On WHAT basis does your Church claim to be the One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible?

[steve_b]

Ignatius’ letters are very interesting to the subject.

I understand that his letters have multiple recensions and there is scholarly debate as to the authenticity of them.

He has The Spurious Epistles , which I don’t quote from or use in any way
s:

But, these letters do give us information about what the church at the time was like and what was happening and what they were teaching. He did call the church - catholic/universal. I don’t think that anyone disagrees that the church was universal in nature in the early centuries. They were separate churches that were united with Christ.

The Church was united. Not a bunch of squabbling ethnic groups all believing something different. If they tried that they got a letter of reprimand. Ignatius and all the Church fathers after him were clear on that.

keep reading for some examples
s:

But, most important in the letter to the Smyrnaeans he was warning about a Gnostic heresy called Docetism. This heresy said that Jesus Christ had no body, but was just a phantom-like image and that he didn’t really suffer on the cross. I imagine at that time when there wasn’t a Bible in every household and various people were going around sharing all kinds of different teachings, it was more important than ever to seek the trained bishops to make sure that things were being done validly. I think it makes sense to say this.

The oldest canon we know of is the Muratorian canon, from ~180 a.d.

It’s a quick read English Translation from Roberts-Donaldson

The final canon didn’t appear till the year 382. For almost 400 years there was no “bible.” Just collections of writings. Jerome translated the first bible into Latin.
s:

I didn’t see anything about Clement or Corinthian bishops in the letter you linked. Is there a particular quote that he said in regards to this that I missed?

In Ignatius’s case it’s a veiled acknowledgment in his letter to Rome. Here is the part in his letter Epistle to the Romans

Chapter 3. Pray rather that I may attain to martyrdom

“You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others[/COLOR]]”

That’s a reference to the sedition in Corinth among their bishops that Clement weighed in on.

AND

Enjoin: definition

• to direct or order (someone) to do something
• : to prevent (someone) from doing something; especially : to give a legal order preventing (someone) from doing something
  
  Ignatius knew Clement gave the bishops of Corinth instruction and consequences if they didn’t end their sedition. I wouldn’t doubt he had a copy of Clement’s letter to Corinth. First Epistle
  The Corinthians after the sedition ended, kept Clements letter and read it during sacred Liturgies for many years as if it was scripture.

And

Irenaeus, was even farther distance away from Rome than Ignatius, and uses Clement as an example in his work “Against Heresies”.Bk 3 [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) v 1-3

Irenaeus writes

1. The Blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith,

s:

Also, you mentioned earlier in the post about the Letter to the Romans as the church who presides. I only see the term presides in the greeting. "…the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans

, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love,…" Is this the quote you are speaking of? Or is it something in one of the other versions of the letter?

preside: definition

1. • 1 : to exercise guidance, direction, or control
   • 2 a : to occupy the place of authority : act as president, chairman, or moderator b : to occupy a position similar to that of a president or chairman
   Obviously the pope has never been called a president, but the analogy is one who holds the top position of authority in the Church

 

[Alex_H]

What we see in Lumen Gentium comes to much richer exploration. Pope Saint John Paul II goes on to write about this theme in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, which I encourage you to read in its entirety.

Here is a nice passage to introduce you to the document…with my emphases:

42. It happens for example that, in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism* refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ*. I have personally been able many times to observe this during the ecumenical celebrations which are an important part of my Apostolic Visits to various parts of the world, and also in the meetings and ecumenical celebrations which have taken place in Rome. The “universal brotherhood” of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out; scholarships are offered for the training of ministers in the Communities most lacking in resources; approaches are made to civil authorities on behalf of other Christians who are unjustly persecuted; and the slander to which certain groups are subjected is shown to be unfounded.

In a word, Christians have been converted to a fraternal charity which embraces all Christ’s disciples. If it happens that, as a result of violent political disturbances, a certain aggressiveness or a spirit of vengeance appears, the leaders of the parties in question generally work to make the “New Law” of the spirit of charity prevail. Unfortunately, this spirit has not been able to transform every situation where brutal conflict rages. In such circumstances those committed to ecumenism are often required to make choices which are truly heroic.

It needs be reaffirmed in this regard that acknowledging our brotherhood is not the consequence of a large-hearted philanthropy or a vague family spirit. It is rooted in recognition of the oneness of Baptism and the subsequent duty to glorify God in his work. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism* expresses the hope that Baptisms will be mutually and officially recognized. This is something much more than an act of ecumenical courtesy; it constitutes a basic ecclesiological statement.

