The catholic church to which Ignatius belonged...?

[joe370]

It’s not logical, but it is what they are taught and try to reconcile. It doesn’t work, yet they continue to insist.

I agree…

 

[AmateurPianist]

Could you please provide the names of all those descendent non-Catholic churches that spanned the centuries (4th century to the 10th century for example) - alongside the CC to which the apostles and Ignatius belonged?

Are you suggesting that the church to which Ignatius (a pupil of an apostle) - belonged has been lost to history forever, leaving us with nothing but descendant man-made churches of the original “Catholic” church to which Ignatius belonged?

I know there were a few eastern schisms such as the Chalcedonian schism and the eventual 11th century east - west schism, but they were not descendant churches of the one CC to which Ignatius belonged,** for they could trace their lineage all the way back to the Ignatius** and the apostles. I don’t see any non-Catholic descendant churches until the 16th century reformation.

I think I was plain, but I will repeat myself once.

Simple…

Over the course of time the Catholic church to which Ignatius belonged divided. And these divisions may have divided again.

One of these divisions inherited the name “Catholic”. Of course the attribute “name” is such that only one division can possibly inherit this attribute.

Nevertheless, all of these divisions are logical descendants of the original “Catholic” church to which Ignatius belonged.

 

[BrianH]

So you and I must defer to the authority of said translators, and not to scripture alone?

The translators are removing scriptures that were once in the Bible and currently are not.
That is just a fact.
I think any group or denomination can reject those translations. I do not see the Catholic Church doing that.
The only one I personally see doing that is the KJV folks.
New Catholic Bibles are no different, well except for more books, than new Protestant Bibles in terms of rejecting the interpolations and not including them.

 

[BrianH]

Ah, my new favorite Saint and hero. Ignatius of Antioch. Catholic, real presence, bishop’s authority, are the important facts that converted me to Catholicism. Funny that Protestants deny that Ignatius Church is different from our Catholic Church… Hmm. Kind of knuckle headed if you ask me. Sort of sounds like “if the KJV is good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for me” attitude. Ignorance.

Then you have a lot vested in trying to discredit people who disagree with you. Because that would mean that you were duped, misled, or flat out wrong if it is nothing but a heavily interpolated letter. If that played a big part of course

 

[BrianH]

LOL… I am a tad confused as to how Brian can claim that all SS proponents must defer to the authority of a translator to resolve something, and in the same breath insist that all SS proponents must defer to the authority of scripture alone.

I must have gotten under your skin Joe or you missed what I wrote. Why would a United Methodist and Catholic be concerned with Sola Scriptura again?
I did not claim what you said I claimed, did I
Are you having trouble with the fact that the Catholic Church, with her authority, taught that something was scripture and then it is no longer in the Bible? Because we can talk about that if that is the real problem here.

 

[BrianH]

Joe, why you’ve obviously not graduated from the church of what’s happening now school of bible and auto mechanics. [something my wife says, a former fundamentalist] As we explain more precisely, they revise their objections to fit their thesis: “The Catholic Church is not the real Church”.

So Jack, you would agree that older Catholic Bibles, like Protestant Bibles, no longer contain whole verses or sections? Lets start there.

 

[Mickey]

Because that would mean that you were duped, misled, or flat out wrong if it is nothing but a heavily interpolated letter.

Interpolated? I have heard this once or twice before…I don’t believe it holds much water. I am aware that there are some of St Ignatius’ epistles which are spurious…but to call the others interpolated does not strengthen your position.

 

[BrianH]

Interpolated? I have heard this once or twice before…I don’t believe it holds much water. I am aware that there are some of St Ignatius’ epistles which are spurious…but to call the others interpolated does not strengthen your position.

It carries a lot of weight.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/07644A.HTM.
It is open to debate. I agree there are no few conclusions at this time.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I think I was plain, but I will repeat myself once.

I can make this clear with an example.

Say next year the Unites States splits.

How about a north/south split about on the old confederate border.

Of course only one of these divisions can keep the old capital of Washington DC. Maybe one (but only one) can keep the name.

Which one of these divisions was the United States to which George Washington belonged?

 

[Newsy]

I think I was plain, but I will repeat myself once.

Let’s take a look at what you are suggesting, and how it plays out.

IF, the Catholic Church that St. Ignatius belonged to no longer exists, that means… All churches we now have were started by men and women. All men and women have agendas and ideas that lead them into error. SO, all churches we now have are in some sort of error. This clearly contradicts what Christ told us “I will not leave you as orphans”. Oh, we could play the ‘they have the Holy Spirit’ card, but that won’t help. Each of 40,000 denominations believe they have the Holy Spirit guiding them, but which one is right? I mean, they cannot contradict each other on most issues and still both be led by the HS. The Spirit is not one of confusion.

