Ignatius' statement & Logic

[Atemi]

John 6:53-57

Amen, amen<or, I swear, I swear>, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink

<what more could Jesus Christ say to make you believe that His Flesh is true food and his Blood is true drink? Even if you don’t believe, right now, in the Eucharist, what would Jesus have to have said for you to believe in the Eucharist…just curoius>

First of all, we are not called to believe in a sacrament, but in Jesus Christ.

Secondly, I “believe in” the Eucharist just fine, thank you though.

Thirdly, Christ was not talking about the Eucharist in John 6, so that is half the problem.

John 6:30

Quote:
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

Why is it hard? If he truly meant it as a symbol, why would it be “hard”? Nobody left him when he said he was the “vine”. Maybe because they understood him correctly that when He said “vine” it was symbol and they understood him correctly again when He said He was spoke of the Eucharist!

He never mentioned the Eucharist so they could not understand Him correctly anyway. Nobody would hear of the Eucharist for a while after that event, and Christ spoke in present tense.

Secondly, they did not leave primarily because He said they must eat Him, but because He said He came down from Heaven. Christ made that clear by His direct response to their question you posted above:

"Does this offend you?

What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?"

They would not accept His claim of descent from Heaven, so He then asked what if they saw Him then ascend there.

He knew their primary objection and it was not all the talk of eating and drinking.

…

 

[HailMary]

Thirdly, Christ was not talking about the Eucharist in John 6, so that is half the problem.

Uhhhhhh. Thank you Sola Scriptura!

 

[HailMary]

Secondly, I “believe in” the Eucharist just fine, thank you though.

Really? Please define your Eucharist.

Cross reference it with the Early Christian beliefs so I can be sure it was not an “invention of man” since if your definition is correct, there were others who must have believed the same.

 

[Atemi]

Uhhhhhh. Thank you Sola Scriptura!

Yes. Thank God for His Word.

In actuality, the Apostle John never mentions the Eucharist in his entire Gospel account.

He even has the largest section of his Gospel devoted to the Last Supper (5 chapters) and nowhere mentions the institution of what is supposedly the “source and summit” of the Christian life.

Amazing.

Yet so many will use the only Gospel that never mentions the Eucharist as proof for their Eucharistic doctrines.

Still amazing.

…

 

[HailMary]

Yes. Thank God for His Word.

In actuality, the Apostle John never mentions the Eucharist in his entire Gospel account.

He even has the largest section of his Gospel devoted to the Last Supper (5 chapters) and nowhere mentions the institution of what is supposedly the “source and summit” of the Christian life.

Amazing.

Yet so many will use the only Gospel that never mentions the Eucharist as proof for their Eucharistic doctrines.

Still amazing.

…

Why does St. John need to spell out the word “Eucharist” for it to be a reality? Does the bible spell out the “TRINITY” in those letters? Get real.

What is even more amazing is how you could believe something (or lack thereof) that was and is believed by the majority of Christians across all ages!

Your theology on the Eucharist would have been (and still is) considered heretical in every century for as long as Christianity has been around for denying the Real Presence…but history must not be one of your favorite subjects.

 

[Romulus]

Yes. Thank God for His Word.

In actuality, the Apostle John never mentions the Eucharist in his entire Gospel account.

He even has the largest section of his Gospel devoted to the Last Supper (5 chapters) and nowhere mentions the institution of what is supposedly the “source and summit” of the Christian life.

Amazing.

Yet so many will use the only Gospel that never mentions the Eucharist as proof for their Eucharistic doctrines.

Still amazing.

…

Hi Atemi,

Since this is a thread about Ignatius… According to history…Again, I’ve mentioned this before in previous post…did he not personally know the Beloved Apostle John for many years and was his disciple?? Don’t we think that he would know what John meant in his gospel? Don’t we think that the succussor of Ignatius’ and his disciples know what he meant and so on so forth… I’m curious as to how you as a Bible alone christian would answer these questions. I suspect I know since you throw out sacred tradition, yet you believe in the TRINITY which is taught by sacred tradition. Yes, its implicitly from sacred scripture, but it comes from sacred tradition.

