Saturday, July 25, 2009

A Few Texts From Saint Cyril of Jerusalem on the Eucharist


I ran across these texts by St Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures regarding the Eucharist. Recently some "Reformed" Protestants have used his writings to try and support their heresy of Sola Scriptura. In reading the texts in full context, I found no evidence of this whatsoever. In doing this research I ran across these texts pertaining to the Eucharist. Let me ask this simple question. Without applying any sophistry to the texts, who does St. Cyril appear to be in line with concerning Eucharistic doctrine? The Protestants or the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

7. Moreover, the things which are hung up at idol festivals , either meat or bread, or other such things polluted by the invocation of the unclean spirits, are reckoned in the pomp of the devil. For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ , so in like manner such meats belonging to the pomp of Satan, though in their own nature simple, become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit.
(no 7 from Lecture 19)

1. Even of itself the teaching of the Blessed Paul is sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, of which having been deemed worthy, you have become of the same body and blood with Christ. For you have just heard him say distinctly, That our Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it, and gave to His disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood. Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood? (no 1 from lecture 22)

6. Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you. (No6 from lecture 22)

9. Having learned 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 strengthens man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil , "strengthen your heart," by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of your soul to shine." And so having it unveiled with a pure conscience, may you reflect as a mirror the glory of the Lord 2 Corinthians 3:18, and proceed from glory to glory, in Christ Jesus our Lord:— To whom be honour, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen. (No 9 lecture 22)

For the sake of space I did not put the entire letters here. But here is the link to lecture 22 in its entirety so you can read it for yourself in full context, which I always encourage everyone to do for themselves. Many times I have read these "reformed" apologists on the internet mocking the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist telling us that it is obvious by our senses that it is not the real Body and Blood of Our Lord. Well, here we have one of their favorite Church Fathers that they quote twisting his words, telling them, "Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you. Not only is Saint Cyril not a friend to their position of Scripture Alone, but he is also not a friend to their Calvinistic views on the Eucharist.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

I posted the cyril quote i our recent exchange matthew which you never responded to directly until now. protestant apologists do not quote these verses to prove that they were five point protestants (five solas) or five point calvinists. the point of these quotations is to refute the claim of rome that the church has ALWAYS held to this or that position. if cyril believed in the romish understanding of the papacy, the magesterium, and tradition, would he not have appealed to rome or his own authority as a bishop etc etc? that's the point. we do not need to make the church fathers into protestants but the onus is on you to transform these folks into catholics which quotes like that destroy. that's the issue that you as an apologist have to contend with. I am sure you've heard of augustine's views on the eucharist, predestination, etc etc. would agustine have agreed with everything I believe. no, but then again protestants don't make the sweeping historical claims that rome does.

Matthew Bellisario said...

I disagree. Just because someone refers to the Scriptures does not mean that it is the only authority. It is not a requirement to run to the pope for every disagreement on something. Just because he appealed to another authority other than the Pope does not negate that fact that there is an ultimate authority of the Church.

In my company there is a CEO, and below him there are Vps and below them directors, and below them managers, etc. Just because someone does not appeal directly to the top does not prove there is no top. This argument does not hold water. So just because we have examples of people appealing directly to a manager or going to a director for a problem, now we should assume that there is no CEO? This of course is a secular example here, and does not fit perfectly here. But you get my point.

No, Rome is not making sweeping claims about the papacy. It is what it is. Just because people appeal to Holy Writ most of them time does not mean there is no Papacy. Most of the time when it comes to the controversies being discussed, Holy Writ contained the Revelation necessary to resolve the problem. This however was not always the case as we can see from the Ecumenical councils of the Church. If Scripture Alone had been enough of an authority, the Church would never have had the Ecumenical councils to determine correct doctrine. This is a poor argument in my opinion.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Anonymous wrote, "we do not need to make the church fathers into protestants but the onus is on you to transform these folks into catholics which quotes like that destroy. that's the issue that you as an apologist have to contend with."

Once again these quotes do not destroy the Catholic position. The Church has never claimed that every single Father of the Church would be in complete agreement with every Catholic doctrine. Also as I have demonstrated the interpretation and historical context of the texts is very important.

Julian DeGiovanni said...

It appears to me that when these Protestants find some quotes that vaguely appear to support their position they jump through hoops high and low to quote them. Yet when the Catholic shows the exact Catholic doctrine taught by a Church Father, then they are no place to found. Suddenly the Church Fathers are of no real importance. Such a sad state it is for those who remain outside of Christ and his flock. Sad indeed.

