A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

[Radical]

The genesis for the Marian doctrines are in the first personal accounts given by God personally to Adam and Eve when they fell from grace in the Garden. …

James

That was a very wordy way to say that you can’t find any express statements that could have led to the formulation of the Marian doctrines…I do understand that you infer typologies and then extrapolate from there. The question here is whether you can show that the church of the first hundred years was “Catholic” such that it inferred those same typologies and also derived those same Marian doctrines.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

** the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.**…apparently Luke thought it a noble thing to check an apostle’s teaching against scripture. Paul checked out…on what basis does your Church’s tradition check out…after all, the first 100 years are supposed to be decidely Catholic, right?
I never said that the early church held to Sola scriptura… now, however, more than 1500 years later we must ask ourselves what it is that we possess that reliably preserves God’s revelation. B/c of the wealth of manuscripts we can do a pretty good job of assessing scriptures’ reliability…what have you offered for us to use to assess the reliability of your Church’s tradition that doesn’t show up in the records from the first 100 years?

Paul preached with authority and some believed. Then the others searched scriptures and saw what he had explained to them and more believed, but not ALL of them believed.

Of course you can’t find Church traditions using private interpretation.

Men of the Church wrote scriptures and explained orally to those they taught. Those they had taught passed it on to those they taught, and so on. Men of the Church defined the canon of the New Testament, of course using their interpretation and Church tradition. Then the men of the Church began translating scriptures and preserved them to the 1500s. Protestants took a Catholic book and tried to read it with a Protestant mind, without Church tradition.

Martin Luther quoted:

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That was a very wordy way to say that you can’t find any express statements that could have led to the formulation of the Marian doctrines…I do understand that you infer typologies and then extrapolate from there. The question here is whether you can show that the church of the first hundred years was “Catholic” such that it inferred those same typologies and also derived those same Marian doctrines.

That’s a very poor debate tactic. Having trouble with the discussion at hand, CHANGE the topic.

You overlook common sense approach that certain beliefs were widely believed and needed no documentation until the belief was challenged or endangered of being misconceived.

**Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).**

**Origen

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, “Woman, behold your son,” and to John, “Behold your mother” [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).**

Oh, but we can’t depend on Church tradition, we have to rely on something the first hundred years, as per your rules. The first hundred years, the Church was under persectution with a penalty of death. In fact we are lucky to have the writings we have available to us.

Of course the Bible was still letters and epistles scattered all over Asia, but that’s acceptable since it’s the ONLY authority. Share with us the scripture that teaches that. Share with us where the Bible teaches private interpretation. If they’re not in there, they are man made traditions that are non scriptural.

 

[Radical]

Prodigal, I had siad:

That was a very wordy way to say that you can’t find any express statements that could have led to the formulation of the Marian doctrines…I do understand that you infer typologies and then extrapolate from there. The question here is whether you can show that the church of the first hundred years was “Catholic” such that it inferred those same typologies and also derived those same Marian doctrines.

…and you commented:

That’s a very poor debate tactic. Having trouble with the discussion at hand, CHANGE the topic.

Please do better than this…the OP gives a timeline of the first hundred years and then asks why the early church was so Catholic. I am not changing the topic, I am trying to keep this thread on topic.

You overlook common sense approach that certain beliefs were widely believed and needed no documentation until the belief was challenged or endangered of being misconceived.

that is quite a stretch for common sense…and, of course, it requires an assumption that the Catholic Marian doctrines existed but weren’t challenged or endangered for a long time…a very, very long time in some cases.

Oh, but we can’t depend on Church tradition, we have to rely on something the first hundred years, as per your rules.

That is the time frame set by the OP

The first hundred years, the Church was under persectution with a penalty of death. In fact we are lucky to have the writings we have available to us.

But we do have enough for a New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers…with that strange silence about Mary

 

[Canto]

St Paul tells us to hold onto written and oral tradtions - do all Christians do this? Would God let the deposit of faith fall into error?

Now at the Council of Rome (382 AD) Pope Damascus decreed a 73 book cannon, 27 for the NT. This list was affirmed by council after council though some faliable individuals would question it i.e. Luther for example.