By the way, it is not our intent to quarrel with you Atemi or anyone else…at least not mine. We should share views and try to make sense of our conclusions/beliefs

 

[Michael_Howard]

First of all, we are not called to believe in a sacrament, but in Jesus Christ.

Well the sacrament is Jesus Christ body blood soul and divinity

Secondly, I “believe in” the Eucharist just fine, thank you though.

Eh???

Thirdly, Christ was not talking about the Eucharist in John 6, so that is half the problem.

Jesus is speaking spiritually in verse 35 when He speaks of Himself as the object of faith under the image of food and drink.

From verse 26-51, the necessity of believing in Him is the main point of Christs teaching, but…when the terms are used figuratively as in verse 35 they are used in relation to “food” given by The Father.

32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my FATHER GIVETH YOU THE TRUE BREAD from heaven

66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him BY MY FATHER.

**Starting in verse 48 there’s a critical transition though from a figurative sense to a literal sense when speaking of this bread from heaven. In verse 52, we notice that now Jesus speaks about food which HE WOULD GIVE.

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I WILL GIVE, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

This distinction in gift givers naturally means a difference in gifts or it would be pointless to make the distinction in the first place.

It is here where Christ begins speaking literally about giving and consuming his body and blood and even uses a different and much stronger verb meaning to munch or gnaw in order to emphasize this fact.

It is also here where some of his followers leave him.

**

He never mentioned the Eucharist so they could not understand Him correctly anyway. Nobody would hear of the Eucharist for a while after that event, and Christ spoke in present tense.

That’s where “faith” came in brother and why most tunred away. Of course the words “Eucharist” were not used in scripture but niether is the word “Trinity” but it’s clearly implied from the word of God correct? I believe Christ meant to divide the wheat and the chaff by His words

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I WILL GIVE, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Literally “come gnaw on my flesh”, and is it a wonder most turned back brother?

Secondly, they did not leave primarily because He said they must eat Him, but because He said He came down from Heaven. Christ made that clear by His direct response to their question you posted above:

“Does this offend you?What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?”

He said He was “Bread From Heaven” sent by the Father and they understood Jesus to be saying “I am your source of food, of life” just as the manna in the wilderness. But then Christ takes it a step further and says, “the bread I will give you” is my flesh. Notice He says…"***I will give you". It is His flesh not a symbol.***I do not think it’s one or the other kind of thing, they were scandelized by the fact that Jesus was claiming to be sent from the Father and that He was also the “Heavenly Bread” and that those who would follow Him would have to eat His flesh.Peace in Christ,

 

[Romulus]

In a conditional statement both parts ( “if” and “then”) have to express a complete idea/sentence; at least complete enough to be judged as to their truth or falsity (ref. the truth table). By inserting the if/ then into Ignatius statement, you end up with just a phrase.
“If where Jesus is,”
Don’t know how you’d judge any truth or falsity of just that phrase.

Ah…ok as I mentioned in an earlier post…we need to get the interpretation down…lets go back…

“Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans 8, 107 A.D.

Now I may be taking his statement out of context…but let’s experiment and play with it …good learning process for us…let us assume that Ignatius is talking about the Catholic view of the “true prescence in the eucharist”. Is “just as” the same as equally?? Similarly? If either, then the statement can be possibly interpreted as, “where Jesus Christ appears” instead of “is”…sounds like we can infer that “where he happens to appear”…this now can lead to a statement say “the true prescence appears there” And now, this is a statement or hypothesis that can be either TRUE or FALSE… The True prescence appears there or The True prescence does not appear there.

Now, “there is the Catholic Church”…we can possibly interpret as “the Catholic Church is there” This is a statement or conclusion that can be either TRUE or FALSE…The Catholic Church is there or The Catholic Church is not there.

So now we have the conditonal statement made up of a hypothesis and a conclusion, “If the True Prescence is there, then the Catholic Church is there” Assuming this statement is TRUE…then the contrapostive can be applied to get a different but logically equivalent statement.

Irregardless of turning it into an if/then statement, I still think, as stated, it is false.

You believe that Ignatius’ original statement is FALSE as it stands. Do you believe that Ignatius was a disciple of the beloved apostle John for many years? Do you believe that the truth he knew he had received directly from the original apostles who had taught him?? If you answer yes to these questions, then how can you conclude that he got it wrong or that you know exactly what he was talking about??