Anonymous said...

I don't know who said anything about the fathers not being important. the only point I made was that protestants can simply let them be who they were without having to make them protestant. it's one thing for a bishop to say "sacred scripture is important" it's a whole different ballgame to say " don't take my word for it, even though I be a bishop, test what I say through the scripture"
how else is one to interpret

"Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures."

which is not something someone who wants to argue for purgatory, indulgences, or the the fifth marian dogma can say. because... they're not found in the scripture.
and in regard to the fifth marian dogma, certainly not found in the early fathers either.
which is the obvious reason cardinal newman (sp?) postulated the dev/hypo... b/c he conceded this to be the case.

i'm very well aware that cyril held to doctrines that I as a protestant would disagree vehemently with, and if he were to present them to me I would simply hold him to what he commanded his students.

Matthew Bellisario said...

I would then follow all of his teachings in his Lectures like Lecture 18 which tells us that the Church, not Scripture Alone, is the one who teaches us all doctrine.

"Now then let me finish what still remains to be said for the Article, "In one Holy Catholic Church," on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly.
23. 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 ; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.

Anonymous said...

to say that because I agree with one aspect of a particular church fathers teaching that i'm bound to follow them all doesn't follow at all. are you for example bound to follow augustine's teaching on the eucharist? are you somehow inconsistent in that regard? certainly you see the flaw in this logic. secondly, that quote doesn't bother me in the least, where in that quote does cyril say that the church exercises some authority outside of scripture? not to say that he didn't make that claim in some other passage but not in that quote.

I simply point out once again the fact that I can agree with the fathers so long as they are in line with scripture and disagree with them where they diverge with scripture. you don't seem to want to accept this qualification or maybe you're misunderstanding my argument.

my point is simple, since you believe in submission to the bishops of the church, do you take cyril's exhortation seriously? that is to say do you give no absolute credence to what he says unless you can give proof of what he says through scripture? I know he said other things but will you test those other things against the holy scripture? (please answer this question directly in your response)


just to be clear I am not saying he was a protestant, i'm not saying he held to the five solas, i'm simply saying that the conception of aboslute authority that rome now wields through the magesterium was clearly not as pronounced in cyril's time as it is now. an

Matthew Bellisario said...

Yes the papacy was pronounced in Cyril's time. Augustine's teaching on the Eucharist is the same as the Catholic Church's. I am not sure where you are going with all of this. It is quite clear in my readings of St. Augustine that he held the Eucharist as being the actual Body and Blood of Christ presented in a mystical manner in the sacrament.

As far as St. Cyril's exhortation I just quoted to you part of it that tells us the Church is the definer of all doctrine, not Scripture Alone. Just because someone quotes from Scripture and uses it for an authority to teach from does not mean that it is the highest and only authority. It is God through His church that gives Scripture the authority that it has. St Cyril clearly has this view of it. He quotes Scripture and teaches his Catechism class from it because Scripture does contain a great deal of core doctrine in it. But Cyril in lecture 18 makes sure that his students know that this is all derived from the Church, which is the source of doctrine, including Holy Writ.

Anonymous said...

matthew can you please answer the following question directly:

"do you give no absolute credence to what (Cyril) says unless you can give proof of what he says through scripture?"

it is not a trap. if you believe "no" then say "No" I'm not conversant with exactly how authority works but surely you can disagree with cyril on this point and still be a good catholic?

I don't understand why you seem to be not dealing with the issue directly. matatics and sungenis don't have issues with disagreeing with certain fathers/ current bishops on certain issues. (although i'm aware that you may consider them fringe members of the church...??)

Matthew Bellisario said...

You are apparently not understanding St. Cyril properly. Do you think that St. Cyril was writing a blanket statement here when he says, "Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures."?

Becasue if you red what St. Cyril writes before that he is talking about one subject in particular that he says must be understood and proven from the Scriptures. It is the subject of the Holy Spirit and Jesus' baptism, which many in his day were rejecting. So St. Cyril is telling his students that the Scriptures are proof of this doctrine, which is clearly demonstrated in Scripture. He is not talking about "all" doctrine. He is talking about one specific teaching here. Lets look at the whole text.

