Justin Martyr on circumcision and baptism

 Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter 43.

And we, who have approached God through Him (Christ), have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God's mercy; and all men may equally obtain it.

Justin lived from approximately 110 to 165. He was one of the earliest of the Early Church Fathers (which is why this passage appears in Vol. 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 216). This demonstrates that the identification of circumcision with baptism is not a later development of Reformed theology, in justification of infant baptism, but dates to the earliest annals of church history and Christian theology.

(I found this here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/justin-martyr-circumcision-baptism-19299))

Justin Martyr's article: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

The OT canon of scripture

http://www.salvationhistory.com/blog/thoughts_on_the_churchs_old_testament_canon/

Good article on the canon of Scripture --OT

also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon

for example: Following Jerome's Veritas Hebraica (truth of the Hebrew) doctrine, the Protestant Old Testament consists of the same books as the Hebrew Bible, but the order and numbering of the books are different. Protestants number the Old Testament books at 39, while Judaism numbers the same books as 24. This is because Judaism considers Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles to form one book each, groups the 12 minor prophets into one book, and also considers Ezra and Nehemiah asingle book. Also, the Bible for Judaism is specifically the Masoretic Text. Protestant translations of the Hebrew Bible often include other texts, such as the Septuagint. There is also a dispute as to whether the Canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and Hippo.^[3]

see also http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html  This one gives a lot of quotes from the Early Church Fathers from the deutero

see also http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html  very long article--here is part of the conclusion:

We examined statements of Protestant apologists who argued that the Fathers denied the inspiration of the Deuterocanonicals. Although as JND Kelly indicated, the majority of Fathers cited the Deuterocanonicals without much differentiation between those and the Protocanonicals, there were some Church Fathers who gave lists of canons that did exclude the Deuterocanonicals that at first glance seemed to deny them as Scripture. Now the most common argument used by Protestants is that when those Fathers gave those lists, the Fathers meant to give the whole list of that which is inspired, and that which was left off those lists were considered uninspired. The Protestant apologists claimed that those Fathers considered them edifying, but not Scripture. We saw, though that even the answer to the solution was hinted at by Protestant apologist William Webster, who did argue that when those Fathers gave lists of canons, the term canon did not necessarily mean ‘This is all of inspired Scripture.’ The term ‘canon’ had various possible meanings, as he admits. Thus, just giving the list of the canon did not necessarily mean that if the books were not in that list, the books were uninspired. We examined one possible explanation: That in many cases the list of the canon only meant those books that are read in the Liturgy. It did not mean that those books left off the list were uninspired.

In fact, the supposition taken by Protestants that when these lists are given by the varying Fathers, (i.e. Webster, Rhodes, and Geisler), is proven false when we look at the writings of the very Fathers who supposedly deny the Deuterocanonicals. We saw quotes from the predominant Fathers who are cited against the Deuterocanonicals, including the one who is often considered the most avid anti-Deuterocanonical Father of them all, St. Jerome. He is the only one who said that those books were not Scripture, although he nowhere denied their inspiration. He later does term them Scripture, unambiguously through his own words. He applied the phrase “It is written” , which is only used of Scriptural books by both Scripture and the Fathers, to the Deuterocanonicals. He applied the term ‘prophet’ to a Deuterocanonical book. In addition, all the other Fathers quoted directly from the Deuterocanonicals and treated them just as the rest of Scripture. They used it for proof for doctrine. Geisler in his book had written:

Although some individuals in the early church had a high regard for the Apocrypha, there were many who vehemently opposed it. For example Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and the great Roman Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome, all opposed the Apocrypha. Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, 1995, p. 162.

Geisler even uses the phrase ‘vehemently opposing it’, in reference to these Fathers supposed treatment of the Deuterocanonicals. However, just in the index of the Schaff edition, which has just some of the writings of the Fathers, we saw that each of the Fathers quoted these books they supposedly rejected dozens of times and more often than not, more than 20 times in support of whatever they were teaching. We saw St. Athanasius, one of the ones who supposedly ‘vehemently opposed’ the Deuterocanonicals, call these very books ‘The fearless words of Holy Scripture’, and had the ‘Spirit commanding’ through the Deuterocanonical books. St. Jerome himself referred to or directly quoted the Deuterocanonicals approximately 55 times!!! They quoted them in proof of doctrine and did not make the distinctions that ‘while I am quoting them to you, these are not Scriptures’. These ‘vehemently opposing Fathers’ applied “Scripture says’ to the Deuterocanonical books. “The prophet says” applied to the Deuterocanonicals. “It is written” applied to the Deuterocanonicals. Those are tell-tale signs of unmistakingly referring to these books as Scripture that no one who is objective will ignore. I did not quote the numerous other times where each of these Father quoted and referred to the Deuterocanonicals in the same manner that they referred to the other Scriptural passages. And these are written by the ones who vehemently oppose the Deuterocanonicals???? Not quite. They saw them as Scripture and they saw them as inspired. You will never see the Fathers deny the Deuterocanicals’ inspirational status. I in fact even provided the quote at the beginning of each of the Fathers (except St. Basil, because that citation could not be found), which that are used by Protestant apologists to say they denied them as Scripture. I showed that when they actually wrote about the Deuterocanonical books, they only affirmed their equal status to the rest of the books.


