The catholic church to which Ignatius belonged...?

[Cat_Herder]

Surely you can’t think that your point is proven because an exact phrase is not mentioned in Scripture?

What I posted is glorious proof that Apostolic Succession is alive and well!

BTW–You have been asked a number of times, (politely), to enlighten us regarding your reformed affiliation. How bout it?

Oh, Radical is a Reformed, i.e. a Calvinist, i.e. one who holds that God does not will the salvation of everyone.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

Of course, for all men to be able to come to knowledge of the truth, the Church must always be able to teach the truth without error. If at any point the entire Church starts teaching error, then God is not able to accomplish everything He wills, the Trinity breaks and everything falls apart.

Thanks be to God that He loves us too much to let that happen. No Apostasy for You!

 

[Radical]

Surely you can’t think that your point is proven because an exact phrase is not mentioned in Scripture?

well, not with this crowd at least

What I posted is glorious proof that Apostolic Succession is alive and well!

surely you can’t think that your claim is proven by the posting of a few verses that fail to even mention the concept of apostolic succession…we both know that you would first have to define what you believe “apostolic succession” entails and then show how those verses establish the various aspects of "apostolic succession’. Catholic historian F Sullivan admitted that it couldn’t be done, but go ahead, give it your best shot.

BTW–You have been asked a number of times, (politely), to enlighten us regarding your reformed affiliation. How bout it?

hmmm…I must have missed the polite efforts on this thread and now, the reaction to my silence has become rather amusing…tell you what, I have disclosed my affiliation a number of times on these threads…you’ve got Jack Bauer on your team, surely he could find the answer in 24 hours.

 

[CopticChristian]

well, not with this crowd at least

surely you can’t think that your claim is proven by the posting of a few verses that fail to even mention the concept of apostolic succession…we both know that you would first have to define what you believe “apostolic succession” entails and then show how those verses establish the various aspects of "apostolic succession’. Catholic historian F Sullivan admitted that it couldn’t be done, but go ahead, give it your best shot.
hmmm…I must have missed the polite efforts on this thread and now, the reaction to my silence has become rather amusing…tell you what, I have disclosed my affiliation a number of times on these threads…you’ve got Jack Bauer on your team, surely he could find the answer in 24 hours.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Radical;8623736]It isn’t my definition. It was a question designed by certain members of the faculty at the Catholic university of Georgetown…a question by Catholics for Catholics.
again the question was about beliefs regarding the Eucharist, not the bread and wine outside of/before the Eucharist.

I beg to differ with you, I thought I was clear on my points, but forgive me for not being more clear to you. It is not the survey that I find a problem with, I find a problem with your interpretation of the survey.

If the survey was from Catholics for Catholics? why then do you add a protestant bent to the analysis? Your interpretation does not exist because according to you it is for Catholics written by Catholics. Why then are you forcing a non-believers bent to the survey’s findings?

That is why Iam grateful for you in bringing these points out so as to reveal publicly what exactly the Catholic Church teaches from how others lacking Catechesis view the Eucharist, especially from a teaching facility.

Thanks again:thumbsup:

 

[wisdomseeker]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical
hmmm…given that a majority of Christians do not believe in a real bodily presence and that a substantial portion of that majority holds to a symbolic view, you may wish to consider the possibility that the problem lies with your ability to comprehend and not with the reasoning capacity of the millions and millions that do see sense in that position. **

I find amazing how you cannot see how your belief system is so uncompatible to God’s.

You based the Truth in what you believe and the majority beliefs. Where in the Bible, I say the Bible since it is the only thing you credit, you see the Truth being determined by the majority of the people? I see that once a person differs from teh One Truth of God, there is no stopping in what they can come up with and believes it is the truth.
can you please show me in the Bible, God calling people to vote to determine Truth?

Since God runs a Kingdom and there is no such thing is voting by majority, i think you are at loss here.
I think protestants based their beliefs on America democracy now.

 

[Mickey]

surely you can’t think that your claim is proven by the posting of a few verses that fail to even mention the concept of apostolic succession

Read the verses again carefully and prayerfully.

We have the witness of Sacred Scriptures, the Early Church Fathers, and all the holy saints and martyrs for our proof.

tell you what, I have disclosed my affiliation a number of times on these threads…you’ve got Jack Bauer on your team, surely he could find the answer in 24 hours.