In the time before 382 AD we see the fathers…

-Calling Mary the Mother of God, Immaculate, the New Eve, the Ark, Ever-Virgin
-Speaking of Apostolic sucession, the primacy of Rome
-That the Church is one and Catholic
-That the bishops of the Church should be obeyed
-That the Eucharist is Christ and not a symbol
-We see them holding onto oral tradtion
-We see prayers through the Saints, purgatory
-Good works, Deuterocanon books quoted and called scripture

• etc, etc, etc

The early Church looks very Catholic to me

Nowhere in the Bible are we told to cast aside oral tradtion and the Bishops in favour of our own private interpretation of the Bible. In fact to know what books should be in the Bible we had to go outside the Bible Of the 12 Apostles only 5 wrote, and Jude for example gave only one short epistle, a great one though!

 

[paul_c]

I never understand why Protestants attack the Church’s Marian dogmas. They don’t effect the economy of salvation, only giving us better understanding of the person of Mary, who was worthy of the ultimate gift, being the Mother of Jesus Christ. Do they not think that Mary was worth emulating? Do they think that Jesus would be in any way offended by our devotion to his mother? There is nothing in the Marian dogma’s that contradict scripture. In fact, they are supported by Scripture. Isn’t it a fact that Gabriel called her full of Grace? and isn’t it a fact that in the Magnificat, quoted in Luke’s gospel, that Mary prophesies that all nations will call her blessed?

 

[pickguard1]

I never said that the early church held to Sola scriptura… now, however, more than 1500 years later we must ask ourselves what it is that we possess that reliably preserves God’s revelation. B/c of the wealth of manuscripts we can do a pretty good job of assessing scriptures’ reliability…**what have you offered for us to use to assess the reliability of your Church’s tradition **that doesn’t show up in the records from the first 100 years?

To answer the first question, what do we possess that reliably preserves God’s revelation? Why, the very Church He founded upon Peter, against which the gates of hell will not prevail. And being members of that same church, the bishops, successors of the same apostles to whom Christ promised the Spirit of Truth.

What more need we possess? Is Christ a liar?

The second question’s answer is really the same as the first. If there is a reliable method of determinig whether the revelation we have received from God is authentic, then that method has to have ALWAYS existed from the first moments of the Church. To assume that it failed at some point is to lose faith in Christ’s promises. To assume that +/- 1500 years afterwards there could be a better system also lacks faith in the truth and promises of the very scripture that that method proposes.

Plus, when you look at it, how is it possible to say by scripture alone is better - even intended (where is the evidence?) when the bad fruits of such a philosophy are so painfully obvious? There is no unity of interpretation, no unity of moral doctrine, no unity of theological doctrine - whereas before the Reformation, the only Christian church in existence at the time had maintained the same doctrines, from the apostles.

The Church being Catholic makes the most sense. Why? because it not being Catholic makes no sense at all.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But we do have enough for a New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers…with that strange silence about Mary

Let’s back up just a bit, to where we were discussing the Eucharist. Was the opinion of someone in 2009, referencing St. Ignatius’ writings, your way of staying in that first one hundred year period, in an attempt to say St. Ignatius taught it was alright to believe in the real presence, but it wasn’t a necessity?

I provided excerpts from 110 and 151AD. One was from Ignatius of Antioch and the other was from Justin Martyr, but you didn’t seem compelled to respond directly to those writings, once you provided the opinion posted in 2009.

**Chapter VI-Unbelievers in the Blood of Christ Shall Be Condemned.

Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels,(36) and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation.(37) “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”…

Chapter VII.-Let Us Stand Aloof from Such Heretics.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(44) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(45) in the midst of their disputes.**

Note: I copied and pasted this from a Protestant website knowing there are variations in translations and did not want to be accused of using a ‘biased’ translation. Also, I am only reposting St. Ignatius’ writing, to stay within the 100 year span, as you seem to find a convenience of staying within.

Does “incur condemnation and incur death, in the midst of their disputes.” sound like it’s alright to believe, but it’s not necessity? Just looking at the title of the Chapter, it appears to label those who do not accept the teaching. It also appears very similar to the writings of St. Paul to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11.