the conclusion continues and then there is an appendix Appendix: Did Inspiration Cease for 400 years?: 
An Examination of Norman Geisler's Attack
on the Deuterocanonicals  

also here

from comment 110 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/09/scripture-and-tradition/

If I may add a few thoughts to your exchange. Firstly, I agree with David that the Jews did not, in fact, have anything like an agreed upon canon; and in that situation they certainly were not making the sort of claims respecting some delimited set of writings (inspiration and inerrancy of “the” 39 books for example) which Reformed theology makes for the 66 books in the WCF.

Moreover, even if first century Jews had made the claim: “this, and only this collection of 39 writings is inspired, inerrant and functions as the sole rule of faith binding upon on all Jews”; in order to avoid a legitimate charge of fideism, they too would have needed to provide a rational justification for that assertion. At a basic level, and from what I can tell, there are only three broad means by which a first century Jew might have attempted a rational justification for the conclusion that only “these 39 wittings are inspired, inerrant, and the sole rule of faith”.

1.) By affirming that some person or group of persons, other than God, had conveyed this doctrine concerning the nature of the 39 books to the first century Jew, or . . .
2.) If the first century Jew were to appeal to some motive(s) of credibility whose direct object was to accredit the 39 book codex per se as bearing a divine message, or . . .
3.) By asserting that God had privately and directly conveyed this doctrine concerning the nature of the 39 books to the first century Jew

(1) The (non-divine) person or persons involved in settling upon the 39 books as the inspired, inerrant and sole rule of faith, were either known to be providentially protected from error while coming to that identification, or they were not known to be protected from error while coming to that identification. If they were thought to have been providentially protected from error, then the first century Jew would have to admit that the 39 books are not the “sole” inerrant and binding rule of faith, since embrace of the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of “the” 39 books would logically require a concomitant embrace of the inerrant and authoritative (extra-canonical) human decisions by which the 39 books were identified. That admission would require – at a minimum – a reformulation of the first century Jew’s rule of faith. If, however, the person or persons involved in settling upon the 39 books as inspired, inerrant and the sole rule of faith, were acknowledged as not having been providentially protected from error, then there seems to be no rational justification for the claim that “these, and only these, 39 books are inspired, inerrant and authoritative”. For not only might some inspired and inerrant writing(s) have been left out of the collection, the possibility of error entails that some non-inspired, non-inerrant book(s), might have been included as well. The strong claim to inspiration and inerrancy of the 39 books would have no adequate rational foundation. The claim would have to be downgraded to a probable claim at best.

(2) Suppose the first century Jew did not wish to acknowledge any inerrancy or authority in the persons or decisions tied up with the identification or veneration of the 39 books within the historical Jewish community because he wished – at all costs – to preserve his OT version of sola scriptura. Rather than appeal to any historical person(s) or process by which the 39 writings might have been identified, he appeals instead to some motive(s) of credibility unrelated to that process. Firstly, it should be noted that nowhere within the 39 books can one find a reference to the list of 39 books per se as being inspired and inerrant. And even if there were such a written statement within the codex, such statement would provide no rational justification for assent to the claim, since accepting the inerrant and inspired status of a codex based solely on a textual claim internal to that codex is to embrace a conclusion which does not follow from the premise. Otherwise, any group of writings containing a statement attesting its own inspiration or inerrancy would have to be regarded as inspired or inerrant on that basis alone – which is absurd.