It is fitting to recall that the fundamental role of Baptism in building up the Church has been clearly brought out thanks also to multilateral dialogues.*
This expresses the mind of the Church today.

There is also the phenomenal work done by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which is the dicastery of the Holy See responsible for Catholics working with and relating to other Christian communities.

The members of this dicastery are principally the ones who are working with their Lutheran counterparts at the international level to coordinate the Joint Commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation which Pope Francis will inaugurate this October, together with the Swedish Lutheran Church and with Catholics and Lutherans around the world.

This joint commemoration will begin on the occasion of his apostolic visit to Sweden – and with a joint service of common prayer at which he will co-preside – and continue for one year with joint observances around the world. The bishops of the United States have already begun to announce their planned commemorations in the various dioceses.

I think what really discourages me is a short talk with today’s Catholic. I was at a bible study with fellow Catholics, and we got on the subject of the need of conversion. Many of them were speaking of our need to “not judge” and “to meet them where they are” and “we don’t know where they are at in their spiritual life.” Totally ignoring the fact that if these people don’t convert, they could go to hell.

 

[Abu]

Alex H #180
I think what really discourages me is a short talk with today’s Catholic. I was at a bible study with fellow Catholics, and we got on the subject of the need of conversion. Many of them were speaking of our need to “not judge” and “to meet them where they are” and “we don’t know where they are at in their spiritual life.”

That is precisely why the loose talk about “nuanced view” and to “not judge” is false.

Here is the reality of judging with which you can enlighten all who “feel” that way, for it is certainly not considered thought.

We can’t judge according to truth by being mesmerized by others and giving them adulation, but according to the teaching of Christ’s Church, Her Tradition and Her Scriptures. We are commanded not to judge others regarding their motives, intentions, and guilt before God (a judgment reserved to God). (Mt 7:1-5).

But it is vital to follow the command to judge all actions, speech, writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth. Christ and His Church’s Scriptures tell us:
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).

“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgement by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).

“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgement on the one who has committed this deed…” (1 Cor 5:3; read 1-13).

“I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.” (1 Cor 10:15).

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).

“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).

The correction should be with the intention of helping others to see right from wrong and truth from falsehood and so assisting in the path to virtue.

Totally ignoring the fact that if these people don’t convert, they could go to hell.

That is not so, because it is not for us to judge their knowledge/acceptance/understanding of Catholic dogma and doctrine.

That is why CCC 846 teaches:
Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body”.

That is the reality.

 

[benhur]

I think what really discourages me is a short talk with today’s Catholic. I was at a bible study with fellow Catholics, and we got on the subject of the need of conversion. Many of them were speaking of our need to “not judge” and “to meet them where they are” and “we don’t know where they are at in their spiritual life.” Totally ignoring the fact that if these people don’t convert, they could go to hell.

Hi Alex,

I totally follow your thoughts. I would ask myself why do you have to abide by your church requirements and others who are not Catholic yet are aware of your requirements are not.

I mean I have refrained from your view of real presence communion , and the confessional, and do not have a authorized ‘pastor’ . Yet it seems I may get to heaven just as you, without any real "eating’’ of His flesh, or confessing mortal sins to a priest.

Blessings

 

[Tomdstone]

I think what really discourages me is a short talk with today’s Catholic. I was at a bible study with fellow Catholics, and we got on the subject of the need of conversion. Many of them were speaking of our need to “not judge” and “to meet them where they are” and “we don’t know where they are at in their spiritual life.” Totally ignoring the fact that if these people don’t convert, they could go to hell.

In Matthew 25: 31-46, Jesus does not say that you have to belong to the Church of Rome to be saved.

