/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I thought transubstantiation was a Latin thing only?

>>540302

It's scholastic but isn't necessarily heterodox, Orthodox theologians and councils have used it in the past.

<"For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.'

<Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood.

>being such a brainlet as to say Jesus sinned by leading the apostles to sin

>>540353

>For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life

so the blood of the eternal one would be identified with eternal life.

>Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood.

implying Jesus Christ's flesh and blood are similar to these wicked examples.

>>540363

>so the blood of the eternal one would be identified with eternal life.

Why would God give a command and then break it? If He is the absolute moral arbiter, then whatever He commands is moral, and whatever command of His is broken is sin. You're telling me that Jesus sinned.

>implying Jesus Christ's flesh and blood are similar to these wicked examples.

<, and from blood

>>540367

As are you in accusing Jesus of lying. Either Jesus sinned in Mark 14:22-24 or the Levitical prohibitions regarding animal consumption don’t apply to the flesh and blood of the Son. I know which one I find more likely.

>>540288

> valid priest

well according to St. Peter in his writings recorded in Scripture, every believer is part of the 'Royal Priesthood'* going so far as to say that even the laity have a 'faith of equal standing'** with the Apostles, such as he was - so as part of that 'valid priesthood' having the Word of God rightly understood, since i use the prescribed form of exegesis that Christ demonstrated in His handling of Scripture; i must reject the heretical doctrine that Christ's sacrifice is being repeated in the Roman Catholic variant of the Eucharist: specifically because the Lord declared on the Cross that the sacrificial atonement IS FINISHED

but i am wholly convinced that The Lord is present in the true Eucharist where believers partake in the Body and Blood of Christ, being part of the body to which He is the Head, the emblems of which being the wine and bread, just as the waters of baptism are emblematic of dying to self and being resurrected with Jesus; so i receive communion as regularly as i may, confessing my Sin to fellow priests beforehand and doing what i can to make peace with those i have wronged or been wronged by, so that i might not treat the covenant of the Eucharist lightly and be judged for it

~

* 1 Peter 2:9

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

** 2 Peter 1:1

Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:

>>540368

>As are you in accusing Jesus of lying. Either Jesus sinned in Mark 14:22-24 or the Levitical prohibitions regarding animal consumption don’t apply to the flesh and blood of the Son.

<Truly, truly I say to you, I am the door of the sheep

<The words I say to you are spirit, and they are life, the flesh profits nothing

Have you ever considered he meant it symbolically or mystically? I swear, the lot of folks on this board are like the jews who never considered His words anything but literal, literal, literal.

>>540371

all three apply.

it's symbolic and literal in a mystical sense. His spiritual presence enters the food, although to the flesh it appears unchanged, the flesh can't grasp this miracle, you have to see it with spiritual eyes. Just like in Matthew 16:17 he says "Blessed art thou, Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens." The flesh profiteth nothing in that it can't comprehend his words, which are spirit and life.

Flesh can easily understand a symbolic parable, but he wasn't merely preaching symbolism.

When he said "the flesh profiteth nothing" he wasn't referring to his flesh, which is of infinite profit, the eternal word made incarnate. He was referring to the jews who kept thinking in mundane-worldly terms and couldn't understand how the Spirit could alter bread and wine at all, they couldn't understand the mystical nature of his words. So in John 6:61-62 he challenges them, "do my words offend you? What if you shall see the Son of Man ascend into heaven?" He didn't backtrack and say "this is just a parable of sorts" he implied this is a minor miracle, and you can't accept it? What if you see an even greater miracle? But still the protestant-jews couldn't accept this minor miracle so it continues: "But there are some of you that believe not…. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him"

>>540382

Why are you reading a later event back into John 6?

>>540288

6h7m33s

This doctrine leads one to idolating bread and wine

>>540398

Could you be more specific about what you're addressing and what your argument is?

>I guess it's honestly up to you and your interpretation though.

No, it really isn't "up to my interpretation". The early church writers affirmed the perspicuity of scripture, which we also see the scriptures speaking of. Therefore there is an objective meaning to scripture.