I don’t understand why you ask Truthstalker the source of the where/there concept. It’s Ignatius’ statement that uses where/there. Ignatius never made an if/then statement.

I was curious, I asked because he is using rules of logic to the where/there statement, just like if/then statements. Just because someone makes a statement that doesn’t have the words “if” and “then” doesn’t make it an if/then statement. The hypothesis and conclusion will not always appear in If-then form.

This is good, let us keep it going Let me know if I’m twisting and distorting Ignatius’ statement…i may have inadvertently.

peace be with you

 

[DL82]

Hello everyone…I will like some feedback and thoughts on a logical result I figured out about an Ignatius statement…since I’m learning Logic.

I was comtemplating Ignatius’ early writing of, "“Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is,** there is the Catholic Church**.” St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans 8, 107 A.D…

Using logic:

Let A = If where Jesus Christ is, then there is the Catholic Church

The contrapositive of A is A’

Let A’ = If there is not the Catholic Church, then ** no where Jesus Christ is**

We know from Logic that a statement A and its contrapositive A’ are “logically equivalent.” That is a technical way of saying that they mean the same. They will either both be true or both be false.

You answers and feedback is greatly appreciated

Peace be with you.

Your version of logic here is flawed. You swap around the causal and efficacious clauses.

Let A = If where Jesus Christ is, then there is the Catholic Church

If-Then (causality) statements do not work in reverse.

A does not entail B = If there is the Catholic Church then there Jesus Christ is

Therefore, the contrapositive, A’ is in fact

A’ = If where Jesus Christ is not then there is not the Catholic Church

In other words, a religion that doesn’t preach Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour cannot be the Catholic Church, anything done contrary to the commandment of Jesus Christ is not done by the Catholic Church.

Therefore, it is the Church that is dependent on Christ to show His presence, not Christ who is dependent on His Church. Christ is not bound by or limited to the Church, though the Church is bound to Christ, because without Him present, it is not His Church. Christ is the first cause, the Church is His effect.

 

[Nita]

Ah…ok as I mentioned in an earlier post…we need to get the interpretation down…lets go back…

“Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans 8, 107 A.D.

Now I may be taking his statement out of context…but let’s experiment and play with it …good learning process for us…let us assume that Ignatius is talking about the Catholic view of the “true prescence in the eucharist”. Is “just as” the same as equally?? Similarly? If either, then the statement can be possibly interpreted as, “where Jesus Christ appears” instead of “is”…sounds like we can infer that “where he happens to appear”…this now can lead to a statement say “the true prescence appears there” And now, this is a statement or hypothesis that can be either TRUE or FALSE… The True prescence appears there or The True prescence does not appear there.

Now, “there is the Catholic Church”…we can possibly interpret as “the Catholic Church is there” This is a statement or conclusion that can be either TRUE or FALSE…The Catholic Church is there or The Catholic Church is not there.

So now we have the conditonal statement made up of a hypothesis and a conclusion, “If the True Prescence is there, then the Catholic Church is there” Assuming this statement is TRUE…then the contrapostive can be applied to get a different but logically equivalent statement.

You believe that Ignatius’ original statement is FALSE as it stands. Do you believe that Ignatius was a disciple of the beloved apostle John for many years? Do you believe that the truth he knew he had received directly from the original apostles who had taught him?? If you answer yes to these questions, then how can you conclude that he got it wrong or that you know exactly what he was talking about??

I was curious, I asked because he is using rules of logic to the where/there statement, just like if/then statements. Just because someone makes a statement that doesn’t have the words “if” and “then” doesn’t make it an if/then statement. The hypothesis and conclusion will not always appear in If-then form.

This is good, let us keep it going Let me know if I’m twisting and distorting Ignatius’ statement…i may have inadvertently.

peace be with you

I’m not going to respond to the above since the actual quote which follows, makes much of what’s been said on this thread irrelavent. Here is the quote from St. Ignatius that gives the whole context and meaning to what he meant:

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop.
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

It would have been better if you had given us at least the complete sentence in which Ignatius’ statement occurred. Don’t know what was the matter with me that I didn’t go and check the source immediately. I have no problem with Ignatius’ statement now that I know what he meant.