 

[benhur]

Here’s the search engine for the CCC scborromeo.org/ccc.htm that I use.
there are lots of options available to use in searching.

btw, delete “enter search string” in the search box before you enter a search term. I wish it automatically deleted itself when you enter a term, but it doesn’t.

getting the most out of that search engine

let’s pick a subject you bring up “ignorance”

we could do this in 2 ways

1. 
   *] put ignorance in the search line (remember in the search box, first delete "enter search string" before entering a word to search ) here’s the result ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=ignorance&xsubmit=Search&s=SS , all the places where ignorance shows up in the CCC
   *]paragraph 1792 is the 1st paragraph that shows up . If you then open up 1792, you see the description, but if you want to see it in context, Choose this selection under the description Enter the Catechism at this paragraph, and that gives you progression of thought
   
   I hope that helps to simplify and help your searching results

1. 
   Hi steve,
   
   Did it thanks. Seems like an electronic exhaustive “concordance”. So that is how you guys do it. pretty neat tool. Thanks
   
   Blessings
   
   PS How many parishes put this on their site ?

 

[Cyril_Of_Canada]

Benhur, I think before we proceed with our discussion, I’d like to know
if you have read the documents known as The Early Church Fathers (Polycarp, Ignatius, Iraenius, Augustine, Clement, for starters). Have you? As in, the actual documents attibuted to them.

 

[Abu]

benhur #182
I have refrained from your view of real presence communion , and the confessional, and do not have a authorized ‘pastor’ . Yet it seems I may get to heaven just as you, without any real "eating’’ of His flesh, or confessing mortal sins to a priest.

Tomdstone #183
In Matthew 25: 31-46, Jesus does not say that you have to belong to the Church of Rome to be saved.

The refusal to acknowledge and follow what Jesus taught and mandated in Matthew 16:18-19 in His one and only Church by installing St Peter as the Supreme Head with unique powers and His promise to be with His Church “until the end of the world”, exposes the reality that all that has been jettisoned is due to a selfist stance contrary to the will of Jesus.

The fact that Matthew 16:18-19 has never been accepted by everyone universally demonstrates the reality that humanity exists in a fallen nature and the evils and selfist actions are the result of that fact, apart from the reality that so many are misinformed.

The denial of this reality for multitudinous self-expression is what has caused the errors that have followed to this day.

 

[benhur]

The refusal to acknowledge and follow what Jesus taught and mandated in Matthew 16:18-19 in His one and only Church by installing St Peter as the Supreme Head with unique powers and His promise to be with His Church “until the end of the world”, exposes the reality that all that has been jettisoned is due to a selfist stance contrary to the will of Jesus.

The fact that Matthew 16:18-19 has never been accepted by everyone universally demonstrates the reality that humanity exists in a fallen nature and the evils and selfist actions are the result of that fact, apart from the reality that so many are misinformed.

The denial of this reality for multitudinous self-expression is what has caused the errors that have followed to this day.

Hi Abu.

First thank you for admitting that the papacy has never ben universally accepted. Thank you for your opinions for the reasons why. As you may know also, there are contrary reasons also. The papists say the anti papists are “in the flesh”, and vice versa.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Benhur, I think before we proceed with our discussion, I’d like to know
if you have read the documents known as The Early Church Fathers (Polycarp, Ignatius, Iraenius, Augustine, Clement, for starters). Have you? As in, the actual documents attibuted to them.

Hi CC,

I have only read; Barnabus, Justin Martyr, Didache, Ignatius, Clement /Rome, Shepherd of Hermas, Mathetes, and Augustine’s Confessions, some of Iraneus.

To me they are quite universal. I do see how C’s and O’s and P’s each find themselves in them. I mean we differ on Writ, why not on early fathers ? You will find what you seek.

I do agree that their is a progression of writings that are more and more “Roman Catholic”, Augustine being somewhat of a pivot point.

Again, what hardens clay softens wax.

Blessings

 

[Cyril_Of_Canada]

Hi CC,

I have only read; Barnabus, Justin Martyr, Didache, Ignatius, Clement /Rome, Shepherd of Hermas, Mathetes, and Augustine’s Confessions, some of Iraneus.

To me they are quite universal. I do see how C’s and O’s and P’s each find themselves in them. I mean we differ on Writ, why not on early fathers ? You will find what you seek.

I do agree that their is a progression of writings that are more and more “Roman Catholic”, Augustine being somewhat of a pivot point.

Again, what hardens clay softens wax.

Blessings

Alright. Let’s begin there. I want to make it clear I’m not a catholic appologist, and everything I share is part of my ongoing journey concerning Catholicism.

I pull open my Catholic Ignatius Study Bible, approved by Catholic Answers and the Catholic Church.

Matt 18:16:

Ignatius Study Bible: "He enables Peter(and his successors) to hold error at bay and faithfully proclaim the gospel. Also found in CCC552.