>>540386

because he didn't say "my flesh is of no profit" He said "the flesh" and "the flesh" in the bible has a larger connotation. It also refers to worldly-materialistic thinking that can't grasp spiritual teachings and miracles, to carnal passions, to earthly worries, and so forth. And if you read the whole chapter you'll realize the jews-protestants who were triggered by his saying didn't understand him spiritually, they couldn't accept the idea of something mystical happening to mere bread and wine, so they left. It wasn't a problem of symbolism, it was more than that. Of course there's symbolism in his words as well, but that's only part of it. And he let the jews/protestants leave because it was too hard for them to believe what he was preaching. It's not hard to believe in a metaphorical symbol, it's hard to believe in a spiritual mystery. And he didn't contradict their doubt or clarify it, he doubled down and asked them why are you offended by this? How about if you see the son of man ascend into heaven, what then? His point is that there is something miraculous happening here so he draws the parallel of the ascension. There's nothing miraculous about a metaphorical symbol.

>>540392

And here's a 12min and 13min audio refuting reformed heresies and misunderstandings.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/john_663_and_the_eucharist

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/john_663_and_the_eucharist_-_part_2

>>540401

Except of course, early church writers like Justin and Irenaeus also believe in free will which the author of that video denies.

And let's face it, Reformed arent gonna appeal to some established Creed or succession when arguing doctrine and better yet, the clarity of Scripture in Irenaeus for instance refers to clarity when it is read in its proper order through the rule of faith, not the Protestant version of clearness

>>540392

Here, Justin Martyr worship bread and wine

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία1910[the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.1

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxvi.html

>>540392

Why was he banned?

>>540382

>The flesh profiteth nothing in that it can't comprehend his words

The flesh profiteth nothing refers to the fleshly interpretation of His words. The Jews thought He was telling them to eat His flesh the same way you eat anything else. His point is that this wouldn't do them any good, if they were to chop off His arm and start chowin down it wouldn't be of any avail to them. But He says that it is the Spirit that gives life, and the words He has spoken are spirit and life. This he says to clarify what He has meant this whole time, eternal life comes from the Spirit, and that eating which brings eternal life is spiritual. So if He were to turn bread into His flesh we would gain nothing by eating it, we must eat His flesh by the Spirit through faith.

>>540439

>And he let the jews/protestants leave because it was too hard for them to believe what he was preaching. It's not hard to believe in a metaphorical symbol, it's hard to believe in a spiritual mystery

The object of their unbelief wasn't His words, it was Him. He let them leave because that was the whole point, He demonstrated they had no faith in Him, they just wanted good eatin.

>His point is that there is something miraculous happening here

No, His point was that they refused to believe in Him, because of their spiritual death. This is why He ends with "But there are some of you who do not believe. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father".

Are prots just ignorant of the ecumenical councils or what?

>>540512

The truth is as offensive as always. The Mass involves worshipping bread and wine because of the belief that Jesus is transubstantiated in them.

>>540439

>And if you read the whole chapter you'll realize the jews-protestants who were triggered by his saying didn't understand him spiritually, they couldn't accept the idea of something mystical happening to mere bread and wine, so they left.

>And if you read the whole chapter

>mere bread and wine

I just read the whole chapter of John 6. The bread from heaven that he talks about is himself. And there is no mention whatsoever of wine, so you are simply reading these elements into the passage when they aren't there.

As early as verse 27, Jesus tells them "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life," so we see that it's not any physical bread being referred to, but his flesh that is present, which he clarifies again in verse 63 is of the spirit and not physical eating.

In Matthew 16:6-7 the disciples get similarly confused by Jesus.

>His point is that there is something miraculous happening here so he draws the parallel of the ascension. There's nothing miraculous about a metaphorical symbol.

Are you talking about eucharist again? I just got done explaining why John 6 is unrelated to this. I hope that point gets across, if nothing else.

This is talking about hearing and believing the word of God, which is spiritual food and drink. It is even more important than the ordinances, because it is a necessary prerequisite to them.

John 6:35

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

>>540603

I'm the one and same poster, it just seems that my IP changed around the time of the ban.

>It would be nice if we could have a real discussion about this, and come to a conclusion on whether or not it's actually idolatry.

I don't think that's going to really happen due to the nature of the discussion, it'll be a stinky mess where people just yell "NO U" at each other. Of course, if we actually had maturity, we could do it.

>If anyone has any material on Idolatry itself i'd be interested in reading.