1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Radical,

At this point I challenge you to show how the Church of the first one hundred years compares to Protestantism. It’s one thing to pick apart a faith, it’s another to pick apart a faith and prove you are providing a correct understanding through the correct teachings. Wouldn’t you agree?

• Show us where the imposition of hands was provided by anyone other than those of Apostolic succession, or examples of ‘self ordinations/appointments’.
• Show us where it was taught that scriptures was the only authority.
• Show us where it was taught that people should interpret scriptures for themselves.
• Show us where it was acceptable to have variations of doctrines among the Churches in different locations and did not require corrective writings to keep them of the same accord.

**1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

2Pe 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.

1Co 16:1 Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints: as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also.

Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I never understand why Protestants attack the Church’s Marian dogmas. They don’t effect the economy of salvation, only giving us better understanding of the person of Mary, who was worthy of the ultimate gift, being the Mother of Jesus Christ. Do they not think that Mary was worth emulating? Do they think that Jesus would be in any way offended by our devotion to his mother? There is nothing in the Marian dogma’s that contradict scripture. In fact, they are supported by Scripture. Isn’t it a fact that Gabriel called her full of Grace? and isn’t it a fact that in the Magnificat, quoted in Luke’s gospel, that Mary prophesies that all nations will call her blessed?

Greetings paul; from what I gather here from the protest-ing view of recorded Catholic history from the Apostles themselves is that the Catholic church is not the same as the apostlic Church, which is nonesense.

**The point you raised is the fact; that Apostolic Marian belief’s, Eucharist, Baptism, Apostolic succession was never a matter of dispute. Only when these apostolic belief’s came under attack by heretics, apostates, heresies, the Catholic Church defended the apostolic faith and defined, clarified the already in practice Marian belief’s and others, made them doctrine holding every Catholic To the Apostolic Faith, separating the sheep form the goats.

While the world was growing up, the Catholic church was weaning the babes from the milk to eat meat, this maturity of faith, Protestants object to, because they refuse to eat meat, and remain to be spoonfed, without works.**

The defense of Marian doctrine and others is what is being neglected by the protest-ing view of the Apostolic Catholic Church that Jesus built upon Peter and the apostles which remains unchanged in their successors in the unbroken line of Popes and Bishops.

True marian doctrine does not make or break ones salvation, but the blessed Virgin Mary doctrine brings (Jesus) salvation to us. It is our own will to work out our “salvation with fear and trembling”. (Philipians 2:12 So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.)

Peace be with you

 

[Radical]

Let’s back up just a bit, to where we were discussing the Eucharist. Was the opinion of someone in 2009, referencing St. Ignatius’ writings, your way of staying in that first one hundred year period, in an attempt to say St. Ignatius taught it was alright to believe in the real presence, but it wasn’t a necessity?

Not quite. Ignatius said very little wrt the Eucharist. We can not be certain as to what Ignatius meant (as it relates to belief in a Real Presence or not) b/c a) he was prone to using very flowery language that was not to be taken literally (ie “for drink I desire his blood, which is imperishable love” or “create yourselves anew in faith, which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the blood of Jesus Christ.”) and b) Ignatius’s debate with the Docetists brought out some unusual polemic and wording. Because we can’t be certain as to what Ignatius meant we can’t say whether he held to a real presence or not….and if he did, we can’t say “what it would have looked like”.

Does “incur condemnation and incur death, in the midst of their disputes.” sound like it’s alright to believe, but it’s not necessity?

the requirement to believe in Jesus blood as our means of salvation does not entail the belief that the element of the wine has been transformed to Jesus’s blood….you might be reading your bias into Ignatius’s words.

Just looking at the title of the Chapter, it appears to label those who do not accept the teaching. It also appears very similar to the writings of St. Paul to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11.

1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

You have left out verse 26 which specifies that the Lord’s Supper proclaims the death of our Lord. The “therefore” of verse 27 refers back to the specification in verse 26. One would be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord b/c a certain proclamation is involved and not b/c a RP is involved.