But that means, in order to secure rational justification for the original claim, the first century Jew will have to point to some motive(s) of credibility over and above any mere statement(s) found within the text. Now a motive of credibility, by very definition, must be a motive which is open to public inspection, otherwise it serves as a motive only for the one making the assertion (which would entail fideism). Moreover, as I’m sure you both already know, a motive of credibility is primarily ordered to making credible the claim that some agent speaks on God’s behalf. It is not directly intended to make the content of the agent’s message credible (though it does so indirectly); but rather, its principle function is to provide reasons for thinking that the agent in question is authorized by God’s to speak on His behalf. Once one has reasons for thinking that some agent speaks for God, then it follows that the message is to be received as God’s message, even if the content of the message is not directly open to reason’s vision. Hence, if an apostle after Christi’s ascension performs a miracle before an on looking crowd, that miracle serves as a motive of credibility for thinking that the apostle’s message is a message from God. Accordingly, if the apostle asks the crowd to believe in Christ’s divinity or the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead (realities which human reason cannot discover on is own), the crowd has justifiable reason to believe those revealed truths, not because the crowd can see the intrinsic truth of those revelations in themselves, but because the crowd has a justifiable reason for taking the apostle’s word for it; namely, the miracle that was performed. The miracle accredits the messenger directly, and the message indirectly, by giving a third party reason to think that the messenger speaks for God.

Now here is the main point I want to add to the discussion. In the Church’s traditional apologetic method – say as systematically articulated within the neo-scholastic tradition by writers such as Lagrange and incorporated within the teaching of Vatican Council I – what makes a motive of credibility capable of sustaining an inference to divine sanction of an agent’s message, is that the motive itself be explicable only on the supposition of direct divine action. In other words, the motive in question must be what the neo-scholastics termed “modally” supernatural in order to warrant the inference that the motive was produced by God. For unless we have good reason to think that some given motive of credibility could only have been produced by the direct intervention of God, we have no inferential warrant for thinking that the motive in question provides any divine accreditation of the agent with whom the motive is associated. That is why both prophecy and miracles have always held a privileged place within the Church’s apologetic methodology. The fulfilling of prophecy is a modally supernatural motive of credibility because it involves foreknowledge of nondeterministic future events which depend upon multiple intersecting lines of free will agency. Successful prediction of such events is a feat which no known secondary cause, or aggregation of secondary causes, can accomplish. Hence, it must be the work of God’s primary causality – its “mode” of occurrence entails the super-natural. Likewise miracles, whether miraculous by their very nature (such as a bodily resurrection), or miraculous through the manner in which they are accomplished (instantaneous, rather than gradual, healing) are, in either case, happenings which no known secondary cause, or aggregation of secondary causes, can accomplish – miracles too are modally supernatural. The supernatural modality of the motives of credibility is what provides the inferential warrant for thinking that the agents with whom such motives are associated have been sealed with God’s approval to speak a message in His name.

Now when I look at the motives of credibility for the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative status of the 66 books which are put forward within the WCF (such as the “heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole . . ., the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies . . .”), it seems that none of them require an appeal to God’s primary causality to explain. Every one of them – as far as I can see – could be equally predicated of the Summa – which no one takes to be inspired or inerrant (even if Thomas came close to the latter :>)). Given as much, they provide no rational warrant for the strong claim which the Reformed theologian wishes to make. I am not even sure what a modally supernatural motive of credibility underwriting a collected codex of writings as a bearer of God’s message would look like. Perhaps if every sick, lame, or blind person that ever touched a Protestant bible was immediately healed of their infirmity? I don’t know, but I doubt anyone has ever offered an account of a modally supernatural motive of credibility whose object was the affirmation of a 66 book canonical codex as such. In any case, as the matter stands, and under close inspection, the WCF appeal to motives seems unable to escape the charge of fideism.

(3) God could have privately and directly revealed the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the 39 book OT codex to a first century Jew. In such a case, that Jew would, himself, certainly know the truth concerning the 39 books. But as I have been arguing, if that personal experience alone was the sole ground for his assertions concerning the 39 books, that Jew’s argument could not possibly be recognized by a third party as anything other than a fideistic appeal. To avoid the charge of fideism, the first century Jew would have to either advert back to the historical process by which the 39 books were identified and communicated to him, or else offer some other motive(s) of credibility for his claim (options 1 & 2 already explored).