That’s okay. If you are hesitant to reveal your affiliation…I suppose you have your reasons.

My guess is “reformed baptist.”

 

[CopticChristian]

well, not with this crowd at least

surely you can’t think that your claim is proven by the posting of a few verses that fail to even mention the concept of apostolic succession…we both know that you would first have to define what you believe “apostolic succession” entails and then show how those verses establish the various aspects of "apostolic succession’. Catholic historian F Sullivan admitted that it couldn’t be done, but go ahead, give it your best shot.
hmmm…I must have missed the polite efforts on this thread and now, the reaction to my silence has become rather amusing…tell you what, I have disclosed my affiliation a number of times on these threads…you’ve got Jack Bauer on your team, surely he could find the answer in 24 hours.

Did Ignatius subscribe to Penal Substition and Double Predestination?

 

[Mickey]

Catholic historian F Sullivan admitted that it couldn’t be done

Good thing I get my interpretations from the holy Church Fathers and not F Sullivan.

 

[CopticChristian]

well, not with this crowd at least

surely you can’t think that your claim is proven by the posting of a few verses that fail to even mention the concept of apostolic succession…we both know that you would first have to define what you believe “apostolic succession” entails and then show how those verses establish the various aspects of "apostolic succession’. Catholic historian F Sullivan admitted that it couldn’t be done, but go ahead, give it your best shot.
hmmm…I must have missed the polite efforts on this thread and now, the reaction to my silence has become rather amusing…tell you what, I have disclosed my affiliation a number of times on these threads…you’ve got Jack Bauer on your team, surely he could find the answer in 24 hours.

Let’s just forget your theologic beliefs and nail down some truths…who cares where you got your education or what theology you profess…just give me some simple answers…we can narrow down the Ignatius thing by eliminating a few ideas here…just some simple yes or no…Ok…

Did Ignatius teach the belief that we are powerless in the salvation act, the belief that man’s salvation rests solely upon grace, but only for the elect. Because man is fallen and the human intellect is distorted and has become the instrument of his sin and the consequences of natural theology are idolatrous?
Just a yes or no…

**Did Ignatius teach perseverance or preservation of the saints? **

A little explanation.

Did Ignatius teach that God draws only those to Himself whom He elects to be saved?

Just a yes or no.

Did Ignatius teach that those chosen could not resist the call?

Just a yes or no.

Did Ignatius teach that a person is elected by God, saved by God’s grace and given faith to believe as the final step?

Just a yes or no.

Did Ignatius teach that this series of actions by Jesus Christ and God cannot be resisted by the elected person?

Just a yes or no.

Did Ignatius teach that most people were not drawn by Jesus and that those not drawn by Jesus could not believe and could not be saved no matter what they did?

Just a yes or no

and finally
**
Did Ignatius have access to the Geneva Bible with footnotes or the Institutes of Religion?**

Oh yeah…do you see yourself as one of the elect…just wondering?

Thanks…the best way to see which Church Ignatius belonged to is to eliminate some theological thoughts that Ignatius either ascribed to or not…thanks:thumbsup:

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

I believe that there was one catholic church until the 11th century split, which left the world with catholic churches in the east (your church) - and the west (my church). I believe the church to which you belong is the catholic church, just as the church to which I belong is also the catholic church, and I hope and pray that the catholic church to which you belong and the catholic church to which I belong, will one day reunite as the one CC, just as it was for the first 1000 years of Christianity, with the exception of the Chalcedonian schism.

A few years after the last Apostle died, Ignatius referred to the Church in Rome as holding the “presidency” of the many churches that together formed the one Catholic Church. Is the following quote insignificant, in your opinion:

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [110 A.D.])

Peace brother…

Of course it is very significant! The fact that Ignatius says that the Church in Rome hols the “presidency” is undisputable. The question is, how was this “presidency” excercised in the first millenium? As Ignatius says, “because you hold the presidency in love” not “in authority”. Primus inter pares: first among equals. Since the church at rome at that time was in the capital of the empire, and since from very early on it showed forth a most pure and excellent form of orthodoxy, the other Patriarchates would, when necessary, refer matters of doctrine to rome, when it could not be decided amongst themselves. This “presidency” was obviously not seen as belonging to Rome alone, since we have a later eccumincal council that gave the same authority to Constantinople. The difference is between the low, high, and absolute Petrine Views. I personally find myself somewhere between the low and high views. Though I believe that the papacy since before the 11th century began teaching foreign and novel doctrines from the rest of the catholic church, and then the schism insued.