Radical,

At this point I challenge you to show how the Church of the first one hundred years compares to Protestantism. It’s one thing to pick apart a faith, it’s another to pick apart a faith and prove you are providing a correct understanding through the correct teachings. Wouldn’t you agree?

why not?

Show us where the imposition of hands was provided by anyone other than those of Apostolic succession, or examples of ‘self ordinations/appointments’.

self ordinations? What would that be? The Didache directs appointment from below vs. appointment from above:

Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers.

The laying on of hands did not start with the NT era and so is not restricted to “apostolic succession”.

Show us where it was taught that scriptures was the only authority.

Today I would categorize scripture as our most reliable source of God’s revelation….but I wouldn’t argue that in the first 100 years, scripture was the only authority (as that is a ludicrous proposition).

Show us where it was taught that people should interpret scriptures for themselves.

What do you mean “for themselves…”?

Show us where it was acceptable to have variations of doctrines among the Churches in different locations and did not require corrective writings to keep them of the same accord.

I don’t believe that variation in doctrines among the Churches was a good thing, but such could be better than unity around error enforced by a monarchical rule.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not quite. Ignatius said very little wrt the Eucharist. We can not be certain as to what Ignatius meant (as it relates to belief in a Real Presence or not) b/c a) he was prone to using very flowery language that was not to be taken literally (ie “for drink I desire his blood, which is imperishable love” or “create yourselves anew in faith, which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the blood of Jesus Christ.”) and b) Ignatius’s debate with the Docetists brought out some unusual polemic and wording. Because we can’t be certain as to what Ignatius meant we can’t say whether he held to a real presence or not….and if he did, we can’t say “what it would have looked like”.

the requirement to believe in Jesus blood as our means of salvation does not entail the belief that the element of the wine has been transformed to Jesus’s blood….you might be reading your bias into Ignatius’s words.

I accept what he wrote. You on the other hand might be reading your bias into the early Church father’s words. This is evident by your rejection of the context and your extra doubts of ‘what it would have looked like.’

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

*Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

You have left out verse 26 which specifies that the Lord’s Supper proclaims the death of our Lord. The “therefore” of verse 27 refers back to the specification in verse 26. One would be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord b/c a certain proclamation is involved and not b/c a RP is involved.

I apologize, I should have guessed you would use a bias on an interpretation of what was happening in Paul’s letter of correction. It was referring to receiving the bread and wine, body and blood of Christ, this is evident in verse 20.

1Co 11:20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper.

Paul goes further into telling them if they’re hungry to eat at home and he asks them another time if they have no houses to eat and drink in. Verse 28 says to let a man prove himself, then let him eat and drink. Have you ever heard of a teaching for someone to prove themself before making a proclamation? Wouldn’t a proclamation be proving one’s self? But one has to prove himself before being allowed to eat and drink.**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

why not?

self ordinations? What would that be? The Didache directs appointment from below vs. appointment from above:

Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers.

Christ is above and He gave authority to men on earth, below. Now, let’s stick with scriptures for a second and produce any scriptures showing that anyone that was not appointed themself had appointed another or themself. If it’s not in there, it’s not scriptural. The Didache is a vague writing without much example or explanation to be debated properly, or honestly as one can insert their bias into what written in it.

**Act 14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch:
Act 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples and exhorting them to continue in the faith: and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God.
Act 14:23 And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed. **

The laying on of hands did not start with the NT era and so is not restricted to “apostolic succession”.

**1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. **

Today I would categorize scripture as our most reliable source of God’s revelation….but I wouldn’t argue that in the first 100 years, scripture was the only authority (as that is a ludicrous proposition).

If it was ludicrous for the first 100 years, what changed that granted the Bible to be the ONLY authority. Scriptures do not tell us that scriptures are the ONLY authority. If it’s not in the Bible, it’s not scriptural.

What do you mean “for themselves…”?

Seriously? Ok, where do you receive from scriptures a teaching that tells you, you should interpret scriptures for yourself. If you say it’s with Holy Spirit guidance, please explain the thousands of denominations, with different teachings, based on someone’s interpretation and all claiming Holy Spirit guidance. How many truths can be the one truth if each truth is different?