I deeply appreciate Jonathan’s attempt to think in Reformed terms and try and find a way to present the strongest possible Protestant argument by which an appeal to fideism might be avoided. I tried very hard to do that myself prior to conversion, and I have tried to work it out as a matter of logic several times thereafter. I surely do not want to criticize a straw man. But given the argument above, I don’t see how anything about the development of the OT Hebrews scriptures or the situation of a first century Jew provides an analogy which saves the Reformed position. From the standpoint of reason, and without any willingness to modify sola scriptura, I see no way in which the Reformed position avoids the charge of fideism. I realize that is a serious charge and I am happy to have my conclusion proved wrong. Obviously, even if the Reformed position were not ultimately fideistic, that would not resolve the question concerning the truth of the Protestant paradigm. Also, as David has been pointing out, the power of natural reason is a contested issue within Reformed theology. It may be that some are perfectly happy to bite the fideistic bullet. Nevertheless, as far as I can tell, from a third party perspective, the Reformed position is ultimately fideistic. (once the details have been unpacked and explanations exhausted through circumlocution).

{and then in the next comment he answers a question or statement:}

I’m not sure how this is much different from Protestantism. I, for one, don’t deny that God works supernaturally through the church to lead us into all truth. The question is how we recognize when that has happened. For Rome, it has happened whenever Rome says it has happened. Even then, however, it isn’t clear WHEN this has happened, as our continual request for that infallible list of infallible statements keeps getting ignored or shunted aside.

I addressed the objection you raise in this article which I wrote for CTC in 2012, and especially within the comment thread following. It may be worth a read (if you have not read it already) if for no other reason than to get a good feel for the Catholic response to the infinite interpretive regress objection.

Catholic customs and their Biblical roots

Fr. Mitch talks with Dr. Scott Hahn about his newest book, Signs of Life: 40 Catholic Customs and Their Biblical Roots.  Very helpful!

Worship

Part of what the Eucharistic worship is about---the Lamb is interceding for us before the throne in heaven based on his great sacrifice. At Mass we join in since we are in union with Him--we intercede with him for ourselves and all mankind. The veil is taken away and we along with all of the saints (in heaven and earth) are present in prayer.  It is one sacrifice--we take the words literally--This is my body ; this is my flesh.  We proclaim his death until his return.

  Forgiveness of sins requires application of his one great sacrifice.  His blood cleanses us. All of our sin are removed at Baptism when we are joined to Christ;and sins committed after Baptism  are forgiven when we confess our sins, repenting.  Mortal sin in which one looses sanctifying grace needs to be taken care of through reconciliation---Thus God uses the sacraments He has ordained to apply the benefits of His sacrifice.

from comment 83
 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/reformed-imputation-and-the-lords-prayer/ :

I didn’t say that this chapter is only about the procurement of redemption, and not about its application. The focus in this chapter is on the procurement. Step back to the broader context. In chapters three and four [hebrews] the author explains that Jesus is our high priest in the New Covenant. Because He is our high priest in heaven, we may draw near with confidence to receive grace to help in the time of need. (Heb 4:16) The receiving of grace is the application of Christ’s priesthood to us. To all those who obey Him, He becomes the source of eternal salvation. (Heb 5:9) Then, at that point, the author says that he wants to explain more about Christ’s high priesthood, but the persons to whom he is writing are still immature. He shouldn’t need to lay again the foundation about the elementary teaching about Christ, namely, repentance, faith, washings (i.e. Baptism), the laying on of hands (i.e. Confirmation), and tasting the heavenly gift (i.e. Eucharist). Those are the ways in which Christ’s work are applied to the believer.

In continuing to explain Christ’s high priesthood, in Heb 7:23-25 we are told that because Christ holds His priesthood permanently [lit. into the age], He is forever [lit. to the perfection/completion/entirety] able to save those drawing near to God through Him, because He is always living to make intercession for them. Christ, in heaven, now has “obtained a more excellent ministry.” (Heb 8:6) That ministry in the New Covenant is His intercession for us, through His once-and-for-all perfect sacrifice. He entered into the more perfect tabernacle (Heb 9:11), through His own blood. (Heb 9:12) There is a clear relation between Heb 10:14,18 on the one hand, and Heb 6:6 and 7:22-25 on the other hand. In Hebrews 10:14, when the writer refers to the “one offering” he is referring primarily to the procurement of redemption. In the second half of the verse, the “being sanctified” refers to the on-going application of that redemption to the believer. Objectively, Christ takes away sins once and for all by His once-and-for-all sacrifice. But, that objective work has to be applied to the individual person, or it does not benefit them. The one-time nature of Christ’s sacrifice is reflected in the one-time nature of the application of it (to us), in baptism, as I explained in comment #67 of the Baptismal Regeneration thread. Christians are to remain in the grace that they receive in their baptism. This is what is meant by keeping unstained the white robes we receive at our baptism. Baptism in this way is the application Christ’s sacrifice, by which the baptized are “the perfected forever [lit. into the continuity, i.e perpetually].” Through our baptism into Christ’s one sacrifice, we are in this way once-and-for-all perfected with respect to being translated from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of light, having put off the old man and putting on the new man, having received the Spirit and walking thereon in the newness of the Spirit. And yet through the means of grace we continue to grow in the life of Christ and partaking of the grace He merited through His sacrifice; hence the continuous, progressive nature of “being sanctified.” (Heb 10:14)