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!

 

[jlhargus]

The HS was not given exclusively to the Apostles nor to the later hierarchy.

JL: True the HS was not given EXCLUSIVELY to the Apostles or hierarchy. All God’s people receive the HS in the Sacraments. We are all priests, prophets and kings. Thru the Sacraments of baptism and confirmation by which we are sealed. The ordained thru the Sacrament of Holy Orders receive the gift of the HS in it’s fullness as priest, prophet and king.

[Mt28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 38 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and TEACH ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, ** I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.] Christ spoke to a specific group the apostles, whom he commanded to teach ALL nations till the end. Do you suppose Christ was not aware those individuals would not be around TILL THE END? How then could they teach till the end? Answer thru seccessors by laying on of hands from apostles to bishops to bishops till the end.

The apostles were appointed and SENT by Christ to teach=prophet, [Mt28:19 **Go ye therefore, and **TEACH ALL NATIONS, …] Sanctify=priest, [Mt28:19 BAPTIZING THEM in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:] and govern= king, [Hb13:17 **OBEY THEM THAT HAVE THE RULE OVER YOU, and SUBMIT yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.]

[Acts20:28 TAKE HEED therefore unto yourselves, and TO ALL THE FLOCK, over the WHICH **THE HOLY GHOST HATH MADE YOU OVERSEERS, TO FEED THE CHURCH OF GOD, which he hath PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD.]

[2Tim1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou **STIR UP THE GIFT OF GOD, which is IN THEE BY the PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS. 7 For GOD HATH NOT GIVEN US THE SPIRIT OF FEAR; BUT OF POWER, and of love, and of a sound mind.] The apostolic authority is passed on in succession by laying on of hands and will continue TILL THE END. Giving the HS to teach, sanctify and rule…

With ordination or Holy Orders the GIFT of the Holy Spirit in given to enable the ordained to fulfill his mission.] [2Tm4:2 PREACH THE WORD; be instant in season, out of season; REPROVE, REBUKE, EXHORT with all long suffering and doctrine.]

[Titus2:15 THESE things SPEAK, and EXHORT, and REBUKE **WITH ALL AUTHORITY. Let no man despise thee.]

Titus1:5 FOR THIS CAUSE LEFT I THEE IN CRETE, that THOU SHOULDEST SET IN ORDER the THINGS that are WANTING, AND ORDAIN ELDERS IN EVERY CITY, AS I had APOINTED THEE.

[Acts14:23 And **WHEN THEY HAD ORDAINED them ELDERS IN EVERY CHURCH, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.] They ordained elders in EVERY CHURCH. The only valid ordination is given by an apostle or their successors by laying on of hands in an ubroken line.

1 TIM 5:17 Let the ELDERS that RULE well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the WORD AND DOCTRINE.

[1Tim4:13 Till I come, GIVE ATTENDANCE TO READING, to EXHORTATION, **TO DOCTRINE. 14 NEGLECT NOT THE GIFT that is IN THEE, which was GIVEN thee by prophecy, WITH THE LAYING ON OF THE HANDS of the presbytery. 15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. 16 TAKE HEED UNTO THYSELF, and UNTO THE DOCTRINE; CONTINUE IN THEM: for in DOING THIS thou SHALT both SAVE THYSELF, AND THEM THAT HEAR THEE.] Correct DOCTRINE seems to be of utmost importance to that ONE TRUE APOSTOLIC FELLOWSHIP.

 

[jlhargus]

The Apostles were most certainly empowered in a particular manner and that is witnessed by the mark of an Apostle that Paul described. That mark was the ability to do signs and wonders with great frequency. This mark is nowhere to be found in the Church today…no one today does miracles of the quality and frequency that was recorded for the Apostles. IMHO if one is going to claim that he is one of THE successors to the apostles, then he should back up that claim with the mark of an Apostle (and nothing less).

JL: Well then you should be able to show all those ordained orverseers (bishops) in scriptures had those gifts, such as Timothy and Titus.

While the scriptures do say in 2Cor12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. Those signs were not given with the laying on of hands otherwise Timothy, Titus and others would have received them. Signs and wonders were given by the Lord as a testimony to confime the message. [Acts14:3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.] The gift of signs and wonders can be given to anyone and has been especially to saints whenever God wills.