Benhur, what do you think about that interpretation: That Jesus and the Holy Spirit would NOT let error affect His Church—his visible Church that He established, because as he once said, a city on a hill cannot be hid.

I also invite you to read up on “What does Catholic mean” according to the lens of the Catholic Church. After reading that, I’d like you to share with us what conclusion you come to with regards to the article:

catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

 

[susanlo]

He has The Spurious Epistles , which I don’t quote from or use in any way

There are the spurious epistles in addition to the 7 epistles that are considered to be authentic by many scholars. The ones thought to be authentic also have longer editions that are believed to be 4th century additions. I believe there may be other versions of the 7 that vary as well, but I am not sure. Most scholars think that the short versions are authentic.
earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html
This site has links to various translations of both the shorter recensions and a copy with the longer recension that is thought to be spurious.

The Church was united. Not a bunch of squabbling ethnic groups all believing something different. If they tried that they got a letter of reprimand. Ignatius and all the Church fathers after him were clear on that.

keep reading for some examples

I think conflict is part of human sinful nature. It may exist in various forms, but I don’t think Christianity was ever completely free from conflict among each other.

The oldest canon we know of is the Muratorian canon, from ~180 a.d.

It’s a quick read English Translation from Roberts-Donaldson

The final canon didn’t appear till the year 382. For almost 400 years there was no “bible.” Just collections of writings. Jerome translated the first bible into Latin.
In Ignatius’s case it’s a veiled acknowledgment in his letter to Rome. Here is the part in his letter Epistle to the Romans

Chapter 3. Pray rather that I may attain to martyrdom

“You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others[/COLOR]]”

That’s a reference to the sedition in Corinth among their bishops that Clement weighed in on.

AND

Enjoin: definition

• to direct or order (someone) to do something
• : to prevent (someone) from doing something; especially : to give a legal order preventing (someone) from doing something
  
  Ignatius knew Clement gave the bishops of Corinth instruction and consequences if they didn’t end their sedition. I wouldn’t doubt he had a copy of Clement’s letter to Corinth. First Epistle
  The Corinthians after the sedition ended, kept Clements letter and read it during sacred Liturgies for many years as if it was scripture.

Wow, that is so veiled I don’t even see it. The Roman church does not envy, and they teach others. That sounds likely for most churches too, I would think. Could this only be speaking of a letter from Clement to Corinth?
Wasn’t he writing to the church in Rome because he was imprisoned there and he wanted the congregation to not interfere with him being martyred? Some church members had political influence and at times would make attempts to have people freed. Was he ‘enjoin’ing the Roman church to use their influence in the Roman community to allow him to be found guilty so he could be martyred? I am not a scholar, but it looks like that is the gist of the letter. I don’t think the enjoining is about asking Rome to rebuke other churches. (Didn’t Ignatius rebuke and intervene in the other churches himself in the other letters he wrote?) I don’t know that I fully understand what he is saying here in this epistle. His language can be confusing.

continued…

 

[susanlo]

Irenaeus, was even farther distance away from Rome than Ignatius, and uses Clement as an example in his work “Against Heresies”.Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3

Irenaeus writes

1. The Blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith,

I don’t know if there is doubt that Clement wrote a letter to Corinth. I have never thought it was doubted.

Clement’s letter doesn’t mention any authority. It is much less authoritative than Ignatius’ letters. Clement cites Paul’s letter to the Corinthians in Chapter 47 and acknowledges that Paul had authority to intervene in conflicts. Why wasn’t only Peter allowed to do this? And we see other letters of bishops intervening in other churches by letter in the early centuries. Is this letter different than those?

This writing by Irenaeus you just cited is interesting. In the paragraph above this it says that the church in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul. “by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;”
That seems to conflict with Romans 15:20-24
“20 And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation; 21 but as it is written,
“THEY WHO HAD NO NEWS OF HIM SHALL SEE,
AND THEY WHO HAVE NOT HEARD SHALL UNDERSTAND.”
22 For this reason I have often been prevented from coming to you; 23 but now, with no further place for me in these regions, and since I have had for many years a longing to come to you 24 whenever I go to Spain—for I hope to see you in passing, and to be helped on my way there by you, when I have first enjoyed your company [k]for a while—”

I just think that is an interesting aspect of the letter. Who did found the church at Rome? This example shows that it only takes a few centuries (or less) for history to become confused.

