How many here hold heterodox opinions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ufamtobie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

ufamtobie

Guest
Definition: Heterodox, “characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards”

Ignatius of Antioch"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“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]).

How many here at CAF confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ and how many do not?

If not, Explain, why your departure from accepted beliefs or standards of the Early Christian Church that was founded on Rock?

Do you believe that the Early Church was wrong re: The Eucharist being 100% Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Savior Jesus Christ, a simple yes or no will suffice?

Ufam Tobie
 
ufamtobie said:
Definition: Heterodox, “characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards”

Ignatius of Antioch"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“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]).

How many here at CAF confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ and how many do not?

If not, Explain, why your departure from accepted beliefs or standards of the Early Christian Church that was founded on Rock?

Do you believe that the Early Church was wrong re: The Eucharist being 100% Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Savior Jesus Christ, a simple yes or no will suffice?

Ufam Tobie
Click to expand...
First, Ufam, thank you so much for your prayers for me nephew.

On your OP, my answer is no, the early Church was right, as they express countlessly Christ’s words, "This [bread] is my body.

From Luther:
Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Click to expand...
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
Click to expand...
Jon
 
ufamtobie said:
Definition: Heterodox, “characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards”

How many here at CAF confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ and how many do not?
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that Roman Catholics who deny that an Anglican or Lutheran Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ are heretics?

Just wondering.
 
ufamtobie said:
Definition: Heterodox, “characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards”

Ignatius of Antioch"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“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]).

How many here at CAF confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ and how many do not?

If not, Explain, why your departure from accepted beliefs or standards of the Early Christian Church that was founded on Rock?

Do you believe that the Early Church was wrong re: The Eucharist being 100% Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Savior Jesus Christ, a simple yes or no will suffice?

Ufam Tobie
Click to expand...
???
what is this?
 
ufamtobie said:
Definition: Heterodox, “characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards”

Ignatius of Antioch"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“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]).

How many here at CAF confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ and how many do not?

If not, Explain, why your departure from accepted beliefs or standards of the Early Christian Church that was founded on Rock?

Do you believe that the Early Church was wrong re: The Eucharist being 100% Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Savior Jesus Christ, a simple yes or no will suffice?

Ufam Tobie
Click to expand...
I confess an beliefe 100% of all that The Holy Catholic Church holds and teaches!
 
ufamtobie said:
Definition: Heterodox, “characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards”

Ignatius of Antioch"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“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]).

How many here at CAF confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ and how many do not?

If not, Explain, why your departure from accepted beliefs or standards of the Early Christian Church that was founded on Rock?

Do you believe that the Early Church was wrong re: The Eucharist being 100% Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Savior Jesus Christ, a simple yes or no will suffice?

Ufam Tobie
Click to expand...
If I’m not mistaken, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote that from prison, just prior to his martyrdom by being torn apart by wild animals. He refused to recant and welcomed the opportunity of witness to his faith through martyrdom in his letters.

Many Protestant apologists cite the martyrdom of the early Christians as proof of the truth of Christ’s divinity (as do we Catholics). I’ve always wondered if they considered that his testimony to the Real Presence in the Eucharist should be given similar weight.

An early church tradition (per the Catholic Encyclopedia), BTW, is that St. Ignatius was the child whom Jesus took into his arms in Mark 9:35. There’s no real evidence one way or another, but if true, it would lend a particular poignance to his life and death.
 
Is this thread a joke? How many people will claim to hold heterodox opinions?
 
Hesychios said:
Are you suggesting that Roman Catholics who deny that an Anglican or Lutheran Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ are heretics?

Just wondering.
Click to expand...
Let’s see what Ignatius of Antioch has to say about it:

“The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him.”
  • Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
 
Hesychios said:
Are you suggesting that Roman Catholics who deny that an Anglican or Lutheran Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ are heretics?

Just wondering.
Click to expand...
Hesychios,

Are you concerned for the Anglicans and Lutherans? We all should be, why because they won’t know if the Bread that they partake is valid, truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ until you come face to face with Jesus Christ Himself in the Next Life, because they went their own way.

The Catholics Has known this for centuries that it is the Body and Blood of Christ that we eat and Drink because the Eucharist come from an unbroken line of Catholic Bishops from the early Church Fathers to the Present.

Jesus Christ founded His One Church on Rock any soul that falls away from this Church on “Rock” is no longer a member of, because what stands on this Rock is the One and Only Church, they left through disobedience. Amen

Ufam Tobie
 
ufamtobie said:
Hesychios,

Are you concerned for the Anglicans and Lutherans? We all should be, why because they won’t know if the Bread that they partake is valid, truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ until you come face to face with Jesus Christ Himself in the Next Life, because they went their own way…
Click to expand...
I just found it a bit funny that what you said was Protestants must believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but what you really meant was they must believe in your Eucharist, and disparage their own. Forgive me, I respect your zeal.

I would like to make a few comments. Not directed at you, but general statements and thoughts. I probably will not say this as well as I intend, but here it goes …

I am not comfortable with the notion implied that one must fully understand the how’s and why’s of a sacrament for it to be fully efficacious. Many Roman Catholics probably do not understand the ‘100%’ Body and Blood concept, and it still works. A mentally handicapped person could take the eucharist and it would work for him, babies could take the eucharist and it would work for them. So whether someone understands or believes that the eucharist is 100% Body and Blood of Christ, may not be the point. It may possibly not have ever been the point. It could be that we are communing with God and one another in an altogether mysterious way, because Jesus told us to.

As I see itt, there is more to Partaking the Divine Nature than the Eucharist (the eucharist is ‘part’ of the concept, immensely important in it’s own way), and we all know that merely taking a valid eucharist is no guarantee of salvation. Many Catholics and Orthodox are surely bound for hell, this is why we are always crying out for mercy.