Charismata (gift), graces are gratuitouly given, whenever and to whomever the Holy Spirit wills.

1Cor 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 1Cor 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 1Cor 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. 1Cor 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 1Cor 12:11 All these are the work of one and the same SPIRIT, and HE GIVES THEM to each one, just AS HE DETERMINES] The HS gives gifts AS HE DETERMINES.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Of course it is very significant! The fact that Ignatius says that the Church in Rome hols the “presidency” is undisputable. The question is, how was this “presidency” excercised in the first millenium? As Ignatius says, “because you hold the presidency in love” not “in authority”. Primus inter pares: first among equals. Since the church at rome at that time was in the capital of the empire, and since from very early on it showed forth a most pure and excellent form of orthodoxy, the other Patriarchates would, when necessary, refer matters of doctrine to rome, when it could not be decided amongst themselves. This “presidency” was obviously not seen as belonging to Rome alone, since we have a later eccumincal council that gave the same authority to Constantinople. The difference is between the low, high, and absolute Petrine Views. I personally find myself somewhere between the low and high views. Though I believe that the papacy since before the 11th century began teaching foreign and novel doctrines from the rest of the catholic church, and then the schism insued.

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!

Does it appear over the past century that the “Roman”] Catholic view of the level of “authority” adhered to is actually changing. I too find the elevated perception of the history of the papacy to have grown above its original practice. I believe that until recognition towards the “authority” view settles to a “loving” vew, the East and West, not to mention many Protestant faiths, will continue with strained relationships. I would not go as far as referring to her [Catholic] as apostate or heretical, but I would suggest the possibility of what I just said. However, I do not agree with the division of the East from the West as a result. Whoever made that decision needs to be slapped on the hand and give 50 lashes with a wet noodle… They probably did that anyway back then, though, as a matter of self-mortification.

This is where I’m stuck, between the East and the West. I believe “jumping sides” is imprudent and serves no real purpose. We should be working towards the goal of exposing modern day “real heresies” that continue to plague the Church, universally.

Further, because of the lack of charity on this forum I’ve even move towards trying a different forum hosted by Orthodox. My beliefs are actually Orthodox, but only up to a point. I’m stuck in the middle and have a suspicion that somewhere in the middle lies the truth of the Great Schism. I have no idea how anyone that has studied actual Church history could remain comfortable in their skin sitting in the church of what’s happening now. There is not restoring, but only reformation, but not the kind of reformation called by folks like Luther or break aways like in England - multiple fingers there as well. It’s like taking an antique and stripping the petina off. Kind of destructive.

 

[jam070406]

Does it appear over the past century that the “Roman”] Catholic view of the level of “authority” adhered to is actually changing. I too find the elevated perception of the history of the papacy to have grown above its original practice. I believe that until recognition towards the “authority” view settles to a “loving” vew, the East and West, not to mention many Protestant faiths, will continue with strained relationships. I would not go as far as referring to her [Catholic] as apostate or heretical, but I would suggest the possibility of what I just said. However, I do not agree with the division of the East from the West as a result. Whoever made that decision needs to be slapped on the hand and give 50 lashes with a wet noodle… They probably did that anyway back then, though, as a matter of self-mortification.

This is where I’m stuck, between the East and the West. I believe “jumping sides” is imprudent and serves no real purpose. We should be working towards the goal of exposing modern day “real heresies” that continue to plague the Church, universally.

Further, because of the lack of charity on this forum I’ve even move towards trying a different forum hosted by Orthodox. My beliefs are actually Orthodox, but only up to a point. I’m stuck in the middle and have a suspicion that somewhere in the middle lies the truth of the Great Schism. I have no idea how anyone that has studied actual Church history could remain comfortable in their skin sitting in the church of what’s happening now. There is not restoring, but only reformation, but not the kind of reformation called by folks like Luther or break aways like in England - multiple fingers there as well. It’s like taking an antique and stripping the petina off. Kind of destructive.

Wow! You feel almost exactly as I feel. I think the Papacy has been elevated to a point it is a stumbling block to Unity. I also would like to see a concession towards love and not fear.