I follow you line of thinking that all churches split from the “one, holy, catholic and Apostolic”, and you are right to a degree, but the splits came later than you say and the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” Church can still be found. IF, as you say, the church Ignatius belonged to is no longer around, please give me the date of origin for the Catholic Church as we know it. For 10 extra credit points, who started it? I believe you will have a difficult time finding an answer other than, 33ad and … Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

 

[CopticChristian]

I can make this clear with an example.

Say next year the Unites States splits.

How about a north/south split about on the old confederate border.

Of course only one of these divisions can keep the old capital of Washington DC. Maybe one (but only one) can keep the name.

Which one of these divisions was the United States to which George Washington belonged?

That would depend on what the elememts were when comparing North and South.

Say for instance the North and South Split. The North remains as it was before the split and the South evolves or mutates into something not recognizeable as having come from the North/South Union yet having split…as the South becomes unrecognizeable when compared to the original union then that would weigh into the discussion.

Those that departed in the early centuries sucha as Donatists, Pelagians, Arians are of a type that sprang forth from the original however no one would declare themselves as to have been spawned by those that mutated.

I would not claim that Ignatius was from the Donatists or that the Donatists represented the original Church. Can you imagine someone claiming that they are the original when they are heretics? Cmon now…

 

[Newsy]

I can make this clear with an example.

Say next year the Unites States splits.

How about a north/south split about on the old confederate border.

Of course only one of these divisions can keep the old capital of Washington DC. Maybe one (but only one) can keep the name.

Which one of these divisions was the United States to which George Washington belonged?

Great analogy! Problem is it is completely unrelated to the history of the Catholic Church.
If some churches left the United Methodist and started their own organization, I can’t remember if it is a presbytery or a diocese or a synod in the Methodists. Let’s say some leave, does the UMC stop being the UMC?

 

[Jack_Bauer]

So Jack, you would agree that older Catholic Bibles, like Protestant Bibles, no longer contain whole verses or sections? Lets start there.

What are you talking about?

 

[Mickey]

It carries a lot of weight.

Nah.

It is open to debate.

Perhaps in your mind.

This article claims some “obvious” interpolations by the author but in no way claims that the epistles themselves are deceptively altered. The non-spurious epistles are defended by the Fathers of the Church. The genuiness of the epistles have been thoroughly defended and it has been shown that Cureton’s Syriac version is only an abbreviation. And even though modern scholarship at present defends their legitimacy….it is the Fathers of the Church who lend true credence to their genuiness.

And then of course, your link also submits this important piece of information:

“Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr’s death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters, unless, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or forged. When, furthermore, we take into consideration the passage of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, xxviii, 4) found in the original Greek in Eusebius (Hist. eccI., III, xxxvi), in which he refers to the letter to the Romans. (iv, I) in the following words: “Just as one of our brethren said, condemned to the wild beasts in martyrdom for his faith”, the evidence of authenticity becomes compelling. The romance of Lucian of Samosata, “De morte peregrini”, written in 167, bears incontestable evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but even made use of them. Harnack, who was not always so minded, describes these proofs as “testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that can be conceived of” (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11).”

Your continuing outcry of “interpolation” is merely a vehicle for you to reject the great witness of these epistles to apostolic succession, Church Hierarchy, the Eucharist, and other important teachings.

I imagine that these letters could cause many problems for the novel innovations of the protestant teachings.

 

[CopticChristian]

Nah.
Perhaps in your mind.

This article claims some “obvious” interpolations by the author but in no way claims that the epistles themselves are deceptively altered. The non-spurious epistles are defended by the Fathers of the Church. The genuiness of the epistles have been thoroughly defended and it has been shown that Cureton’s Syriac version is only an abbreviation. And even though modern scholarship at present defends their legitimacy….it is the Fathers of the Church who lend true credence to their genuiness.

And then of course, your link also submits this important piece of information:

“Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr’s death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters, unless, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or forged. When, furthermore, we take into consideration the passage of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, xxviii, 4) found in the original Greek in Eusebius (Hist. eccI., III, xxxvi), in which he refers to the letter to the Romans. (iv, I) in the following words: “Just as one of our brethren said, condemned to the wild beasts in martyrdom for his faith”, the evidence of authenticity becomes compelling. The romance of Lucian of Samosata, “De morte peregrini”, written in 167, bears incontestable evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but even made use of them. Harnack, who was not always so minded, describes these proofs as “testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that can be conceived of” (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11).”

Your continuing outcry of “interpolation” is merely a vehicle for you to reject the great witness of these epistles to apostolic succession, Church Hierarchy, the Eucharist, and other important teachings.

I imagine that these letters could cause many problems for the novel innovations of the protestant teachings.

May I join you in your opinion in your great cloud of witnesses.

 

[joe370]

I think I was plain, but I will repeat myself once.