I don’t believe that variation in doctrines among the Churches was a good thing, but such could be better than unity around error enforced by a monarchical rule.

Now you have to prove error.

 

[YADA]

Not quite. Ignatius said very little wrt the Eucharist. We can not be certain as to what Ignatius meant (as it relates to belief in a Real Presence or not) b/c a) he was prone to using very flowery language that was not to be taken literally (ie “for drink I desire his blood, which is imperishable love” or “create yourselves anew in faith, which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the blood of Jesus Christ.”) and b) Ignatius’s debate with the Docetists brought out some unusual polemic and wording. Because we can’t be certain as to what Ignatius meant we can’t say whether he held to a real presence or not….and if he did, we can’t say “what it would have looked like”.

This is such a stretch, because you deem the prose ‘flowery’ you dismiss what the actual meaning is … now that is a stretch … and we have lots of writings that back up the True Presence … even in Paul’s writings … how can ingestting a purely symbolic representation of the Last Supper cause sickness and death? … how crazy is that position?

the requirement to believe in Jesus blood as our means of salvation does not entail the belief that the element of the wine has been transformed to Jesus’s blood….you might be reading your bias into Ignatius’s words.

and you are using your bias to dramatically discount what Ignatius is saying and refusing to acknowledge what Ignatius said and the clear meaning - especially in light of how the Church has understood the Eucharist from the first century to this very day

You have left out verse 26 which specifies that the Lord’s Supper proclaims the death of our Lord. The “therefore” of verse 27 refers back to the specification in verse 26. One would be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord b/c a certain proclamation is involved and not b/c a RP is involved. why not?

You are wrong abbout this as Paul is clearly discussing the Eucharist and those that are participating without clearly understanding what they are receiving - which Jesus instituted on the night he was handed over - …

self ordinations? What would that be? The Didache directs appointment from below vs. appointment from above:
Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers.

The laying on of hands did not start with the NT era and so is not restricted to “apostolic succession”.

Again, you mis-understand exactly how leaders in the church are selected in a fundamental way … every new Christian is called and accepted into the Christian Community - no one becomes “Christian” by their own volition … self baptizing so to speak … Similarly, every person before being “ordained” has to have the community’s support - at ordination the community is asked if the person has been found worthy and acceptable [you can read the ordination rites] … only with that assent is a man ordained a priest and laid hands upon … Christians then select those who lead us and confer upon them - in addition to the authority granted by God through the pillar and foundation of Truth - the Church - the authority to train men for the diaconate and priesthood who then become Bishops and other positions of leadership - even the Pope. T

he Jewish people did not lay hands upon themselves outside of the rites and authority of the religious leadeship either … with every break away group laying on hands to do as they wish either …

Today I would categorize scripture as our most reliable source of God’s revelation….but I wouldn’t argue that in the first 100 years, scripture was the only authority (as that is a ludicrous proposition).

Your 'opinion" … I will rely upon and place my trust in the Church Christ founded and which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth … as even the scriptures instruct …

I don’t believe that variation in doctrines among the Churches was a good thing, but such could be better than unity around error enforced by a monarchical rule.

But unity around error cannot be a good thing - Truth is not changable - it does not moderate over time … EXAMPLE: the Christian Church [even in its fractured state] universally held that both artificial birth control and abortion was sinful - deadly sinful - morally wrong. In 1930 the Anglican’s moderated that stance - allowing for married couples to use artificial birth control - the rest of the Christian Community decried that change … The fruits of that we reap today … Most Christian Churches now allow for artificial birth control and some teach that it is the “Christian” thing to do. Many Christian Churches do not find support for abortions wrong on any level - and definately not sinful …

The fruit of the Protestant Reformation is dis-unity [not unity - Jesus prayed that we be One - Universal/Catholic - in faith] around faith and morals … Each Christian now is allowed to “Pick and Choose” what to believe or not - all morality is situational - better to be an adherant of some “variable doctrine” no matter how new and revelutionary then adhere to the teachings of the Church that has changed so little in the as 2000 years - even when your bible tells you where to find the Pillar and Foundation of Truth

 

[Radical]

Christ is above and He gave authority to men on earth, below. Now, let’s stick with scriptures for a second and produce any scriptures showing that anyone that was not appointed themself had appointed another or themself. If it’s not in there, it’s not scriptural.