see this link on forgiveness- for more details on this forgiveness http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2013/05/forgiveness-of-sins.html

also http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/REALLYSC.HTM  this deals with the subject of the mass as sacrifice

here is a bit from it:

Please note that in no way do we as Catholics believe that Christ continues to be crucified physically or die a physical death in heaven over and over again. However, we do believe that the Mass does participate in the everlasting sacrifice of Christ.

First, one must not separate the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross from the events which surround it. The sacrifice of our Lord is inseparably linked to the Last Supper. Here Jesus took bread and wine. Looking to St. Matthew's text (26:26ff), He said over the bread, "Take this and eat it. This is My body"; and over the cup of wine, "This is My blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

The next day, on Good Friday, our Lord's body hung on the altar of the cross and His precious blood was spilt to wash away our sins and seal the everlasting, perfect covenant. The divine life our Lord offered and shared for our salvation in the sacrifice of Good Friday is the same offered and shared at the Last Supper. The Last Supper, the sacrifice of Good Friday and the Resurrection on Easter form one saving event.

Second, one must have a nuanced understanding of time. One must distinguish chronological time from kairotic time, as found in sacred Scripture. In the Bible, <chronos> refers to chronological time—past, present and future—specific deeds which have an end point. <Kairos>, or kairotic time, refers to God's eternal time, time of the present moment which recapitulates the entire past as well as contains the entire future. Therefore, while our Lord's saving event occurred chronologically around the year AD 30-33, in the kairotic sense of time it is an ever-present reality which touches our lives here and now. In the same sense, this is why through baptism we share now in the mystery of Christ's passion, death and resurrection, a chronological event that happened almost 1,965 years ago, but is still efficacious for us today.

With this in mind, we also remember that our Lord commanded, as recorded in the Gospel of St. Luke (22:14ff) and St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians (11:23ff), "Do this in remembrance of Me." Clearly our Lord wanted the faithful to repeat, to participate in and to share in this sacramental mystery. The Last Supper, which is inseparably linked to Good Friday (and the Resurrection), is perpetuated in the holy Mass for time eternal.

The Mass therefore is a memorial. In each of the Eucharistic prayers, the <anamnesis>, or memorial, follows the consecration, whereby we call to mind the passion, death, resurrection and ascension of our Lord. However, this memorial is not simply a recollection of past history in chronological time, but rather a liturgical proclamation of living history, of an event that continues to live and touch our lives now in that sense of kairotic time.

...................................The sacrifice which Christ made for our salvation remains an ever-present reality: "As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which 'Christ our Pasch is sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out" ("Lumen Gentium," No. 3). Therefore, the <Catechism asserts>, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is a memorial and because it applies its fruit" (No. 1366).

Therefore, the actual sacrifice of Christ on the cross and the sacrifice of the Mass are inseparably united as one single sacrifice. The Council of Trent in response to Protestant objections decreed, "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different," and "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner." For this reason, just as Christ washed away our sins with his blood on the altar of the cross, the sacrifice of the Mass is also truly propitiatory. The Lord grants grace and the gift of repentance. He pardons wrong-doings and sins. (cf. Council of Trent, "Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass")

Moreover, the Mass involves the sacrifice of the whole Church. Together we offer our prayers, praise, thanksgiving, work, sufferings to our Lord and thereby join ourselves to His offering. The whole Church is united with the offering of Christ. This is why in the Eucharistic Prayers we remember the pope, the vicar of Christ; the bishop, shepherd of the local diocese; the clergy who minister <in persona Christi> to the faithful; the faithful living now, the deceased and the saints.

The "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy" of the Second Vatican Council summed it up well: "At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. This He did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice on the cross through the ages until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (No. 47).