Here's a link to a reformed site with all kinds of sermon, etc from many authors. I don't know of many books, but the documentary I posted earlier does cite references to each source used when speaking of whatever it speaks, so you might also go there if you fancy.

https://www.monergism.com/topics/sin-temptation/idolatry

>>540603

>he didn't attack Catholics with a baseless attack.

That's why they had to change the old rules which said no baseless attacks. Now the rule os "be charitable," according to them.

>>540614

Did they actually do that? Huh, never noticed. Are we actually supposed to get any arguing done like this? I for one hold (trigger warning for you mods and catholics) that the RCC does not have the Gospel but I do try and prove it instead of just putting it out there. As with everything I guess it's a matter of mincing your words so that you can argue "Grace is unmerited, as is faith, but the RCC claims you can have merited grace and you yourself must decide for faith in the end" where the end result would be what I just said I believe about the gospel, but not actually saying it.

>>540619

It's basically don't be too effective or too direct in arguing against someone's conviction no matter how demonstrably correct you are. If you don't leave the reader an obvious escape from your conclusion somewhere, you will most likely be banned. But I can live with this.

>>540619

RC's don't believe that and you know it, you just look for anything to bash that has even a hint of apostolic backing to it.

>>540619

What Orthodox believe, and presumably what RC's believe, is that salvation is a process, not just a one time event. It's about working with God; God being the prime mover, giving us the grace necessary, and giving us the faith necessary because faith itself is a free gift. Man is in an infantile like state, but by Theosis, we can become like God. THIS is what salvation is. Protestants, and even RC's, have made salvation out to be getting to go to a place with pearly gates guarded by angels and overlooked by St. Peter. Orthodox have preserved the true gospel, and so have Eastern Catholics in this regard, and a lot of the spirituality from Eastern Catholicism is making its way into the Roman Church as of late. Roman Catholics do still essentially believe in the same thing as Orthodox do on salvation, but they put less emphasis is put on Theosis, even though Romans still profess this belief. Protestants, on the other hand, have taken all the worst kinds of legalism found in the west and made it into a theology, fashioning an angry vengeful God out of it, disregarding any way of perfection, and making the idea of salvation nothing but a joke. It's the ultimate heresy of Protestantism that both Orthodox Christians/Eastern Christians, and Latin Catholic Christians fight against. This we are unified on.

>>540640

>>540641

>>540649

>Protesatan.

>you just look for anything to bash that has even a hint of apostolic backing to it.

>Protestants, on the other hand, have taken all the worst kinds of legalism found in the west and made it into a theology

You don't have to be so anally annihilated.

> Orthodox have preserved the true traditions, and so have Eastern Catholics,

Now here I could give you a quote from Eusebius regarding how images of Christ violate the second commandment, and how your church thus has failed to keep the traditions, but seeing how you're fuming already, I'll refrain.

>>540658

The authenticity of the letter to Constantia is very questionable and is considered to be a forgery by many. St. John of Damascus cited Eusebius in support of Icons. Besides, Eusebius wasn't always fully Orthodox. He held to subordinationism at one time, though he did eventually submit to the doctrine of the Trinity.

>>540658

>Now here I could give you a quote from Eusebius regarding how images of Christ violate the second commandment, and how your church thus has failed to keep the traditions, but seeing how you're fuming already, I'll refrain.

Are you talking about that letter supposedly written to the half-sister of Saint Constantine? It was probably a forgery. We don't even have the full letter, the beginning and end of the letter are completely lost. We only have any of it now because the Iconoclasts conveniently pulled it out of thin air to support their position over 300 years later. In addition, Eusebius was a quite heterodox person and may not have been representing what the Christian faithful believed.

>>540655

>Orthodox have preserved the true gospel, and so have Eastern Catholics in this regard, and a lot of the spirituality from Eastern Catholicism is making its way into the Roman Church as of late. Roman Catholics do still essentially believe in the same thing as Orthodox do on salvation, but they put less emphasis is put on Theosis, even though Romans still profess this belief.

That reminds me. A couple of trad-Catholics ganged up on me on Discord some time ago (common friends of a guy I know). They said theosis was heretical and a Buddhist concept. Lord have mercy.

>>540658

The only thing worse that playing sola scriptura with the Bible, is to play sola scriptura with the early Church's writings.

>>540669

>The only thing worse that playing sola scriptura with the Bible, is to play sola scriptura with the early Church's writings.