And, by the way, even great doctors of the Church and saints can make errors; they are not infallible. (St. Thomas Aquinas said that the soul (male) did not enter the body until 40 days after conception; for a female, 80 days. )

My bit of advice after all this - if you intend to take more statements and use them in a similar fashion, be sure to give the whole context with a link to the actual work. For this thread, Ignatius’ letter to the Smynaeans is the source and it can be found under Fathers on the www.newadvent.org website.

Just out of curiosity, did you read the chapter of Ignatius’ letter quoted above? If so, why didn’t you tell us the context?

God bless,
Nita

 

[Atemi]

First of all, we are not called to believe in a sacrament, but in Jesus Christ.

Well the sacrament is Jesus Christ body blood soul and divinity

Well that is the claim, yes.

Secondly, I “believe in” the Eucharist just fine, thank you though.

Eh???

Yup. Share it all the time with my spiritual family.

There is a whole world outside of the Mass and Roman Catholics.

Really.

Thirdly, Christ was not talking about the Eucharist in John 6, so that is half the problem.

Jesus is speaking spiritually in verse 35 when He speaks of Himself as the object of faith under the image of food and drink.

From verse 26-51, the necessity of believing in Him is the main point of Christs teaching, but…when the terms are used figuratively as in verse 35 they are used in relation to “food” given by The Father.

Starting in verse 48 there’s a critical transition though from a figurative sense to a literal sense when speaking of this bread from heaven. In verse 52, we notice that now Jesus speaks about food which HE WOULD GIVE.

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I WILL GIVE, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

This distinction in gift givers naturally means a difference in gifts or it would be pointless to make the distinction in the first place.

It is here where Christ begins speaking literally about giving and consuming his body and blood and even uses a different and much stronger verb meaning to munch or gnaw in order to emphasize this fact.

It is also here where some of his followers leave him.

Sorry, Micheael, but no talk of the Eucharist at all anywhere in the text.

The flesh Christ gave for the life of the world was given at the crucifixion.

The Eucharist is not for the WORLD, but for BELIEVERS only.

As a Catholic, you should know this.

He never mentioned the Eucharist so they could not understand Him correctly anyway. Nobody would hear of the Eucharist for a while after that event, and Christ spoke in present tense.

That’s where “faith” came in brother and why most tunred away. Of course the words “Eucharist” were not used in scripture but niether is the word “Trinity” but it’s clearly implied from the word of God correct? I believe Christ meant to divide the wheat and the chaff by His words

The Eucharist is not even implied there.

Both the Eucharist and John 6 point to the same thing.

You have the sign pointing to another sign, instead of the subject the sign in pointing to. When one doesn’t interpret the Scriptures as Christ called them to, then anything goes.

John 6 points to the cross.
The Lord’s Supper points to the cross.

Our Lord made that clear in John 6 and in the institution of the Eucharist.

Instead of the cross being the “source and summit of the Christian life,” Catholicism focuses on the Supper. That leads to the worship of the creation rather than the sole focus being on the Creator, IMV.

This is also why the Catholic defines the quality of his relationship to other believers relative to the Eucharist, not the cross. And it is there where “the church” has lost all real meaning in Catholicism.

**Secondly, they did not leave primarily because He said they must eat Him, but because He said He came down from Heaven. Christ made that clear by His direct response to their question you posted above:

“Does this offend you?
What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?”**

He said He was “Bread From Heaven” sent by the Father and they understood Jesus to be saying “I am your source of food, of life” just as the manna in the wilderness. But then Christ takes it a step further and says, “the bread I will give you” is my flesh. Notice He says…“I will give you”. It is His flesh not a symbol.

Of course it is not a symbol. Symbols aren’t nailed to trees.

I do not think it’s one or the other kind of thing, they were scandelized by the fact that Jesus was claiming to be sent from the Father and that He was also the “Heavenly Bread” and that those who would follow Him would have to eat His flesh.

That is not what Christ said they were scandalized about.

He said they were scandalized about His claim of divine descent from Heaven, not the eating of His flesh. This is clear by His response.

…

 

[Atemi]

Hi Atemi,

Since this is a thread about Ignatius…

Yes it is, my apologies.

