur. George Finch, _A Sketch of the Romish Controversy_ (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 170.
*Latin text:* Legimus sanctas Scripturas. Ego corpus Jesu, Evangelium puto: sanctas Scripturas, puto doctrinam ejus. Et quando dicit, qui non comederit carnem meam, et biberit sanguinem meum: licet et in mysterio possit intelligi: tamen verius corpus Christi, et sanguis ejus, sermo Scripturarum est, doctrina divina est. Si quando imus ad mysterium, qui fidelis est, intelligit, si in maculam ceciderit, periclitatur. Si quando audimus sermonem Dei, et sermo Dei, et caro Christi, et sanguis ejus in auribus nostris funditur, et nos aliud cogitamus, in quantum periculum incurrimus! _Breviarium in Psalmos_, Psalmus CXLVII, PL 26:1258-1259.

*Jerome (347-420):* Moreover, forasmuch as the flesh of the Lord is true meat, and his blood is true drink anagogically, we have only this good in this life, *if we eat his flesh and drink his blood not only in the mystery, but also in the reading of the Scriptures*. George Finch, _A Sketch of the Romish Controversy_ (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 170.
*Latin text: *Porro, quia caro Domini verus est cibus, et sanguis ejus verus est potus, juxta anagwghn, hoc solum habemus in praesenti saeculo bonum, si vescamur carne ejus cruoreque potemur, non solum in mysterio (Eucharistia), sed etiam in Scripturarum lectione. _Commentarius in Ecclesiasten_, Cap. 3, PL 23:1039.

*Jerome (347-420): *He did not offer water, but wine, as a type of his blood. George Finch, _A Sketch of the Romish Controversy_ (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 170.
*Latin Text:* In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum. _In Seq. Libros Adversus Jovinianum_, Liber Secundus, §5, PL 23:291.

*Ambrose (c. 339-97):* In eating and drinking the things which are offered for us, we signify the flesh and the blood. You receive the sacrament as a similitude; *it is the figure of the body and blood of the Lord.* You drink the likeness of his precious blood. George Finch, _A Sketch of the Romish Controversy_ (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 222. _De Sacramentis_, Liber Quartus, Caput IV, §20, PL 16:443.

Moreover, one of their own popes actually denied the concept of transubstantiation, as Turretin and others pointed out very often...

*Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496):* Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord’s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; *and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be.* And certainly the image and similitude of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
*Latin text: *Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Jacques Paul Migne, _Patrologiae Latinae_, _Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium_ 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1964).

See also Vol. XXIX, 1997 of the journal _Studia Patristica_, an article written by Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., titled "The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View" who affirmed Gelasius' denial of transubstantiation.

*Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. (notice, a Jesuit scholar) stated:* According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration. Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in _Studia Patristica_, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.

*Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466), commenting on Psalm 110:4: *Christ, sprung from Judah according to the flesh, now serves as priest, not himself offering anything but acting as head of the offerers: he calls the Church his body, and in it he as man serves as priest, and as God receives the offerings. *The Church offers the symbols of his body and blood*, sanctifying all the dough through the firstfruits. _FC, Vol. 102, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Psalms 73-150_, Psalm 110 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001), p. 212.



> 2) How do protestants respond to the Scott Hahn's interpretation that there is a sheol in the OT which where the wicked and the saved went, and this is "hades" in the NT seperated from gehenna. and so this he claims (according to him the church fathers agree) that the 1 cor 3:10 is talking about hades where Christians will be basically purified and hades=purgatory.



Rather than accept the assertions of Hahn, I recommend for your perusal the book by Jacques Le Goff, _The Birth of Purgatory_, trans, Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984). He explores the historical development of this doctrine/myth, and argues, I think convincingly, that the doctrine of Purgatory did not appear in the Latin theology of the West before the late 12th century. Here's an excerpt addressing your question in a few paragraphs...



> *Jacques Le Goff:* What was the nature of this purgation? The overwhelming majority of writers held that it consisted of some sort of fire, largely on the authority of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. But some held that there were various instruments of purgation and spoke of “purgatorial punishments” (_poenae purgatoriae_). Who was worthy of being subjected to such examination, which, however painful it might be, was an assurance of salvation? As we have seen, from the time of Augustine and Gregory the Great, it was believed that the only souls worthy of this “second chance” were those who had only “slight sins” to expiate or who, having repented, had not had time before dying to do peance on earth. When did purgation occur? After Augustine it was generally believed that it would take place in the period between death and resurrection. But it might extend beyond this period in one direction or the other. In Augustine’s own view, trials endured here below, earthly tribulations, could be the first stages of purgation. Others believed that purgation took place at the moment of the Last Judgment and generally held that the “day” of judgment would last long enough so that purgation would be more than a mere formality.
> 
> *Where was this purgation supposed to take place?* Here opinions were so much varied as ambiguous. *Most authors said nothing in particular on the subject.* Some thought that a dwelling place was set aside to receive souls for this purpose. Gregory the Great suggested in his anecdotes that purgation occurs in the place where the sin was committed. Authors of imaginary journeys to the other world were not sure where to locate the purgatorial fire. They were torn between situating it in the upper regions of hell, hence in some sort of underground valley, and placing it, as Bede suggested, on a mountain.
> 
> All in all, there was much hesitation about the nature of this intermediary place. Although almost everyone agreed that some sort of fire, distinct from the eternal fire of Gehenna, played a role, *few tried to locate that fire, or if they did were quite vague about it.* Jacques Le Goff, _The Birth of Purgatory_, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 134.



So much, then, for the claims of Mr. Hahn regarding "historical" exegesis.

Blessings,
DTK

-----Added 3/16/2009 at 12:35:58 EST-----



LeeJUk said:


> ok hold the phone here...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You need to be cautious about how you interpret the language of the Early Church Fathers. For example, Ignatius also wrote...

*Ignatius (@ 110 AD):* You, therefore, must arm yourselves with gentleness and *regain your strength in faith (which is the flesh of the Lord) and in love (which is the blood of Jesus Christ).* See J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds. and trans., _The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings_, 2nd. ed., The Letters of Ignatius, To the Trallians, Chapter 8 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 163.

People like Ignatius didn't always mean our Lord's literal body and blood.

DTK


----------



## SolaGratia (Mar 16, 2009)

The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View by Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. (Cited Above):


Studia patristica: papers presented ... - Búsqueda de libros de Google Nontridentine+View&source=web&ots=jd8Ck-Fnob&sig=rF_SpAhonnNOaN87_-_SFUbQOCc&hl=es&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

- Thanks to a Spanish Christian web-site where a Hispanic Protestant Brother was using it against a Papist.


----------



## DTK (Mar 16, 2009)

Thanks Gil,

I had no idea that the article I referenced from _Studia Patristica_ was actually online. I am grateful for your having provided that link. The article is very brief, and can easily be read through the medium you provided!

Blessings,
DTK


----------