preside: definition

1. 
   *]1 : to exercise guidance, direction, or control
   *]2 a : to occupy the place of authority : act as president, chairman, or moderator b : to occupy a position similar to that of a president or chairman
   
   Obviously the pope has never been called a president, but the analogy is one who holds the top position of authority in the Church

1. 
   But did the Roman church preside in Rome - the region where Ignatius was imprisoned and was seeking political influence? Or did the bishop of the church in Rome preside over all of Christianity? It sounds more like the first to me. I will read it again.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi steve,

Did it thanks. Seems like an electronic exhaustive “concordance”. So that is how you guys do it. pretty neat tool. Thanks

Blessings

PS How many parishes put this on their site ?

Speaking of cool tools for Faith study…

biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=believes+and+is+baptized&qs_version=RSVCE

scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

BTW, I think you and others made a strong case to refrain from calling a Priest father. Will look into it more.

 

[PJM]

Hi PJM,

Well, He will judge us by the light He has given us and our reaction to it. So we will be judged by how we believe and as you say, according to the light He has provided.

Yes, the CC attitude and teaching about those believers outside of Rome is a bit “complicated”. Part due to the faithfulness to their tradition (sectarian), and part due to desire to face the reality of there effective existence, and therefore ecumenism.

Blessings

Thank you

God Bless

Patrick

 

[PJM]

:tiphat: hi Patrick,

hope you don’t mind me sharing a few thoughts

On just 2 of many titles for Jesus, “the way” and “the Christ”, those terms “the way” Acts 9:2 and “Christian” Acts 11:26 would make sense to call the followers of Jesus in those terms.

**otoh, “The Church” was called
**
Acts 9:31 “the church throughout al ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς **” as in, “The Kataholos Church”, as in “the Church according to the whole” , as in “the universal Church”, as in Catholic in English
** catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

As an historical aside,

Ignatius was already bishop of Antioch in 70 a.d. Acts was written ~70 a.d. Ignatius was considered the first to write “Catholic Church”.

He writes: in ~107 a.d.

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.

Epistle to the Smyrnæans

All during his time as bishop, he would have taught this in his preaching and instruction. He would have learned that from the apostles who ordained him and from John who he was a direct disciple of…

As another aside, Ignatius writes to the Church of Rome, as the Church who presides, i.e. holds the presidency.Epistle to the Romans

Here’s what I find interesting.

I ask the following questions

did anyone anywhere say Huh , to any of these huge statements made by Ignatius? in his Epistle to the Smyrnæans

for example, putting his points in that epistle, into bullet points

• 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 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.
• the Church of Rome, as the Church which holds the presidency. Epistle to the Romans

Where’s the objections? Where’s the push back? He writes that as matter of fact.

What’s also interesting, Ignatius in his letter to Rome, he knew about Clement’s actions (pope of Rome) against the Corinthian bishops who were in sedition. I bring this up to not only show how connected everyone is, but that one bishop in particular has authority over the others… And the understanding, that Clement can act throughout the whole, because of his office. This is already taking place “DURING” apostolic times.

Just adding a few thoughts

Well done:thumbsup:

Thanks and God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

I appreciate the reply, but let me try to clarify…

I would definitely disagree here, surprise. I don’t think it is limited when we examine the Greek used as opposed to the English. It certainly isn’t “contrived.”

It’s the term church itself that is what we are talking about, not the faith of a “particular” church. There is only one ekklesia, by definition; the out-called ones of God.

Again, this is why there is a problem in translating “ekklesia” as “church.” God’s got a congregation, He has one congregation of out-called ones. Only one, as that is how we are grouped. The body of Christ, singular. Who makes up that congregation is what is really being debated. The reason why this must go into semantics is because of the way you ask your question in the OP. I don’t have a “church.” God has His out-called ones. His Congregation.

And you as well.

THANK YOU,

“It’s the term church itself that is what we are talking about, not the faith of a “particular” church. There is only one ekklesia, by definition; the out-called ones of God”

This may be your concern, however its low on my priorities. Not that is does not matter, but my ministry is in a different direction.

I have seen in this string an understanding that it seems possible [its NOT] to separate how a church is defined, without attaching to it the faith beliefs of that congregation.