"16. Believe thou also in the Holy Ghost, and hold the same opinion concerning Him, which you have received to hold concerning the Father and the Son, and follow not those who teach blasphemous things of Him. But learn thou that this Holy Spirit is One, indivisible, of manifold power; having many operations, yet not Himself divided; Who knows the mysteries, Who searches all things, even the deep things of God 1 Corinthians 2:10: Who descended upon the Lord Jesus Christ in form of a dove; Who wrought in the Law and in the Prophets; Who now also at the season of Baptism seals your soul; of Whose holiness also every intellectual nature has need: against Whom if any dare to blaspheme, he has no forgiveness, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come Matthew 12:32: "Who with the Father and the Son together " is honoured with the glory of the Godhead: of Whom also thrones, and dominions, principalities, and powers have need. Colossians 1:16 For there is One God, the Father of Christ; and One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of the Only God; and One Holy Ghost, the sanctifier and deifier of all , Who spoke in the Law and in the Prophets, in the Old and in the New Testament.

17. Have thou ever in your mind this seal , which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures."

So do I agree with St. Cyril here simply using the Scriptures to teach this particular subject? Of course I do. Because we know that anything written in Holy Writ cannot ever conflict with the Church, because they are part of the Church. So we can as Catholics can use Scripture to prove these things, and tell anyone who disagrees with them that Holy Writ clearly teaches them, and should never be rejected or conflicted with.

You see we as Catholic let the Scriptures be the Scriptures, which you cannot do, because you have to force the Scriptures to be something that God did not intend them to be. You force them to speak according to a human interpretation alone, rather than allow them to be spoken from within the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit that St Cyril talks about in his lecture here. You see St. Cyril making a blanket statement about all doctrine. I see him referring to a particular subject in which Holy Writ gives a clear example of.

Matthew Bellisario said...

I can prove that you are misinterpreting St Cyril because Later on in lecture 18 he tells us so, St. Cyril tells us the Church teaches universally and completely "all doctrine", not the Scriptures,

23. 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 ; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts."

So do you now agree with my interpretation and not Turretin Fan's abuse of the text?

Anonymous said...

(if you look at our previous discussion matthew, you will see that I posted cyril's quote before I was aware turretain did)

of course he was addressing one particular topic (when is any teacher addressing an exhaustive list of doctrine??) but to say b/c the statement was made in the context of one particular topic that it doesn't extend to others cannot be substantiated from the text. because in the line before (which now I will quote as well the next time I engage in this discussion cyril goes on to say)

" For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures;"

mysteries (plural) so to limit the quotation to only pertain to that on particular issue does't seem to be a very good argument in my mind.

and once again, I must say that the second post is an glaring example of anachronistic readings of R.C doctrine back into the works for the fahters. where in that quote does cyril ever say that the church wields this sort of authority over the scriptures with the bishop of rome as its head?" I as a protestant don't have a problem with that quote I would simply say that the church does all those things insofar as she is faithful to the scripture. now i'm aware that cyril did not make this qualification in that quote but you should also be aware that the doctrine that you're forcing into that quote isn't there either. i'm sure you can find tons of material from the fathers that would be more explicit in proving your position. but your problem is..... so can I. and that's where the wheels fall off.

you speak of private interpretation and who is going to interpret the infallible interpreter. if you think this is sophistry what do you do with matatics and sungenis? they all believe that they're interpreting the fathers correctly. who's right?
if you get rid of sola scriptura and replace it with sola ecclesia you still have to contend with the fact that they need to be interpreted.

Matthew Bellisario said...

So you admit that St Cyril does not put forth any qualification whatsoever on the quote I provided on the Church (Lecture 18), correct? So at face value my interpretation is more in line with logic than yours is. In the lecture when he is referring to the Holy Spirit he refers to Scripture on that doctrine, which is fine and in line with Catholic teaching. He never refers to "all" doctrine does he? No, but later in lecture 18 he does refer to "all" doctrine and he appeals to the Church alone, and nothing in reference to Scripture alone, correct? So it appears that St Cyril is understanding all of this as a Catholic would understand it, being that Scripture resides in the Church, not on its own. I do not see how St Cyril could be any clearer on this matter. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the matter.

As far as who interpets them correctly, me or Sungenis, that is irrelevant, because it is the Church who passes on this living Gospel not individuals and their opinions. So if the Church is passing on the Gospel infallibly, then I need not worry if every Church Father fits properly. I do however believe that when we look at the Fathers with the sources we have, that most of them fall in line with the Catholic church, not Protestantism. I think this is a fine example here.

Matthew Bellisario said...

As far as the Church goes, the teachings are clear. For example there are many definitions of Baptism and the Eucharist in Protestantism. There is only one clear teaching in Catholicism. It is because the Church defines it clearly. The Protestant goes to the Scriptures which belong to the Church, and then interpret them personally with no reference to the context that they were written in, so they come up with all kinds of interpretations of what baptism is. The fact is you don't know how to interpret the texts on baptism in the New Testament because you were not there when they were written.

