Just like with the Bible, you fanatics look at writings and decide whatever you desire to believe.<quoted text>
O my goodness Dust Storm, Cly(also know as Liam?), Regina, StarC, Catholic Girl, Husker Du and AnthonyMN. What is going on here? The scholars you so eloquently quote have thrown you and your Roman theology under the bus.
The following information is taken from...
The words of the Lord from the bread of life discourse “Eat My flesh and drink My blood,” is, according to Clement, figurative speech. Given Clement’s credentials and with regard to how much he was admired in the church, it is not at all likely he was out on a limb here. Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time.
The Roman Catholic Church is in quite a predicament when it comes to Clement. They cannot accept his metaphorical teachings, and they cannot deny the evidence showing that he was orthodox. As previously mentioned, Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church. If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? What we do find is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture.
From Schaff’s introductory note to Clement of Alexandria – After Clement’s death, Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, said of him,“For we acknowledge as fathers those blessed saints who are gone before us, and to whom we shall go after a little time; the truly blest Pantaenus, I mean, and the holy Clemens, my teacher, who was to me so greatly useful and helpful.” Cyril of Alexandria referred to him as “a man admirably learned and skillful, and one that searched to the depths all the learning of the Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained before.” Jerome said he was the most learned of all the ancients. And Eusebius described him as an “incomparable master of Christian philosophy.”
Such admiration and praise could not been uttered for a man that was anything but orthodox.
It is interesting how easily Roman Catholic apologists will discount any church father’s testimony if it does not agree with Catholic doctrine. What is worse is that the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a respected source for this type of information, completely dodges Clement and Origen on the topic “The Sacrifice of the Mass.”
“Passing over the teaching of the Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together with the restrictions of the Disciplina Arcani [Latin term meaning discipline of the secret], involved their writings in mystic obscurity…”(Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacrifice of the Mass)
In plain English, the reason the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia passed over Clement and Origen is because they both clearly taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said,“Eat My body and drink My blood.”
Origen specifically referred to the eucharistic bread and wine as symbolical.
However, when you are forced to use reason and logic you run and hide.
The Bible fell from the sky... the Apostle forgot to explain it properly. You came along and set every thing straight.
Now go beat the other false prophet, Preston over the head with one of our scripture verses. lol