From 1 Cor 12: *28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? *
God appoints…and there is nothing that indicates that any such appointment must be achieved by his utilization of someone he has previously appointed.

The Didache is a vague writing without much example or explanation to be debated properly, or honestly as one can insert their bias into what written in it.

Your attitudes wrt to Ignatius and the Didache seem quite different. You think the epistle from Ignatius clearly supports you, so it should be followed…no questions asked, no analysis to be performed. The Didache, however, speaks of appointment from below and so it is to be avoided b/c it is subject to biased interpretations.

**1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. **

Isn’t it odd that the Douay-Rheims translates “presbuterion” as “priesthood”? 1 Tim 4:14 should look this way:
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

If it was ludicrous for the first 100 years, what changed that granted the Bible to be the ONLY authority. Scriptures do not tell us that scriptures are the ONLY authority. If it’s not in the Bible, it’s not scriptural.

You keep referring to “only authority” which is not a position that I advocate. You should ask, “What changed that made the Bible the most reliable source of God’s revelation?” I would then answer:
a) Jesus left;
b) the apostles died;
c) prophecy ceased…or at least really reliable prophecy ceased; and
d) fallible men did what fallible men do…they made mistakes

Seriously? Ok, where do you receive from scriptures a teaching that tells you, you should interpret scriptures for yourself.

Well let’s take 1 Cor as an example. It is scripture. What did Paul do with it? He addressed it to the entire church and not the hierarchy. He speaks directly to the brethren expecting them to understand his words and does not address an overseer or a body of elders so that they could relay a proper understanding of his message to the poor slobs in the pews. At chapter 14 he states:

• Brothers and sisters, what should we say then? When you come together, every one of you brings something. You bring a hymn or a teaching or a word from God. You bring a message in another language or explain what was said. All of those things must be done to make the church strong.*
  Note that everyone brings something and presents it to the church…not presents it to be filtered through a hierarchy.
  Paul continues:
  *If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. *
  Note that the others in the congregation weigh and evaluate the words of the prophet…note it isn’t that only the hierarchy who are the prophets that teach and it isn’t the hierarchy that announces how the prophecy should be understood.

If you say it’s with Holy Spirit guidance, please explain the thousands of denominations, with different teachings, based on someone’s interpretation and all claiming Holy Spirit guidance. How many truths can be the one truth if each truth is different?

Your hierarchy got one thing right. They are correct when they say that non-Catholic Christians do not possess a full understanding of the truth, but despite that deficiency their churches are a means of salvation. Where your hierarchy goes wrong (IMHO) is that it fails to recognize that it also does not possess a full understanding of the truth (although the CC is still a means of salvation). Paul stated that now we see but a poor reflection. Now we know only in part. If that was Paul’s situation, I do not expect prefect/full knowledge of the truth from any one or from any group this side of heaven…

Now you have to prove error.

That job, thankfully, does not fall to me. I understand that one can easily find prominent members from the history departments at Catholic universities that believe that history easily demonstrates that the doctrine of the CC (and the Orthodox for that matter) does not reflect the original teaching of the apostles and that the difference is not mere development. I would love to see two things: first a detailed poll of Catholic historians concerning their views on whether things such as the Marian doctrines, Petrine supremacy, the Real Presence etc. originated with the apostles and second, how fast the views of the historians filter down to the people in the pews.

 

[Radical]

Have you ever heard of a teaching for someone to prove themself before making a proclamation?

yes…

Wouldn’t a proclamation be proving one’s self?

No, a proclamation is a proclamation. A self-examination is a self-examination.

But one has to prove himself before being allowed to eat and drink.

One should examine oneself and make sure he is right with God and others before he participates in an act that proclaims the Lord’s death. The crucfixion of God’s only Son is not to be taken lightly…a proclamation of it is not to be treated with disrespect or God may act on that offense.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

From 1 Cor 12: *28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? *
God appoints…and there is nothing that indicates that any such appointment must be achieved by his utilization of someone he has previously appointed.