We however as Catholics know the definition, we don't have many definitions. We know because the Church has lived and spoken in every generation since the Biblical text was written and before it was written, and constantly gives us the proper understanding of it. The Church was there when the text was written and it has been guided by the Holy Spirit since the beginning to tell us its true meaning. It is a fact that the New Testament has not always been in existence since the early Church, but the Church has been there, and it has given us Holy Writ. No man has the right to go and take thee Sacred Scriptures from the bosom of the Church and interpret them as they see fit.

Anonymous said...

let me try to understand your argument:

cyril says:

A:concerning the mysteries of the faith NONE should be mentioned without the holy scripture

and

B: don't listen to what I say unless it's in the scripture

he also says in his commentary on 1 corinthians I believe:
"Let us assert of the Holy Spirit, therefore, only what is written; LET US NOT BUSY OURSELVES ABOUT WHAT IS NOT WRITTEN. The Holy Spirit has authored the Scriptures; He has spoken of Himself all that He wished, or all that we could grasp; let us confine ourselves to what He has said, for it is reckless to do otherwise."

and on "face value" all these quotes are only pertaining to specific issues and not to other doctrines b/c he didn't say "all".(now the word 'all' is in the last quote and i'm sure that's not going to suffice)

and since we want to argue about words isn't "None" an exhaustive phrase?

regardless if we're going to get into semantics, he didn't say "all" nor did he say "some" so I suppose that leaves us with what exactly? b/c you're reading the quotation to mean "only these doctrines but not the other mysteries of the faith. these other mysteries will be taught later and the previous exhortation to test my teaching with scripture has now been lifted"

I really don't think that's a solid argument matthew.

Sungenis/Matatics:
it is far too simplistic for you to brush off those guys as not being relavent to this discussion. when you make the assertion that sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy, then you say you hold to the church's teaching to guide you, then you've got other folks (who you will admit are much more educated in church teachings than you or I will ever be) who are claiming the exact same thing that hold views that you would consider heretical, surely you must see that the onus is on you to harmonize these concepts. to say "well sungenis is not relevant i've got the church" overlooks the fact that if I was in a debate with him he would say "bellasario is not relevant i've got the church." I'm sure you see the problem?

I thought it ironic that you brought up baptism., it's very interesting you should see what matatics has to say about "baptism of desire" for example.

in regard to the other quote, of course I said that the qualification of sola scriptura wasn't there, I also went on to say that the current romish structure was not in cyril's quote either. you are making an anachronistic error by assuming that b/c he says the church does these things that cyril defined them just as you would today. what is the basis for this assertion? notice how i'm taking careful pains not to make assertions that aren't verifiable.... it would strengthen your argument to do the same.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Anonymous writes, "you are making an anachronistic error by assuming that b/c he says the church does these things that cyril defined them just as you would today. what is the basis for this assertion?"

Where did I say that everything he defined was exactly the same as I would today? We are talking about a specific issue here. Scripture Alone as the authority, or the Church as the authority. Saint Cyril is talking about the mysteries being defined in the prior text of the lecture, in which he tells them that they are revealed in Scripture and that should be adhered to. I don't disagree with that. This however is not a case for Sola Scriptura. That is my point. We can see this because in the very same lecture (Lecture 18 which you seem to be avoiding) series he refers to the Church as giving us "all" doctrine. Can you not admit that Cyril here tells us this? If that is the case then it is obvious Scripture does not give us "all" doctrine. Both cannot fulfill this role. St Cyril knows that the Scriptures and the Church are united. He knows they cannot contradict one another. He knows that when he refers to Scripture as a teaching authority it is because of, and within the Church that gave them to him.

As far as other apologists go, I am not going to get into pitting Catholic apologists against one another. The Church's documents speak the truth very clearly to each generation. The best the Catholic apologist can do is provide sources and materials pointing to what the Church has taught. In the process, I and others are sure to make mistakes. That is why we have the living Church throughout the centuries who speaks infallibly with the authority that Christ gave to it.

As far as others being better educated, that is fine. Education has its benefits. It however does make someone assent to Catholic teaching. That is beyond education. There are brilliant people who reject Christ and his Church. So what? There are brilliant and well educated scientists who reject God completely. So what? This proves nothing. You said that there are well educated individuals on the Catholic Church who I would consider heretical? Who would those people be? Examples please? Do their opinions differ from the Church has taught in her official teaching? I would like examples of what you are implying here. Thanks

Anonymous said...

my apologies for assuming something about your position that wasn't exactly true.