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Thanks for this.
I have an ongoing prayer thread going on with regards to obstacles to conversion to catholicism, and when those two pastors came over to try to ask why I wanted to convert and persuade me not to, I had been adviced by many catholics on the forum to not verse sling with them or deride their faith nor put them down. I sure certainly print what you said up and cite it, and so on. They want to have another talk with me again, so I’ll need advice from the local priest and catholics on how to proceed concerning that.

The great thing is that I recorded their objections and transcribed the conversation, which I hope to share with people on here for greater scrutiny and insight on how to proceed. I can also see what their biggest problems are and what they may be telling my wife privately.

In my discussion with them, they agreed with me that Jesus established the Catholic Church, BUT Jesus took the reformers OUT of the Church and took them into the future with the Protestant Church, which they believe is the same Church that He established. But, if that is so, and they had to leave the Catholic Church, then as you pointed out, that would be saying that the gates of hell prevailed against his Church and things became so bad it had to happen.

One of the questions that they kept asking me was “why”—as in, why do I think the Catholic Church is better; Why do I want to become a catholic; Why do I want to convert; Why would I want to join the Catholic Church and not stay in the Protestant Church; Why would I step back into what they perceive is the former church of Jesus Christ, which has strayed in their eyes from the Bible and bible teaching. They believe that I’d be joining The Catholic Church to worship saints and Mary. They even said it’s acceptable to be a catholic at heart as long as I don’t actually convert.

I’m looking forward to reading Scott Hahn’s books, especially Rome Sweet Home(I think that is the correct name) and Devin Rose’s Protestant Dilemma.

I absoutely agree, Steve did an outstanding serivice to this STRING and to our Catholic Faith by posting as he did!

God Bless you both!

Partick

 

[PJM]

Ignatius’ letters are very interesting to the subject.

I understand that his letters have multiple recensions and there is scholarly debate as to the authenticity of them. The shorter recensions are mostly thought to be authentic. I know very little of the debate, but it is important to keep in mind.

Also, unlike the NT letters that were inspired by the Holy Spirit and were written to the church it was addressed to as well as meant to be instructive to all Christians for millennia to come, these were written to the church and don’t claim to be inspired or instructive for all generations to come. Even some of the NT letters are understood within a cultural context (i.e. 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 and 1 Corinthians 14:34).

But, these letters do give us information about what the church at the time was like and what was happening and what they were teaching. He did call the church - catholic/universal. I don’t think that anyone disagrees that the church was universal in nature in the early centuries. They were separate churches that were united with Christ.

He does say that those in the church should follow the bishops. This is good advice in general. When a church appoints leaders, they should be respected and followed. I think this is good for all churches. But, most important in the letter to the Smyrnaeans he was warning about a Gnostic heresy called Docetism. This heresy said that Jesus Christ had no body, but was just a phantom-like image and that he didn’t really suffer on the cross. I imagine at that time when there wasn’t a Bible in every household and various people were going around sharing all kinds of different teachings, it was more important than ever to seek the trained bishops to make sure that things were being done validly. I think it makes sense to say this.

I didn’t see anything about Clement or Corinthian bishops in the letter you linked. Is there a particular quote that he said in regards to this that I missed?

Also, you mentioned earlier in the post about the Letter to the Romans as the church who presides. I only see the term presides in the greeting. “…the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love,…” Is this the quote you are speaking of? Or is it something in one of the other versions of the letter?

I don’t wish to disrupt this great discussion, however, it seems important to note, that the entire NewTestimate was from the authors perspective, written to a specific group, and addressing very specific concerns related to THEM. It is quite possible that NONE of them envisioned the Bible in the form we have it today.

This then would apply also to many of the Early Fathers, [Popes excluded from this comment]. who too were instructing groups for which God choose them to instruct. While very much of these writings Do have application to “The Church”; it is the Holy Spirit who makes that connection.

Gd Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Does the Catholic Church claim to be the one true-faith church of the bible?

YES, indeed, no other possibility even exist.

And this position is provable both through History and the bible itself.

Please READ the following in the sequence provided, paying VERY CLOSE attention to the Divinely Inspirited authors use of the SINGULAR-TENSE words.

Mt 10: 1-8

Mt 16:15-19

John 17:17-20

Mt 28:18-20

& this is the short list of the evidence; there is very much more.
If my friend, you have additional questions, please ask Me, and I will gladly address them for you.

God Bless you,

Patrick [PJM] here on CAF