I gave a comment to Wilson's statement about worship being an offering of ourselves to God. This is correct in so far as it goes. But it must go further--

When we come to church we are not coming to a “meeting” or to sing or to hear a sermon, and Wilson has it right when he says we are coming to present ourselves to God. But it is more than this—we have “come , in a mystery, to the frontier that lies between the seen and the unseen, or between heaven and earth–as we all do when we pray, for example.” With liturgical churches this is very evident when celebrating the Eucharist. “It would seem, then, that there is a source other than ourselves from which proceed the form and content of worship. The question for the believer from any religion is not, first of all, ‘How do I feel about this?’ but, rather, ‘What am I to do when I come to the Holy of Holies?’” “Christian worship did not simply proliferate randomly. There was a shape given to it in the beginning. Actually, it took this shape………..The particular act that was understood by the apostolic and patristic Church to constitute worship…..had been received from the hands of Jesus Christ himself. And it was a particular act. What he had done on the night before his betrayal in the Upper Room was received by the apostles as his ordering of the act of Christian worship. He took, blessed, broke, and gave bread to them, and he blessed the cup of wine; and by his word he inaugurated this strange quasi meal as the act that would ‘make present’ (his word—anamnesis) for them, until history ended, the entire mystery of his redeeming self-oblation to the Father, that is to say, the entirety of revelation. The whole of the Law and the Prophets and of the history of Israel, and of his own coming into the world, passing through it (it is pasch–passing), and returning to the Father is opened up in this rite. It can never be exhausted or wholly comprehended. It will never run dry, for as long as Christian people gather for worship.”

We offer ourselves in the celebration of the Eucharist…I think Wilson somehow has missed all of this.

(some quotes from thomas Howard--On Being Catholic

also here from encyclical--

“Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or who will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself towards him, and thus also towards unity with all Christians. We become “one body”, completely joined in a single existence. Love of God and love of neighbour are now truly united: God incarnate draws us all to himself. We can thus understand how agape also became a term for the Eucharist: there God’s own agape comes to us bodily, in order to continue his work in us and through us. Only by keeping in mind this Christological and sacramental basis can we correctly understand Jesus’ teaching on love. The transition which he makes from the Law and the Prophets to the twofold commandment of love of God and of neighbour, and his grounding the whole life of faith on this central precept, is not simply a matter of morality—something that could exist apart from and alongside faith in Christ and its sacramental re-actualization. Faith, worship and ethos are interwoven as a single reality which takes shape in our encounter with God’s agape. Here the usual contraposition between worship and ethics simply falls apart. “Worship” itself, Eucharistic communion, includes the reality both of being loved and of loving others in turn. A Eucharist which does not pass over into the concrete practice of love is intrinsically fragmented. Conversely, as we shall have to consider in greater detail below, the “commandment” of love is only possible because it is more than a requirement. Love can be “commanded” because it has first been given.”

—

Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est “The ancient world had dimly perceived that man’s real food—what truly nourishes him as man—is ultimately the Logos, eternal wisdom: this same Logos now truly becomes food for us—as love. The Eucharist draws us into Jesus’ act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving. The imagery of marriage between God and Israel is now realized in a way previously inconceivable: it had meant standing in God’s presence, but now it becomes union with God through sharing in Jesus’ self-gift, sharing in his body and blood. The sacramental “mysticism”, grounded in God’s condescension towards us, operates at a radically different level and lifts us to far greater heights than anything that any human mystical elevation could ever accomplish.” —  Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est (via iamgeorgianadarcy)

from comment 420 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/#comment-101769

Those “stumbling blocks” that you mentioned are all huge, important issues, and there are various ways to approach them. Of course I will not try to go into detail here, but I do think that there is a simple way to understand many of these things, namely, the cultus of Mary, the saints, images and icons, and the Eucharist, which is at once both paradigmatic and concrete; namely, the Church’s liturgy.

So far as I can tell, the biblical perspective on Christian liturgical worship is that it is a family gathering centered upon the Lamb of God. Perhaps it will help to start with an earthly analogy: When I gather with my biological family, we exchange greetings and hugs and kisses, and some (namely, the oldest among us) receive special deference and attention. We celebrate any special achievement by a family member and ask one another to offer up prayers on behalf of each other. None of this conflicts at all with prayers we collectively offer to God before the meal–in fact, such things are very much joined to our prayer to God.

In a similar way, when I go to liturgy later this morning, I will greet those physically present, showing special deference and honor to the clergy, and kiss the images of my heavenly family members who are not physically present except by way of their icons, showing special deference and honor to the Mother of Our Lord. We (the visible and invisible congregation) will then join with one another in commemorating the virtues of the saints (after the manner of Hebrews 11), Mary in particular (cf. Luke 1:41-43), and offering up praise, entreaty, and thanksgiving to God, culminating in the Eucharist.