Go ahead and define Sola Scriptura for me, if you would

>That reminds me. A couple of trad-Catholics ganged up on me on Discord some time ago (common friends of a guy I know). They said theosis was heretical and a Buddhist concept. Lord have mercy.

Well they sound retarded, but it is just an effect of the Latin Church putting less of an emphasis on it, and sometimes ignoring it. But all the Eastern Catholics I know hold to it and put as much emphasis on it as we Orthodox. I know the Catechism of the Catholic Church is in support of theosis.

>>540671

Heresy.

>>540671

Sola Scriptura is, strictly speaking, using the scriptures alone as the standard for doctrine. To determine whether a doctrine is true or not, the only fitler of authority, so to speak, is the Bible.

Of course, this was a tongue-in-cheek comment in the first place. What I meant by "sola scriptura" was rather to base doctrine entirely and solely off the Bible, without care for context or even for other verses, and in the case of "playing sola scriptura with the Fathers", that would mean coming to conclusions based off one or two things said in Patristics, rather than taking a look at what they all say first (and that includes those who were treated as heretics, although it's difficult because their writings would often be burned).

The reason it's unintelligent (sorry for the harsh term) to base any one belief off one thing one Father said, is because 1) none of the Fathers are infallible, and 2) there are several writings that may or may not be forgeries, and 3) we Orthodox (and Catholics, I hope) believe that the overall consensus of the saints is what is correct, not what any one saint says, otherwise there is in fact no dogma at all due to the saints disagreeing on many points here and there that add up to mountains if we treat them all as having higher authority than they do.

>>540683

… but I must admit that some Catholics and some Orthodox treat certain writers as if they were infallible. Our obssessions are Chrysostom and Palamas, and Catholics' obssessions are Augustine and Aquinas.

>>540641

>RC's don't believe that and you know it

http://newadvent.com/summa/2114.htm#article8

>>540609

>(USER WAS BANNED FOR BAN EVASION)

Yeah, thanks for destroying the reply I was writing mods, when I didn't even do it intentionally but by coincidence of how my connection works. It's as if we're in a toddlers playground and you're some sort of nanny.

For all your troubles, you only get me now ban evading intentionally.

>>540683

Yeah, I was just afraid you have some misconception like many seem to have here about sola scriptura being "the bible only, and nothing else period", when you can actually still consider councils, writers and church as authorities subject to scripture.

Or it could just be that I am illiterate when it comes to jabs and humor over the net.

>The reason it's unintelligent (sorry for the harsh term) to base any one belief off one thing one Father said, is because 1) none of the Fathers are infallible, and 2) there are several writings that may or may not be forgeries, and 3) we Orthodox (and Catholics, I hope) believe that the overall consensus of the saints is what is correct, not what any one saint says, otherwise there is in fact no dogma at all due to the saints disagreeing on many points here and there that add up to mountains if we treat them all as having higher authority than they do.

Of course, I agree with this, it makes sense. I didn't know about "Eusebius'" letter being dubious either so that helps. Nevertheless I still have my apprehensions about icons because for example, they pale in their representations in comparison to God's actual glory in its infinity. I mean heck, man being made in God's image is still in its sinful state much more wondrous to me in its intricacies, but how much more so must God be compared to us?

You can ban me again now mods, I'll give you the ok sign

>>540706

>I didn't know about "Eusebius'" letter being dubious either

It probably isn't. The Greeks/Iconodules also claim a postscript of a certain letter of Epiphanius is fraudulent but the only argument for that they can muster is "We're doing this now, so this must be the way things have always been".

>>540705

Aquinas seems to be talking about the process of salvation here, hence him calling it the "increase of grace." This just looks like a scholastic way of talking about sanctification from an Orthodox point of view, and achieving full Theosis. If you actually decided to read up you'd see Aquinas arguing for the free gift of sanctifying grace as something not merited.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2114.htm#article5

It is my understanding that Aquinas's theology distinguished between sanctifying grace and actual grace, and this is an important idea to keep in mind when reading him. Though I am no expert on him, and though I disdain some of his scholastic theology, you really have to read Aquinas carefully to understand him. You, as a Protestant however, love to twist these kinds of things to promote your own heresy and further misinterpretation of true Christianity.