Likewise taking an invalid eucharist (whatever that proves to be) is no guarantee of damnation. God makes these decisions, not us. God can see into everyone’s heart. And like the wind, the Holy Spirit goes where He wills, not where we think He should go.

Being under a Pope is no guarantee of salvation, being in communion with a Patriarch is no guarantee.

I am sure many Protestants are good and holy people, better by far than me. I could learn (and have learned) la lot about being a Christian by their examples. Christianity is not a card carrying fraternity, it is a way of life.

So then, let us assume someone does have a eucharist which has not been ‘properly’ consecrated (in the Apostolic/Incarnational sense), but they partake of this with sincere devotion and prayerful reverence, because as they see it Christ wants them to. Can we say that it has no value whatever? I can not say that. In the Christian world there are many types of devotions and devotional practices that can strengthen a Christian, and this can be like that for them. Our Protestant brothers and sisters who do have a eucharist available to them, and access it regularly, are far more likely to understand and respect the sacramental life of others and desire communion with them. This is all positive.

I wish the practice would spread among all the different Christian communities, and not just annually or monthly, but weekly or even daily. I would hope they did this with love and sincerity, in imitation of Jesus Christ and His followers at the Last Supper.

Let us not forget the devotion to the Holy Eucharist Father John Henry Newman had while he was yet an Anglican, an Anglican Eucharist confected in his own hands. He was a great defender of it and look were it brought him. I would not disparage any Christian who has a similar devotion to his own church’s communion practices. It can potentially do much untold good, and perhaps even has the untested potential to bring us all together.
 
This seems appropriate to the conversation
I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the
insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of
‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which
holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the
salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in
a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.166
Click to expand...
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Jon
 
I would say that I hold the orthodox view of the Lutheran Confessions and of Scripture, which means that I am a orthodox Christian. If one is a Mormon or JW among others, then they are a cult. A heterodox church is one that does not hold to the basic tenets of the Christian faith.
 
Hesychios said:
I just found it a bit funny that what you said was Protestants must believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but what you really meant was they must believe in your Eucharist, and disparage their own. Forgive me, I respect your zeal.

Let us not forget the devotion to the Holy Eucharist Father John Henry Newman had while he was yet an Anglican, an Anglican Eucharist confected in his own hands. He was a great defender of it and look were it brought him. I would not disparage any Christian who has a similar devotion to his own church’s communion practices. It can potentially do much untold good, and perhaps even has the untested potential to bring us all together.
Click to expand...
Hesychios, Yes, yes look were “it” the (Eucharist) took him, it brought John Henry Newman, into the Catholic Church. Something you should “truly” take note and meditate on.

Hesychios, even after it confected in his own hands why did John Henry Newman still leave the Anglican church for the Catholic Church?

Hesychio, Has there been any more “confected” since?

In 1845 Newman left the Church of England and was received into the Roman Catholic Church where he was eventually granted the rank of cardinal by Pope Leo XIII. He was instrumental in the founding of the Catholic University of Ireland,[5] which evolved into University College, Dublin, today, the largest university in Ireland.

Ufam Tobie
 
ufamtobie said:
Hesychios, Yes, yes look were “it” the (Eucharist) took him, it brought John Henry Newman, into the Catholic Church. Something you should “truly” take note and meditate on.

Hesychios, even after it confected in his own hands why did John Henry Newman still leave the Anglican church for the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Can’t you see that is what I was pointing out?

Hello? Anybody in there?

Don’t disparage your fellow Christians. Pridefulness will be the undoing of everything you try to accomplish here.
 
Hesychios said:
Can’t you see that is what I was pointing out?

Hello? Anybody in there?

Don’t disparage your fellow Christians. Pridefulness will be the undoing of everything you try to accomplish here.
Click to expand...
Hesychios,

Pride? No! I do boast of the Lord… 1 Cor 31 As scripture says: If anyone wants to boast, let him boast of the Lord. Hesychio, I boast of the Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist!

Disparage? Hesychio, is this how you are feeling disbaraged? I’m talking about the Eucharist the way the Church teaches, how can this disparage a Christian…but if you are feeling disparaged, you must ask yourself why you are feeling this way… and perhaps maybe you to can follow the foot steps of Blessed John Henry Newman into the Catholic Church.

By the way you have not answered my question here they are below:
  1. Hesychios, even after it “confected” in his own hands why did John Henry Newman still leave the Anglican church for the Catholic Church?
  2. Hesychio, Has there been any more “confected” in the hands of any Anglican Priest since Blessed John Newman?
Ufam Tobie
 
ufamtobie said:
Disparage? Hesychio, is this how you are feeling disbaraged?
Click to expand...
For me ? Heck no.

I was thinking about how you regard your fellow western Christians, nothing you can say on this subject bothers me.
ufamtobie said:
  1. Hesychios, even after it “confected” in his own hands why did John Henry Newman still leave the Anglican church for the Catholic Church?
  2. Hesychio, Has there been any more “confected” in the hands of any Anglican Priest since Blessed John Newman?
Click to expand...
Why is is I keep hearing gongs and cymbals?
 
I think I’m about as (small “o”) orthodox as I can be, given that I’m not Catholic or Orthodox. I do believe in the Real Presence, but in the Lutheran mystery way rather than the Catholic transubstantiation way.

(I am not Lutheran, but Assemblies of God… but I happen to agree with Lutherans on that one. Should I can change denominations over it? I’m considering it, for that reason and some others. Possibly to Lutheran, possibly to Anglican/Episcopalian. Catholic is possible too, but if and only if I’m comfortable with being a Garry Wills kind of Catholic. I just finishing reading his book, Why I Am a Catholic, and am now rereading it, more carefully.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top