The chain of Bible verses that paints this picture and points to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist–the Lamb of God who is to be worshiped and adored–is comprised of the passages cited below; for convenience I will give the quotes in full, please pardon the length. Of course I don’t intend this to be an argument, in the strict sense, for the Catholic view on these matters, but I hope that it will at least be of help towards seeing “the big picture” as many Catholics (as well as many Orthodox) see it:

For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 1:11)

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. (Hebrews 10:19-22)

… you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel. (Hebrews 12:22-24)

And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth; and he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; and they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth.” Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, “To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!” And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped. (Revelation 5:6-14)

Hope that helps a little. I will remember you in my prayers at church this morning.

also see here http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/frequently-asked-questions/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

and from here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/08/to-enter-the-sanctuary-by-the-blood-of-jesus-a-literal-account-of-becoming-catholic/  --

When the Eucharistic bread and wine are changed by the power of the Holy Spirit through the prayer of the priest so that they become the Body and Blood of Christ, we are mystically present with the Lord in Heaven, with the angels and saints gathered in adoration of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Thus, there is even here and now sacred space, holy ground, where Heaven and Earth meet and the faithful gather.

see also CCC

1436 Eucharist and Penance. Daily conversion and penance find their source and nourishment in the Eucharist, for in it is made present the sacrifice of Christ which has reconciled us with God. Through the Eucharist those who live from the life of Christ are fed and strengthened. "It is a remedy to free us from our daily faults and to preserve us from mortal sins."<sup>35

and</sup>

1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:

For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord's death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy. ²³⁰

1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins. ²³¹ By giving himself to us Christ revives our love and enables us to break our disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in him:

Since Christ died for us out of love, when we celebrate the memorial of his death at the moment of sacrifice we ask that love may be granted to us by the coming of the Holy Spirit. We humbly pray that in the strength of this love by which Christ willed to die for us, we, by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, may be able to consider the world as crucified for us, and to be ourselves as crucified to the world.... Having received the gift of love, let us die to sin and live for God. ²³²

1395 By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins. The more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin. The Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins - that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation. The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.

see also http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-is-relationship-of-sacrament-of.html  which explains the relationship between the 2 sacraments of Eucharist and Reconciliation

Arguments for Catholicism

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2012/01/comprehensive-response-to-protestant.html

Justification--Catholics and Protestants

Here is an excerpt from David Armstrong's defense of Catholicism ---in blue is the attack and in black is the defense.  This is just the part on justification--it shows how close Catholics and Protestants really are --it depends on how one is defining faith.  He has other subjects in the link here: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2012/01/comprehensive-response-to-protestant.html

Similarly, since the Anathemas of the Council of Trent and Pope Pius IX's ‘Syllabus of Errors’ still officially stand (both of which gathered together in one spot teaching that was already part of the magisterium), both Protestants as well as Roman Catholics have been struggling to understand just how serious Rome’s claims to catholicity are in the post-Vatican II world. 

This is also massively misunderstood. Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin showed in a superb 1996 paper, "Justification by Faith Alone," how the Tridentine anathemas do not apply to most Protestants:

The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant's idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan "salvation by faith alone" becomes the Catholic slogan "salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone)."

This was recognized a few years ago in The Church's Confession of Faith: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, put out by the German Conference of Bishops, which stated:

Catholic doctrine . . . says that only a faith alive in graciously bestowed love can justify. Having "mere" faith without love, merely considering something true, does not justify us. But if one understands faith in the full and comprehensive biblical sense, then faith includes conversion, hope, and love . . . According to Catholic doctrine, faith encompasses both trusting in God on the basis of his mercifulness proved in Jesus Christ and confessing the salvific work of God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Yet this faith is never alone. It includes other acts.

The same thing was recognized in a document written a few years ago under the auspices of the (Catholic) German Conference of Bishops and the bishops of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (the Lutheran church). The purpose of the document, titled The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide?, was to determine which of the sixteenth-century Catholic and Protestant condemnations are still applicable to the other party. Thus the joint committee which drafted the document went over the condemnations from Trent and assessed which of them no longer applied to Lutherans and the condemnations of the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles, etc., and assesses which of them are not applicable to Catholics.