God, appointed 12. Where is there anything in scriptures to indicate that anyone could appoint, others or themselves? It’s not there, therefore it’s unscriptural. I have provided examples of the imposition of hands, appointments, from Apostles to others. Who appointed Timothy?

Your attitudes wrt to Ignatius and the Didache seem quite different. You think the epistle from Ignatius clearly supports you, so it should be followed…no questions asked, no analysis to be performed. The Didache, however, speaks of appointment from below and so it is to be avoided b/c it is subject to biased interpretations.

I think both documents supports my view, with one specifying what the other did not. You choose the one that is the most vague so that you can justify your view.

Are men of the Church above in heaven, or below on earth?

Isn’t it odd that the Douay-Rheims translates “presbuterion” as “priesthood”? 1 Tim 4:14 should look this way:
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

**1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. **

**G4244
πρεσβυτέριον
presbuterion
pres-boo-ter’-ee-on
Neuter of a presumed derivative of G4245; the order of elders, that is, (specifically) Israelite Sanhedrim or Christian “presbytery”: - (estate of) elder (-s), presbytery.

G4245
πρεσβύτερος
presbuteros
pres-boo’-ter-os
Comparative of πρέσβυς presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; specifically an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian “presbyter”: - elder (-est), old.

pres·by·ter (przb-tr, prs-)
n.

1. A priest in various hierarchical churches.

a. A teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church.
b. A ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church.
3. An elder of the congregation in the early Christian church.

---

[Late Latin, from Greek presbuteros, from comparative of presbus, old man; see per1 in Indo-European roots.] **

Relying on semantics to make a point fails, in my honest opinion.

You keep referring to “only authority” which is not a position that I advocate. You should ask, “What changed that made the Bible the most reliable source of God’s revelation?” I would then answer:
a) Jesus left;
b) the apostles died;
c) prophecy ceased…or at least really reliable prophecy ceased; and
d) fallible men did what fallible men do…they made mistakes

Well let’s take 1 Cor as an example. It is scripture. What did Paul do with it? He addressed it to the entire church and not the hierarchy. He speaks directly to the brethren expecting them to understand his words and does not address an overseer or a body of elders so that they could relay a proper understanding of his message to the poor slobs in the pews. At chapter 14 he states:

• Brothers and sisters, what should we say then? When you come together, every one of you brings something. You bring a hymn or a teaching or a word from God. You bring a message in another language or explain what was said. All of those things must be done to make the church strong.*
  Note that everyone brings something and presents it to the church…not presents it to be filtered through a hierarchy.
  Paul continues:
  *If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. * .
  Deleted for room to respond

Paul, an authorative member of the hierarchy, wrote an explanation of doctrine to the whole Church. In 14, he points out we all have a place within the Church, and names stations without authority.

The Protestant truth came, in part, from the Catholic truth. Can any man know the fullness of God’s truth on earth? I don’t think so. This does not however take away from the part that was taken from the source of man’s truth on earth, the Catholic Church. Men of the Church wrote the Bible and taught the interpretation orally. Those that received it, taught what they had been taught and passed it on. Eventually, men of the Church defined the canon of the New Testament, based on the oral tradition and interpretation of scriptures. Then the Church preserved the Bible up to the 1500s when the reformers took it and began private interpretations. Who do we trust? The ones that had split from the Church and needed a justification for such an action and searched scriptures that could be interpreted the way they wanted, or those, who kept the Bible, and interpretation, for them to have?

Church doctrines have evolved in detail as you demonstrate with the Didache and the writings of St. Ignatius. They may appear different to the ‘modern’ eye, or view. They are not.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

yes…
No, a proclamation is a proclamation. A self-examination is a self-examination.
One should examine oneself and make sure he is right with God and others before he participates in an act that proclaims the Lord’s death. The crucfixion of God’s only Son is not to be taken lightly…a proclamation of it is not to be treated with disrespect or God may act on that offense.

The scriptures tell them to ‘But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.’ It does not say let a man examine himself and so let him drink. Someone letting a man prove himself, and letting him eat thereof, is not an example of self examination.