If you think you were plain about the following then just disregard the following:

I asked:

Could you please provide the names of all those descendent non-Catholic churches that spanned the centuries (4th century to the 10th century for example) - alongside the CC to which the early second century bishop Ignatius belonged?

Your reply:

Over the course of time the Catholic church to which Ignatius belonged divided. And these divisions may have divided again.

That did not answer the question. Would you maybe give me the name of all of those divided independent churches (specifically those independent churches that existed from the 2nd century to the 16th century) - which you claim are all logical descendants of the original “Catholic” church to which the 2nd century bishop, Ignatius belonged?

I asked:

Are you suggesting that the church to which Ignatius (a pupil of an apostle) - belonged has been lost to history forever, leaving us with nothing but descendant man-made churches of the original “Catholic” church to which Ignatius belonged?

Your reply:

One of these divisions inherited the name “Catholic”. Of course the attribute “name” is such that only one division can possibly inherit this attribute.

That did not answer the simple question. Are you suggesting that the church to which Ignatius belonged has been lost to history forever, leaving us with nothing but descendant man-made churches of the original “Catholic” church to which Ignatius belonged, or, do you believe that the Catholic church to which Ignatius belonged can still be located in a world with so many descendant churches of that one Catholic Church to which Ignatius belonged?

 

[joe370]

The translators are removing scriptures that were once in the Bible and currently are not.
That is just a fact.
I think any group or denomination can reject those translations. I do not see the Catholic Church doing that.
The only one I personally see doing that is the KJV folks.
New Catholic Bibles are no different, well except for more books, than new Protestant Bibles in terms of rejecting the interpolations and not including them.

Brian, if scripture alone is the Christians final authority then no scripture alone proponent has the right to add to or subtract from the scripture - correct?

 

[BrianH]

Nah.
Perhaps in your mind.

This article claims some “obvious” interpolations by the author but in no way claims that the epistles themselves are deceptively altered. The non-spurious epistles are defended by the Fathers of the Church. The genuiness of the epistles have been thoroughly defended and it has been shown that Cureton’s Syriac version is only an abbreviation. And even though modern scholarship at present defends their legitimacy….it is the Fathers of the Church who lend true credence to their genuiness.

And then of course, your link also submits this important piece of information:

“Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr’s death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters, unless, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or forged. When, furthermore, we take into consideration the passage of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, xxviii, 4) found in the original Greek in Eusebius (Hist. eccI., III, xxxvi), in which he refers to the letter to the Romans. (iv, I) in the following words: “Just as one of our brethren said, condemned to the wild beasts in martyrdom for his faith”, the evidence of authenticity becomes compelling. The romance of Lucian of Samosata, “De morte peregrini”, written in 167, bears incontestable evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but even made use of them. Harnack, who was not always so minded, describes these proofs as “testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that can be conceived of” (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11).”

Your continuing outcry of “interpolation” is merely a vehicle for you to reject the great witness of these epistles to apostolic succession, Church Hierarchy, the Eucharist, and other important teachings.

I imagine that these letters could cause many problems for the novel innovations of the protestant teachings.

This part claims that each of the letters is mentioned but that is not the case.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html
Unless I am missing something.
Why would I need a vehicle to reject these things? Someone might need a vehicle to make them appear ancient than what they are. Take for example the hiearchy. Polycarp’s polity differs from that of Ignatius. One reason to assume interpolation.
On the other hand, at most it gives credence to the belief that some early Christians held proto-Orthodox or Catholic views. After all, it has to start somewhere.
In reality, I do not think that modern scholarship Catholic or Protestant finds that much disagreement in the belief that polity developed.

 

[BrianH]

Brian, if scripture alone is the Christians final authority then no scripture alone proponent has the right to add to or subtract from the scripture - correct?

Why would you ask a person who is not scripture alone what scripture alone people should or should not do?
But I have read you enough to know you get fixated on questions that may not get to the point and so I will answer.
The answer is no though.
I think that is an argument a fundamentalist Christian would make. The facts speak otherwise. Scripture has changed in the last 500 years and I think it will continue to. That is why a small segment of Christians appeal to an infallible translation.
In realtity translators change scripture by removing passages and sections. This occurs in Catholic and Protestant Bibles.

 

[joe370]

BrianH;8576893]I must have gotten under your skin Joe or you missed what I wrote.

As a fellow brother in Christ you would never get under my skin.

Why would a United Methodist and Catholic be concerned with Sola Scriptura again?

I forgot. You are not a sola scriptura proponent. My bad brother…

I

did not claim what you said I claimed, did I

I was merely asking questions to learn…

Are you having trouble with the fact that the Catholic Church, with her authority, taught that something was scripture and then it is no longer in the Bible?

The CC taught that something was to be in scripture but then removed it??? Sure, let’s talk about that.