According to history…Again, I’ve mentioned this before in previous post…did he not personally know the Beloved Apostle John for many years and was his disciple??

This kind of thinking is problematic. On the surface it seems logical, but we forget the nature of men.

Many, many men who learned right at the feet of Apostles themselves went astray from Apostolic doctrine.

Paul wrote letters to those churches he planted and taught personally that were already going off the rails in false doctrine.

If the fact that someone learned their doctrine from an Apostles was a guarantee that they would follow that doctrine, then there would be no need for most of the NT and the letters to the churches of Revelation.

We must have a higher standard of truth than claims of who learned from who.

Don’t we think that he would know what John meant in his gospel?

John never mentioned the Eucharist in his Gospel, so that point is moot, IMO.

Don’t we think that the succussor of Ignatius’ and his disciples know what he meant and so on so forth… I’m curious as to how you as a Bible alone christian would answer these questions.

Let’s take Ireneaus for example. Another bishop with incredible “credentials.”

He learned under Polycarp who was a great student of John the Apostle (again).

What we find is that Irenaeus insists that Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 years old and that any younger does not coincide with the truth.

Why did he insist this was so?

“…but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.”

“Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement.”

newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm

Irenaeus insists that all the Apostles, including John, taught that Jesus was over 50 when He died.

Using your argument, don’t you think Irenaeus would know?

No.

We cannot rely on such second-hand information for our doctrine. We must go to the Word of God.

I suspect I know since you throw out sacred tradition, yet you believe in the TRINITY which is taught by sacred tradition. Yes, its implicitly from sacred scripture, but it comes from sacred tradition.

This argument is so old.

The Trinity is clear from Scripture. The early church did not know anything else other than what we can all see on the pages of Holy Writ.

By the way, it is not our intent to quarrel with you Atemi or anyone else…at least not mine. We should share views and try to make sense of our conclusions/beliefs

Well, thank you.

I have no intent to quarrel either.

As far as Ignatius goes, he always used such flamboyant and flowery language. Picking doctrine from such language is not very wise from my POV.

From reading his writings, I do not gather at all that the “catholic church” he speaks of is the same as your church today. Way too many assumptions there.

Just because you use the same name, does not mean what Ignatius was claiming.

BTW, the Orthodox and the Traditionalist RCs all insist on being called the “Catholic Church” too. They say Ignatius was talking about them.

Everyone wants to lay claim to the early church, and everyone wants a piece.

…

 

[Romulus]

I’m not going to respond to the above since the actual quote which follows, makes much of what’s been said on this thread irrelavent. Here is the quote from St. Ignatius that gives the whole context and meaning to what he meant:

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop.
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Thanks for putting it up…and another good one is before that

**Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, 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 in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.**

It would have been better if you had given us at least the complete sentence in which Ignatius’ statement occurred.

You are right. Since I’m a newbie here, I made the mistake of assuming everyone here was aware of it and its entire context.

Don’t know what was the matter with me that I didn’t go and check the source immediately. I have no problem with Ignatius’ statement now that I know what he meant.

It happens…I forget too…its always good to go back to the entire souce and see how the statement is being used. What do you mean when you say “I have no problem with Ignatius’ statement now”?? You mean it is NOT FALSE?? You mean we can express Ignatius’ statement into an if-then statement??

And I’m curious…what do you now know what he meant in his statement, “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”??? In context with the rest of his letter.

And, by the way, even great doctors of the Church and saints can make errors; they are not infallible. (St. Thomas Aquinas said that the soul (male) did not enter the body until 40 days after conception; for a female, 80 days. )

I absolutely agree. Ignatius’ statement is not immune from error. So, If he is stating his own opinion, sort of like Aquinas soul theory, how do we know if it is TRUE or FALSE??

My bit of advice after all this - if you intend to take more statements and use them in a similar fashion, be sure to give the whole context with a link to the actual work. For this thread, Ignatius’ letter to the Smynaeans is the source and it can be found under Fathers on the www.newadvent.org website.

Yeah thanks for the advice, good practice to have the “whole context” shown. We can’t assume everyone is familiar with a statement, even if it is a famous one. And thanks for the newadvent link.

Just out of curiosity, did you read the chapter of Ignatius’ letter quoted above? If so, why didn’t you tell us the context?

