It is for me an argument based on false premise. For example he writes;
The false premise is that St Ignatius is longing for something he doesn’t have in this life. That Ignatius doesn’t understand that the Sacrament on earth is one and the same Jesus who is in heaven. It’s this kind of ‘either or’ thinking instead of ‘both and’ kind of thinking that distinguishes most false premises of theological sources that are not of the One Faith.
I didn’t see him mention apostolic succession. Is this really what you think he was writing about!?
To St Augustine there were no ‘Church’s’ without Apostolic Succession. That’s what ‘all Christians’ means in St Augustine’s mind. After all his authority to teach came from the Apostolic Tradition. He believed that Baptism was the only means to guarantee that Christ was dwelling in anyone. When he say’s 'all Christians do you believe he meant people of some other faith that he didn’t believe was of Christ?
Thanks for responding…am encouraged…I recall one historian i admire, and he point blank states that yes, some fathers did seem to believe in literal understanding of eating , even of His flesh, but also states that others did not, and that there were 3 or 4 views expressed…so though not all conforming they still were all in unity in communion…and to your point , “unanimous consent of the fathers” on scriptural interpretations, I think a Trent term, is questionable, even lacking (though the defense to this is that unanimous does not necessarily mean “all”…?)
Possible, yet his other points remain…he clearly lists Ignatius in the transubstantiation column.
First, thank you for your thoughts.
I’m interpreting Ignatius’ words in the light of a Catholic experience of spiritual growth the end of which is complete detachment from the world. With that in view what Ignatius is saying that the only thing left in the world for him is the Eucharist. Please oblige me the analysis of the text below.
As observed, this is Ignatius expressing his sense that his life on earth is complete and that earthly life has no more to offer. That being his condition, his longing for heaven is a response to a call from heaven, Come to the Father.
He takes no delight in corruptible food, nor the pleasures of this life. He returns to the subject of earthly attachments to contrast them with incorruptible food which is the Bread of life the heavenly bread, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ the Son of God. He contrasts the things on earth that he no longer has delight in with the precise theological language that defines the Eucharist.
mcq72, I hope to be able to dialogue in the mature Christian way you do. Being that you are, to me as a Catholic representing a protestant view makes your example that much more powerful. Thank you for exemplifying that for me.
I have heard this concept that somehow the Father abandoned the Son on the cross. I think it is rooted in a lack of understanding of the divine perichoresis, and contamination from the heresies of Calvin with regard to “substitutionary atonement”.
Would you expand on these thoughts for me?mcq72:
This is an entirely human experience of separation from God. Which is the condition of a disembodied soul before Jesus entered that state.
In the early church Paul addressed those in Corinth as some were using the communion as feasting ( I guess they had a full meal ) and some were getting drunk on the wine. Sounds like the poor were let into the banquet hall after most of the food was consumed. If a priest was there to make a valid Eucharist by saying the Words of Consecration one wonders why there was so much mayhem. Jesus instituted a simple act of Remembrance. Man sure has complicated it.
Jesus subjected Himself by His Divine will to suffer in His humanity. Jesus demonstrates this when He takes the disciples with Him to Gethsemane and begins to suffer. His final kenosis begins in the garden. He opens Himself, He bares naked His soul bereft of Divine assistance to the assaults of evil for the consequence of sin. The sins of His Body of which we are members.
On the cross Jesus suffered in obedience to His father’s will. His Father’s pleasure was that He suffer what in His humanity He recoiled from and prayed not to have to do. When the moment approached, the moment that any human instinctively avoids as long as possible, His soul barren of any heavenly support from the assaults of Satan and the consequences of sin, His body having suffered the same at the hands of evil men, Jesus experiences the natural human horror of death and being abandoned to the consequences of sin by His Father.
I don’t see this as the result of complicating the consecration. This was the result of not understanding that the double edged sword of the Word of God was being consumed. All the sacraments are death birth realities but the Eucharist manifested that reality physically.
not sure i stated this.
not sure i said that either (that His divine nature became sin)
Correct, i stated it wrong. perhaps. it does not say the Father turned away explicitly , but it is implied by Jesus , that at least that is how Jesus felt…per His own words, “why have you forsaken me”…of course He was not forsaken, never the less His suffering was more that just physical, but down to the souls of His manhood…nothing to do with physical…twas an inner thing…due to the sin that was upon Him…temporarily.…but Jesus not only took on the consequences of sin, He took on sin Himself temporarily…and feeling forsaken temporarily.…not sure if that is what you mean the CC denies…in OT not only did the lamb die(consequence), but before the priest killed the animal on the altar , the repentant sinner would lay his hand on the animal as if to transfer his sin to the previously and otherwise unblemished, unsinful animal. The sin had to be transferred to the lamb.
agree if you mean the death that comes from sin “wages”, as separation from God.
Yes, that is why we want to Remember.