When it came to the issue of justification by faith alone, the document concluded:

"[T]oday the difference about our interpretation of faith is no longer a reason for mutual condemnation . . . even though in the Reformation period it was seen as a profound antithesis of ultimate and decisive force. By this we mean the confrontation between the formulas 'by faith alone,' on the one hand, and 'faith, hope, and love,' on the other.

"We may follow Cardinal Willebrand and say: 'In Luther's sense the word 'faith' by no means intends to exclude either works or love or even hope. We may quite justly say that Luther's concept of faith, if we take it in its fullest sense, surely means nothing other than what we in the Catholic Church term love' (1970, at the General Assembly of the World Lutheran Federation in Evian).

If we take all this to heart, we may say the following: If we translate from one language to another, then Protestant talk about justification through faith corresponds to Catholic talk about justification through grace; and on the other hand, Protestant doctrine understands substantially under the one word 'faith' what Catholic doctrine (following 1 Cor. 13:13) sums up in the triad of 'faith, hope, and love.' But in this case the mutual rejections in this question can be viewed as no longer applicable today

"According to [Lutheran] Protestant interpretation, the faith that clings unconditionally to God's promise in Word and Sacrament is sufficient for righteousness before God, so that the renewal of the human being, without which there can be no faith, does not in itself make any contribution to justification. Catholic doctrine knows itself to be at one with the Protestant concern in emphasizing that the renewal of the human being does not 'contribute' to justification, and is certainly not a contribution to which he could make any appeal before God. Nevertheless it feels compelled to stress the renewal of the human being through justifying grace, for the sake of acknowledging God's newly creating power; although this renewal in faith, hope, and love is certainly nothing but a response to God's unfathomable grace. Only if we observe this distinction can we say

"In addition to concluding that canons 9 and 12 of the Decree on Justification did not apply to modern Protestants, the document also concluded that canons 1-13, 16, 24, and 32 do not apply to modern Protestants (or at least modern Lutherans)."

During the drafting of this document, the Protestant participants asked what kind of authority it would have in the Catholic Church, and the response given by Cardinal Ratzinger (who was the Catholic corresponding head of the joint commission) was that it would have considerable authority. The German Conference of Bishops is well-known in the Catholic Church for being very cautious and orthodox and thus the document would carry a great deal of weight even outside of Germany, where the Protestant Reformation started.

Furthermore, the Catholic head of the joint commission was Ratzinger himself, who is also the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, which is the body charged by the pope with protecting the purity of Catholic doctrine. Next to the pope himself, the head of the CDF is the man most responsible for protecting orthodox Catholic teaching, and the head of the CDF happened to be the Catholic official with ultimate oversight over the drafting of the document.

Before the joint commission met, Cardinal Ratzinger and Lutheran Bishop Eduard Lohse (head of the Lutheran church in Germany) issued a letter expressing the purpose of the document, stating:

"[O]ur common witness is counteracted by judgments passed by one church on the other during the sixteenth century, judgments which found their way into the Confession of the Lutheran and Reformed churches and into the doctrinal decisions of the Council of Trent. According to the general conviction, these so-called condemnations no longer apply to our partner today. But this must not remain a merely private persuasion. It must be established in binding form."

I say this as a preface to noting that the commission concluded that canon 9 of Trent's Decree on Justification is not applicable to modern Protestants (or at least those who say saving faith is Galatians 5 faith). This is important because canon 9 is the one dealing with the "faith alone" formula (and the one R.C. Sproul is continually hopping up and down about). It states:

"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."

The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon.

Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term "faith" in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:

"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."

And every non-antinomian Protestant would agree with this, since in addition to intellectual assent one must also repent, trust, etc.

So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns "sola fide" if it is used "so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required" to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the formula itself.
I should mention at this point that I think Trent was absolutely right in what it did and that it phrased the canon in the perfect manner to be understood by the Catholic faithful of the time. The term "faith" had long been established as referring to intellectual assent, as per Romans 14:22-23, James 2:14-26, 1 Corinthians 13:13, etc., and thus everyday usage of the formula "faith alone" had to be squashed in the Catholic community because it would be understood to mean "intellectual assent alone".

Note that these ecumenical sentiments were wholeheartedly espoused by none other than the present pope: Benedict XVI (formerly Joseph Ratzinger). We can continue to be stuck in the mutual anathemas of the 16th century or we can move ahead, with this sort of charitable understanding of each other. One may not want to become a Catholic, but at least (hopefully) our position can be correctly understood, as it is clarified and explained in greater detail.