I did read it. I have an idea of what the context is…but not sure yet…i’m still working on it…So i’ve been open to hearing other opinions from catholics and non-catholics…I’m still in the process of learning early christian church history…So, I assumed, then went from there to practice Logic. I did say in my thread starter…“I am in no way wanting offend non-catholics.” by what logical conclusions were produced by my assumptions.

peace be with you

 

[Nita]

I did read it. I have an idea of what the context is…but not sure yet…i’m still working on it…So i’ve been open to hearing other opinions from catholics and non-catholics…I’m still in the process of learning early christian church history…So, I assumed, then went from there to practice Logic. I did say in my thread starter…“I am in no way wanting offend non-catholics.” by what logical conclusions were produced by my assumptions.

peace be with you

Hello Romulus,

I apologize for not noticing that you had actually posted the whole sentence in your opening post. I’m sure I read it initially, and then proceeded to forget. Probably because only the second part was used for the discussion.

Anyway, the whole point of Ignatius in the chapter is that there is a hierarchy in the Church, and each level is to be obeyed, reverenced, followed according to the authority given it. The people are to be united with those who have jurisdiction over them, especially the bishop. This union of laity and hierarchy should follow the model (“as”) of Jesus and the Catholic Church.
Ignatius point was not to say where (location) Jesus and/or His Church are, but rather to point out the relationship that exists between them. The “where” should be understood more as the mind and will of Jesus for His Church; His truths, His authority and control over it, etc. The Church carries out all of that in her Sacraments and teaching.

The whole meaning of “just as where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” has to be understood as a model of all the points of behavior and relationship to which Ignatius was calling the Smynaeans.

Nita

 

[Michael_Howard]

Well that is the claim, yes.

Yup. Share it all the time with my spiritual family.

There is a whole world outside of the Mass and Roman Catholics.

Really.

Sorry, Micheael, but no talk of the Eucharist at all anywhere in the text.

The flesh Christ gave for the life of the world was given at the crucifixion.

The Eucharist is not for the WORLD, but for BELIEVERS only.

As a Catholic, you should know this.

The Eucharist is not even implied there.

Both the Eucharist and John 6 point to the same thing.

You have the sign pointing to another sign, instead of the subject the sign in pointing to. When one doesn’t interpret the Scriptures as Christ called them to, then anything goes.

John 6 points to the cross.
The Lord’s Supper points to the cross.

Our Lord made that clear in John 6 and in the institution of the Eucharist.

Instead of the cross being the “source and summit of the Christian life,” Catholicism focuses on the Supper. That leads to the worship of the creation rather than the sole focus being on the Creator, IMV.

This is also why the Catholic defines the quality of his relationship to other believers relative to the Eucharist, not the cross. And it is there where “the church” has lost all real meaning in Catholicism.

Of course it is not a symbol. Symbols aren’t nailed to trees.

That is not what Christ said they were scandalized about.

He said they were scandalized about His claim of divine descent from Heaven, not the eating of His flesh. This is clear by His response.

…

I think you glazed over the meatier parts that I really wanted to focus on Atemi, perhaps you could address this issue:

This distinction in gift givers naturally means a difference in gifts or** it would be pointless to make the distinction in the first place. **

It is here where Christ begins speaking literally about giving and consuming his body and blood and even uses a different and much stronger verb meaning to munch or gnaw in order to emphasize this fact.

It is also here where some of his followers leave him.

 

[Romulus]

Atemi, which bible version do you read??

 

[Romulus]

Everyone wants to lay claim to the early church, and everyone wants a piece…

Interesting point Atemi, I agree. That is why they are over 30,000 christian sects…all interpreting the bible for themselves, causing confusion and division…it is sad. The Holy Spirit cannot being contradicting itself. And it looks to me like SOLA SCRIPTURA is root cause of all this division.

John 17:21, “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

How is the rest of the world gonna believe in Jesus if we(believers) are not ONE with the Father, Son & Spirit??

The “early church” is what we all need to find. So far, it looks to me like it is the Catholic Church…the Church spoken in Matt 16 and 18 and the Church that Ignatius mentions in his letter.

I’ll get back with you on “trusting the writings of the disciples of the apostles”…I would like to know which bible version you are reading.