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

Does it appear over the past century that the “Roman”] Catholic view of the level of “authority” adhered to is actually changing. I too find the elevated perception of the history of the papacy to have grown above its original practice. I believe that until recognition towards the “authority” view settles to a “loving” vew, the East and West, not to mention many Protestant faiths, will continue with strained relationships. I would not go as far as referring to her [Catholic] as apostate or heretical, but I would suggest the possibility of what I just said. However, I do not agree with the division of the East from the West as a result. Whoever made that decision needs to be slapped on the hand and give 50 lashes with a wet noodle… They probably did that anyway back then, though, as a matter of self-mortification.

This is where I’m stuck, between the East and the West. I believe “jumping sides” is imprudent and serves no real purpose. We should be working towards the goal of exposing modern day “real heresies” that continue to plague the Church, universally.

Further, because of the lack of charity on this forum I’ve even move towards trying a different forum hosted by Orthodox. My beliefs are actually Orthodox, but only up to a point. I’m stuck in the middle and have a suspicion that somewhere in the middle lies the truth of the Great Schism. I have no idea how anyone that has studied actual Church history could remain comfortable in their skin sitting in the church of what’s happening now. There is not restoring, but only reformation, but not the kind of reformation called by folks like Luther or break aways like in England - multiple fingers there as well. It’s like taking an antique and stripping the petina off. Kind of destructive.

I agree with you that the “petina” has been stripped off in the RCC. That “patina” is in fact the apostolic faith, and it is being varnished over with humanism. Pope JPII’s dialogues with voodoo “priests”, participating in animistic rites and even going so far as to venerate the koran show his total belief in the heresy of eccumenism, and humanism in its rawest forms. (However, don’t think that I don’t know that in the last century nearly every “Orthodox” Patriarchate has also been involved in similar endeavors.) But, I digress.

I should have also pointed out in my last post that Ignatius says in another place that, “whereever the Bishop is, there is the Church.” Not, whereever the “presidency” is, or whereever the bishop of rome is. The Episcopacy is one. It is democratic rather than monarchical in nature. The elevation of the papacy in its present form was even denied by the “Old Catholics” in Ultrecht (when they would not accept papal infallability). The monarchy of the pope is the main stumbling block to unity. But again, I think I’m getting a bit off topic here.

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!

 

[Radical]

Let’s just forget your theologic beliefs and nail down some truths…who cares where you got your education or what theology you profess…just give me some simple answers…we can narrow down the Ignatius thing by eliminating a few ideas here…just some simple yes or no…Ok…

Did Ignatius teach the belief that we are powerless in the salvation act, the belief that man’s salvation rests solely upon grace, but only for the elect. Because man is fallen and the human intellect is distorted and has become the instrument of his sin and the consequences of natural theology are idolatrous?
Just a yes or no…

**Did Ignatius teach perseverance or preservation of the saints? **

A little explanation.

Did Ignatius teach that God draws only those to Himself whom He elects to be saved?

Just a yes or no.

Did Ignatius teach that those chosen could not resist the call?

Just a yes or no.

Did Ignatius teach that a person is elected by God, saved by God’s grace and given faith to believe as the final step?

Just a yes or no.

Did Ignatius teach that this series of actions by Jesus Christ and God cannot be resisted by the elected person?

Just a yes or no.

Did Ignatius teach that most people were not drawn by Jesus and that those not drawn by Jesus could not believe and could not be saved no matter what they did?

Just a yes or no

and finally
**
Did Ignatius have access to the Geneva Bible with footnotes or the Institutes of Religion?**

Oh yeah…do you see yourself as one of the elect…just wondering?

Thanks…the best way to see which Church Ignatius belonged to is to eliminate some theological thoughts that Ignatius either ascribed to or not…thanks:thumbsup:

I have no idea if Ignatius believed/taught any of those views. I have never read Ignatius’s letters with those matters in mind. That being said, if Ignatius didn’t belive those things, then a Church with those beliefs would be hard pressed to claim that it is the same church as Ignatius’s universal church given the substantive differences in doctrine…and as I have indicated before, any church these days would be hard pressed to claim it is the same church as Ignatius’s universal church given that no church today possesses more than a fraction of the members of the body of Christ.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Originally Posted by OrthodoxJosh
Of course it is very significant! The fact that Ignatius says that the Church in Rome hols the “presidency” is undisputable. The question is, how was this “presidency” excercised in the first millenium? As Ignatius says, “because you hold the presidency in love” not “in authority”. Primus inter pares: first among equals. Since the church at rome at that time was in the capital of the empire, and since from very early on it showed forth a most pure and excellent form of orthodoxy, the other Patriarchates would, when necessary, refer matters of doctrine to rome, when it could not be decided amongst themselves. This “presidency” was obviously not seen as belonging to Rome alone, since we have a later eccumincal council that gave the same authority to Constantinople. The difference is between the low, high, and absolute Petrine Views. I personally find myself somewhere between the low and high views. Though I believe that the papacy since before the 11th century began teaching foreign and novel doctrines from the rest of the catholic church, and then the schism insued.