 

[Radical]

The scriptures tell them to ‘But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.’ It does not say let a man examine himself and so let him drink. Someone letting a man prove himself, and letting him eat thereof, is not an example of self examination.

Prodigal, even the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible translates it “examine” and not “prove”…

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood…

Relying on semantics to make a point fails, in my honest opinion.

Even the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible translates it “elders” and not “priesthood”.

Who do we trust? The ones that had split from the Church and needed a justification for such an action and searched scriptures that could be interpreted the way they wanted, or those, who kept the Bible, and interpretation, for them to have?

that’s a rather biased dichotomy isn’t it? …but simply claiming again and again that the Catholic Church is right doesn’t make it so

 

[Canto]

Prodigal, even the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible translates it “examine” and not “prove”.

Strongs: “to test (literally or figuratively) …prove…”

Even the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible translates it “elders” and not “priesthood”.

presbuterion is the Greek i.e. the presbytery or priesthood - same thing different name. New American Bible reads: "…with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate. "

that’s a rather biased dichotomy isn’t it? …but simply claiming again and again that the Catholic Church is right doesn’t make it so

Who then is right? The Batpists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, the non-denominational church around the corner or the one across the street from it…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal, even the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible translates it “examine” and not “prove”…

10 versions of the Bible and I don’t alway check them all. Some say examine, some say prove, so I went to the Greek.

**(IGNT+) δοκιμαζετωG1381 [G5720] δεG1161 BUT LET PROVE ανθρωποςG444 A MAN εαυτονG1438 HIMSELF, καιG2532 AND ουτωςG3779 THUS εκG1537 OF τουG3588 THE αρτουG740 BREAD εσθιετωG2068 [G5720] LET HIM EAT, καιG2532 AND εκG1537 OF τουG3588 THE ποτηριουG4221 CUP πινετωG4095 [G5720] LET HIM DRINK.

G1381
δοκιμάζω
dokimazō
dok-im-ad’-zo
From G1384; to test (literally or figuratively); by implication to approve: - allow, discern, examine, X like, (ap-) prove, try.**

As you see from the Greek definition, either choice is acceptable. Now who do we believe? I prefer to believe those who defined the canon of the New Testament and preserved the Bible throughout the ages, as opposed to a modernized thinking on the subject.

The Douay-Rheims and two King James Versions all say ‘let’ him eat.

I still believe Paul was teaching the Lord’s Supper in the correct form, by twice saying guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Of course that’s what he states in all versions. Clearly anyone can see they were eating like a normal meal, some were hungry others were drunk. They had homes to eat and drink in, as Paul asked of them,

All arguments of symbolism are creative additions to the scriptures. No where is it said to be symbolic. In John 6, Jesus let many of His disciples leave Him and walk with Him no more. He didn’t explain a misunderstanding because of a symbolism, He turned to the Apostles and asked if they would go away also.

Even the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible translates it “elders” and not “priesthood”.

Again, I’ve shown you the different translations and definitions and it’s proper either way and means men of authority. You choose to find one to support your view. Again, I’m going to trust those who gave us the Bible. Men of the Church wrote the scriptures and explained their meanings to them orally. Those men passed it on. Eventually, the canon of the New Testament was defined. 1500s years, or so, after they were written Protestants received a copy and dropped all oral tradition and started reading for themselves. Now how many denominations are there? Do they all agree?

that’s a rather biased dichotomy isn’t it? …but simply claiming again and again that the Catholic Church is right doesn’t make it so

Claiming it’s not over and over doesn’t make it so, which also comes from a biased opinion. Because some need justification of the split, they will say that 1500 years of people followed wrongly. They will take the Bible that the Catholic Church preserved for them and say that Catholics don’t know the Bible. They say that it took a new and more modern approach to find the truth of serving Him. Again, they have a ‘shopping mall’ full of denominations to search through to find the one that fits their lifestyles. I don’t want to serve Him as it fits me, I want to serve Him as it serves His according to His will.

I was a Protestant. I went through the ‘mall’. I prayed, researched and reflected. Without any evangelization, the Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church. Of course I had to empty my cup of what I had filled it with and pray for Him to fill that cup with what He wanted it filled with.