>>540706

>For all your troubles, you only get me now ban evading intentionally.

<nyah nyah nyah

Act like a toddler, get treated like one.

>>540720

>Act like a toddler, get treated like one.

You sure told me

>>540708

>people are remembered as being in favor of icons

>the clergy appointed by them remember them as being in favor of icons

That's strong proof against this or that writer being against icons.

Of course, some of their writings clearly giving anti-icon sentiments is a pretty strong proof that this or that writer was truly against icons too.

In the lack of more precise information (were there forgeries? did their successors tone down their anti-icon views on purpose? etc) it is inconclusive, and so we can only take a look at other writers who have taken a clear anti or pro-icon view without their direct students remembering them otherwise.

>>540718

>If you actually decided to read up you'd see Aquinas arguing for the free gift of sanctifying grace as something not merited.

And this fact was reflected in the original claim where anon accurately represented Roman Catholicism by saying "Grace is unmerited… you can have merited grace".

>You, as a Protestant however, love to twist these kinds of things to promote your own heresy and further misinterpretation of true Christianity

Thank you good sir, your words show appropriate respect and grace and have no hint of scorn whatsoever.

>>540723

>>people are remembered as being in favor of icons

>>the clergy appointed by them remember them as being in favor of icons

People 400 years later "remembering" a person's attitudes is not relevant to the explicit words of the person themselves. The fact 8th century Cyprus was filled with icons and Iconodules has no bearing on the perspective of the 4th century bishop of Salamis.

>anti or pro-icon view

I think it's anachronistic to speak of such things before the Byzantine Iconoclasm.

>>540732

>People 400 years later "remembering" a person's attitudes is not relevant to the explicit words of the person themselves.

Who said 400 years later? I'm talking about 20-60 years later.

>>540732

>And this fact was reflected in the original claim where anon accurately represented Roman Catholicism by saying "Grace is unmerited… you can have merited grace".

You're completely misunderstanding Aquinas and his theology though, even I as a Greek am able to recognize this. I think this is because Protestants tend to conflate all grace as, with what Aquinas calls, sanctifying grace. Now, as an Orthodox these particular kind of distinctions are not made either, at least not formally, but the idea is not opposed to Orthodox teaching, rather Aquinas theology is an affirmation of Orthodox theology through scholastic lenses and isn't really that different from the Orthodox position.

>Thank you good sir, your words show appropriate respect and grace and have no hint of scorn whatsoever.

No, I'm just calling you out as to what you are, that is, you're a heretic, and you are trying to find ways to promote your heresy. I am rebuking you for it. That within itself is an act of charity, otherwise known as tough love. Jesus wasn't afraid to call out the Pharisees and scribes for what they were.

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" - Matthew 23:33

>>540559

Ecumenical councils happened before the invention of the Protestant church

>>540598

Matthew 26:26-29. Eucharist teaching is more than in just John., in Matthew it'd very blunt.

>>540735

Do you have explicit and relevant statements from their own pens, or an oral tradition which was passed down?

>>540742

>Aquinas theology is an affirmation of Orthodox theology through scholastic lenses and isn't really that different from the Orthodox position.

While that is the position of modern Eastern Orthodox ecumenism, it is also untrue.

>No, I'm just calling you out as to what you are, that is, you're a heretic, and you are trying to find ways to promote your heresy.

Again, thank you my friend, the grace in your words is deafening.

>I am rebuking you for it

And doing so with no small amount of grace and reverence at that.

>>540771

>While that is the position of modern Eastern Orthodox ecumenism, it is also untrue.

Not all of his theology is compatible, and is in some cases down right heretical. I'm only telling you that you aren't accurately interpreting Aquinas in this instance.

>Again, thank you my friend, the grace in your words is deafening.

>And doing so with no small amount of grace and reverence at that.

You seem to be introducing the fallacy of appealing to emotion, which is not going to get you anywhere with your cause, heretic.

>>540783

>You seem to be introducing the fallacy of appealing to emotion, which is not going to get you anywhere with your cause, heretic.

I thank you once more for your grace and kindness, as well as your exceptional reading comprehension.

>>540800

Whatever heretic.

>>540288

who rejects real presence

>>540853

Baptist, Pentecostals, and most non-denominationals.