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!

Does it appear over the past century that the “Roman”] Catholic view of the level of “authority” adhered to is actually changing. I too find the elevated perception of the history of the papacy to have grown above its original practice. I believe that until recognition towards the “authority” view settles to a “loving” vew, the East and West, not to mention many Protestant faiths, will continue with strained relationships. I would not go as far as referring to her [Catholic] as apostate or heretical, but I would suggest the possibility of what I just said. However, I do not agree with the division of the East from the West as a result. Whoever made that decision needs to be slapped on the hand and give 50 lashes with a wet noodle… They probably did that anyway back then, though, as a matter of self-mortification.

This is where I’m stuck, between the East and the West. I believe “jumping sides” is imprudent and serves no real purpose. We should be working towards the goal of exposing modern day “real heresies” that continue to plague the Church, universally.

Further, because of the lack of charity on this forum I’ve even move towards trying a different forum hosted by Orthodox. My beliefs are actually Orthodox, but only up to a point. I’m stuck in the middle and have a suspicion that somewhere in the middle lies the truth of the Great Schism. I have no idea how anyone that has studied actual Church history could remain comfortable in their skin sitting in the church of what’s happening now. There is not restoring, but only reformation, but not the kind of reformation called by folks like Luther or break aways like in England - multiple fingers there as well. It’s like taking an antique and stripping the petina off. Kind of destructive.

Wow and Wow!

For these past 2 months I have been reading almost nothing but the Orthodox Study Bible, and visiting some Orthodox websites as well. I’m planning an early visit to an Orthodox Church in the next month or so. I’m also planning on getting Bishop Ware’s books on Orthodoxy. All those years of RCC and not once did I hear/read anything about the Eastern Catholic Church!

In Him,

Jose

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Wow and Wow!

For these past 2 months I have been reading almost nothing but the Orthodox Study Bible, and visiting some Orthodox websites as well. I’m planning an early visit to an Orthodox Church in the next month or so. I’m also planning on getting Bishop Ware’s books on Orthodoxy. All those years of RCC and not once did I hear/read anything about the Eastern Catholic Church!

In Him,

Jose

I hear you. In the early stages of the growing Church in America, the Orthodox under Papal authority, were run out by the Latin rite clergy after trying to force the priests to leave their wives and children in the mother country and not to allow any married men to become priests. Stated crudely, they were hateful and justified this illbegotten scheme to “avoid scandal”. Doesn’t this sound familiar to recent “scandals” of cover ups. Makes me truly wonder if I’m just being an idiot.

 

[CopticChristian]

]I have no idea if Ignatius believed/taught any of those views. I have never read Ignatius’s letters with those matters in mind. That being said, if Ignatius didn’t belive those things, then a Church with those beliefs would be hard pressed to claim that it is the same church as Ignatius’s universal church given the substantive differences in doctrine…and as I have indicated before, any church these days would be hard pressed to claim it is the same church as Ignatius’s universal church **given that no church today possesses more than a fraction of the members of the body of Christ./**QUOTE]

Explain and elaborate on this. What do you mean that no church today possesses more than a fraction of the body of Christ? Help me understand your perspective?

You did not answer. Do you see yourself as one of the elect?

 

[Newsy]

Explain and elaborate on this. What do you mean that no church today possesses more than a fraction of the body of Christ? Help me understand your perspective?

You did not answer. Do you see yourself as one of the elect?

Do you suppose Radical sees the disconnect between his church and the Early Church? Maybe he’s just inflecting a disconnect on other churches to justify his view. Maybe he’s mad b/c he sees what’s missing in his church. I do appreciate how he fires questions at everyone, accuses everyone else of dodging his questions and then dodges questions aimed at him.