"Where did I say that everything he defined was exactly the same as I would today?"

ok so you're going more toward the dev/hypo then?

I was never quoting cyril to ESTABLISH sola scriptura. if you go back to the previous thread you will see that I simply asked the quesiton would a modern rcc bishop make such statements today? the point was that the conception of the structure of the modern-day church did not exist back then (remember a matter of degrees)

my whole point was to rebutt the "to look into history is to cease to be protestant" rhetoric that is used all the time by rcc apologists (I will grant that you've never made such an assertion but you've never explicitly stated otherwise

as far as the apologists go: nobody is asking you to pit them against each other, they've already gone at each other! surely you are familiar with the argumentation of sedevacantists as it regards the papacy? they appeal to tradition, early catholic teaching, etc..
it is truly a flaw in your presentation for you not to recognize this as a serious issue. if sola ecclesia is the remedy to the "chaos" of sola scriptura then how do you account for these men (and those who follow them) who prove otherwise?

Matthew Bellisario said...

"if sola ecclesia is the remedy to the "chaos" of sola scriptura then how do you account for these men (and those who follow them) who prove otherwise? "

I never said following the Church is a remedy for any chaos. We all know it is human nature to err. The Church has never set out to force people to adhere to its doctrines. The Church is similar to Christ, being that not all people will follow Him, or His Church. Christ did not promise complete unity in the Church among each individual. In fact we know the weeds will grow along with the wheat until harvesting time. What we do however have is a clear teaching from the Church herself in unity among the bishops and the Pope throughout the ages. This is quite different from assuming that everyone who calls themselves a Catholic is really living by what the Church teaches individually. We know Christ was God and the ultimate authority who established the Church, yet even with him there were those around Him who chose to take His words out of context. Just look at the Jews and their false accusations. Does this mean Christ is not the ultimate authority? Of course not. The Church gives us clear doctrinal teaching, Scripture is part of it, and we all would do well to spend more time reading her official documents rather than looking for blogs that agree with our positions. Apologetics from laypeople has its place, but it will never take the place of the Church Magisterium.

You wrote,
"I was never quoting cyril to ESTABLISH sola scriptura. if you go back to the previous thread you will see that I simply asked the quesiton would a modern rcc bishop make such statements today?"

I answer,
As far a modern bishop speaking about Scripture this way, well lets have a look.

"When exegesis—critical analysis or interpretation—does not appeal to theology or when Scripture is not the soul of theology or theology is not rooted in the Scriptures, then there is a problem with the way sacred writings are being interpreted", the pope said during the synod's morning session Oct. 14. Pope Benedict XVI October 14th. 2008

Does this sound similar? Is the Pope now endorsing Scripture alone? This is a perfect example of how someone 1000 years from now will cut and paste his words and tell everyone he believed in Scripture Alone. Then we could all argue about what the soul of theology was and debate his writings, which of course is ridiculous. Anyone living now would know that he did not mean it that way. This is the exact situation we have with St Cyril here.

Anonymous said...

i'll grant that the quotation of the pope and the application that followed was a tight rebuttal. although he did not take it to the extent that cyril took it ( I think since the pronouncements that brought us to modern day roman catholicism, bishops/popes would have to be very deliberate in their statements)

it seemed that the pope was arguing for material sufficiency there.. but i'm sure other places you could find texts that support "partim partim"

however I do see the point and I will use it for prots in order to make argumentation more precise. which you will readily admit, it was never my intention to take those quotations to mean cyril believed in sola scriptura as i've repeated many times.

having said that, I did find your response in regard to matatics et al still wanting. I will say that you do not use the rhetoric that most rcc apologists do (keating, armstrong, etc..) but this leaves you in a position between a rock and a hard place in my mind. statements such as

"What we do however have is a clear teaching from the Church herself in unity among the bishops and the Pope throughout the ages"

you really should avoid claims like this. unity of bishops? the same unified body who condemned honorious as a heretic??

btw..are you familiar with the argumentation of sedevacantists?

Matthew Bellisario said...

In regards to sedevacantists, I know some of their arguments. I have watched the Sungenis debate with John Lane and so forth. But I am not an expert on the subject by any means.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Also, thanks for coming by and keeping up the quality discussions. It is refreshing to have someone come by and really honestly put forth some good arguments. Even if we do not agree we can still bring forth some good points to ponder.