>>540708

Wrong. Except we know for a fact that they are fraudulent because the only genuine instance against images is the curtain incident which even by what we are given indicates uncertainty on who is depicted. In contrast, anti icon letters of Epiphanius shows extensive knowledge on icons which would not make sense given the unsureness we got from him in his letter to John. There are also marks of forgeries which further indicates that Epiphanius' works against images are fraudulent.

And also, there is really zero authority for councils and the fathers when their role as guides is not learning from them and seeing them as teachers but to cherrypick what they said. That makes their authority mere lip service.

>>540771

>>540658

That letter makes no sense in light of his positive assessment of a statue depicting Christ. Thus either that letter is a forgery or it is simply denying a specific kind of image.

And we have to wonder, if Eusebius is an iconoclast, why does he allow the creation of paintings of Constantine to honour him and depict a "representation of Heaven" in it?

Chapter 69. Mourning for Constantine at Rome; and the Honor paid him there through Paintings after his Death.

On the arrival of the news of the emperor's death in the imperial city, the Roman senate and people felt the announcement as the heaviest and most afflictive of all calamities, and gave themselves up to an excess of grief. The baths and markets were closed, the public spectacles, and all other recreations in which men of leisure are accustomed to indulge, were interrupted. Those who had erewhile lived in luxurious ease, now walked the streets in gloomy sadness, while all united in blessing the name of the deceased, as the one who was dear to God, and truly worthy of the imperial dignity. Nor was their sorrow expressed only in words: they proceeded also to honor him, by the dedication of paintings to his memory, with the same respect as before his death. The design of these pictures embodied a representation of heaven itself, and depicted the emperor reposing in an ethereal mansion above the celestial vault. They too declared his sons alone to be emperors and Augusti, and begged with earnest entreaty that they might be permitted to receive the body of their emperor, and perform his obsequies in the imperial city.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25024.htm

Not much later, Eusebius provides us with also evidence of prayers for the dead and veneration of saints which are abhorent to Reformed

>>540907

http://www.academia.edu/1619327/_What_Did_Epiphanius_Write_to_Emperor_Theodosius_with_the_edition_of_the_text_in_an_appendix_

>>540912

Chapter 18. The Statue which the Woman with an Issue of Blood erected.

1. Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there.

2. For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases.

3. They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city.

4. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers.

Chapter 19. The Episcopal Chair of James.

The chair of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour himself and the apostles, and who, as the divine records show, was called a brother of Christ, has been preserved until now, the brethren who have followed him in succession there exhibiting clearly to all the reverence which both those of old times and those of our own day maintained and do maintain for holy men on account of their piety. So much as to this matter.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250107.htm

>>540912

Chapter 48. How he built Churches in Honor of Martyrs, and abolished Idolatry at Constantinople.

And being fully resolved to distinguish the city which bore his name with special honor, he embellished it with numerous sacred edifices, both memorials of martyrs on the largest scale, and other buildings of the most splendid kind, not only within the city itself, but in its vicinity: and thus at the same time he rendered honor to the memory of the martyrs, and consecrated his city to the martyrs' God. Being filled, too, with Divine wisdom, he determined to purge the city which was to be distinguished by his own name from idolatry of every kind, that henceforth no statues might be worshipped there in the temples of those falsely reputed to be gods, nor any altars defiled by the pollution of blood: that there might be no sacrifices consumed by fire, no demon festivals, nor any of the other ceremonies usually observed by the superstitious.

Chapter 49. Representation of the Cross in the Palace, and of Daniel at the Public Fountains.

On the other hand one might see the fountains in the midst of the market place graced with figures representing the good Shepherd, well known to those who study the sacred oracles, and that of Daniel also with the lions, forged in brass, and resplendent with plates of gold. Indeed, so large a measure of Divine love possessed the emperor's soul, that in the principal apartment of the imperial palace itself, on a vast tablet displayed in the center of its gold-covered paneled ceiling, he caused the symbol of our Saviour's Passion to be fixed, composed of a variety of precious stones richly inwrought with gold. This symbol he seemed to have intended to be as it were the safeguard of the empire itself.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25023.htm

Eusebius the Iconoclast? Really?

>>540884

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

>>540288

I've never understood why protestants do rituals they don't actually believe have any effect.

>>540947

And in response to the heretodox and gnostics, St Ignatius said: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead. "

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

>>540943

Protestants are just playing church.