W
wisdomseeker
Guest
That only confirms Apostolic succession. no one is to do nothing outside the Church. how can anyone see any different is beyond me.
- Status
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Very well made point Newsy;
By testing the spirits reveals that there has always been only one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Since pentecost the Church Jesus built has always believed “Christ come in the flesh” unchanged in the Catholic Church today until Christ returns for his bride the Catholic Church. Historically amazing, the only apostolic see in existence today with unbroken apostolic succession to the original apostle Peter resides in the Popes. Which is another way of revealing Ignatius recognizing the apostolic see of Peter in the Popes during his life time.
1John 4:1 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.a 2 *This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God,b 3and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist ]that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.c 4You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.d 6We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.
Peace be with you**
N
Newsy
Guest
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
Did someone say “The Lord be with you”? [panic look on my face as if I were in mass]
R
Radical
Guest
yep, and as I said, he also believed Christ’s blood was incorruptible love. Why should I believe that he was speaking more realistically about the Eucharist than he was about the blood? Why shouldn’t I understand this comment about the Docetists to mean that they did not acknowledge that the bread was a symbol of Christ’s flesh b/c they denied that Christ came in the flesh?
what teaching specifically? That the bread is his flesh, symbolically? By “Eucharist”, did Ignatius mean bread and wine or just bread?
it seems (to me) that you have done little more than projected your beliefs back on to Ignatius and from there projected those projected beliefs on to the Apostles…and that is the basis for your of continuity.
after the 40k denominations has been debunked so many times on these threads, instead of using it you might just as well declare that you don’t expect to be taken seriously.
yep, that is how Ignatius used it.
in the NT we see that divisions kept appearing….so do you think that with the death of the apostles somehow a unity and uniformity (that the apostles couldn’t sustain) was somehow achieved?
that should be a rejection of the corruption found in the CC (both morally and doctrinally)…the corruption that had been introduced over the centuries to what had been the catholic Church of Ignatius’s day.
Yep, Ignatius, possibly trying to justify his own authority, placed far too much emphasis on the importance of a bishop….and it has proven to be a useful tool in the operation of an institution and also a source of considerable abuse. . Would Ignatius have urged obedience to an Arian bishop? Ignatius urged obedience, but it was always obedience to “me and mine” (go figure…someone advocating obedience to his own office)….obedience to any bishop, no matter what that bishop added to the faith or what sins he committed, doesn’t follow.
it was a very practical solution
here you read into the text that which isn’t there……and I note that you simply ignore Ignatius’s difference with the modern CC
it seems that you just don’t get my point…just b/c the Catholic and Orthodox Churches had the political clout to enforce their doctrine, doesn’t mean that their innovations and developments were not corrupt and that they didn’t constitute a serious divergence from the early Church….a divergence significant enough to disqualify them as a proper descendant.
the Prot of James is not history…it is fantasyI don’t follow what you are saying here, “(the Prot of James being an EC fabricator and not an EC father”. Please explain it to me.
M
Mickey
Guest
It is you who do not get the point.
The connection to today’s Liturgical Apostolic Church is completely obvious when reading St Ignatius’ Letters. And the Holy Fathers that follow him continue this stream of succession and teaching which holds true to this very day. But it is understandable that you must skew his teachings and the witness of the Holy Fathers in an effort to justify your reformed “doctrine.”
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.
St Ignatius of Antioch
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.
Jn 6:52
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth **my flesh,**and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Jn 6:54-55
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
N
Newsy
Guest
IF… Ignatius is speaking symbolically about the Eucharist, then why does he refer to a “proper Eucharist”? If its only symbolic, then why would it matter how its done? Why would it matter that some are abstaining, if its only symbolic? You can do mental gymnastics to get your point across, but it seems a stretch. Why does he point out that only a few reject the Eucharist as the flesh of our Saviour?
You can ask for details about the Eucharist of Ignatius time, but it doesn’t change the meaning of it. I accept that it was bread and wine, that when consecrated, become the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ. I believe this to be true because the Church has always taught this.
The basis of “my continuity” with the Apostles, as you call it, is a matter of time. Polycarp and Ignatius studied under St. John. Ignatius was ordained by St. Peter. I don’t have to project anything on these facts, the truth doesn’t have to be justified. By being in contact, in some cases relationship, with some of the Apostles, I have to believe that he was teaching what they taught.
If you think Ignatius was strengthening his position, why do you look to him? Your post made it sound like you were suspicious of him, like he was corrupt. Why are we discussing him, if you believe he was another corruption of the Catholic Church?
You said, "it seems that you just don’t get my point…just b/c the Catholic and Orthodox Churches had the political clout to enforce their doctrine, doesn’t mean that their innovations and developments were not corrupt and that they didn’t constitute a serious divergence from the early Church….a divergence significant enough to disqualify them as a proper descendant. ". So, let’s follow that line of thinking a little farther. We have no churches, besides the Catholic and Orthodox, until the Reformation. If that is the case, and the Catholic Church became corrupt and led people astray, then there was no Church to lead anyone in the paths of righteousness for like 1200-1500 years. That would mean that the Church Christ started, disappeared. That cannot be the case because He promised “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”. His Church had to stand the test of time, it had to be found on Earth or else Jesus Christ would be made into a liar. So, no I don’t think His Church became corrupt and led anyone to perdition. There have been corrupt people in His Church, but the Church didn’t become corrupt.
You said “in the NT we see that divisions kept appearing….so do you think that with the death of the apostles somehow a unity and uniformity (that the apostles couldn’t sustain) was somehow achieved?”. No. I am not implying that. There was always a faithful Church with others that rejected it. Think of the sheep and the goats, always some among us that don’t believe. But, I know through His promises, that Christ’s Church will prevail. I know He will not leave us as orphans, therefore even though some leave the Church, the Catholic Church will remain faithful to its calling.
I really don’t know what the Prot of James is. You said “the Prot of James is not history…it is fantasy”. What is this, please explain it to me.
M
Mickey
Guest
And it I may expand…
Scripture does not speak of a symbolic only Eucharist. The earliest Christians were accused as being cannibals…symbolic? I think not. The early Church Fathers and all the saints, martyrs, and confessors of the Church up to this day do not speak of a symbolic only Eucharist. Furthermore, if the early Church understood the Eucharist to be symbolic only…somewhere along the timeline of history…we would see an uproar in the Church when this teaching changed to the Real Presence. No such uproar exists. Why? Because the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist is a continous and Apostolic teaching of the Church.
J
jam070406
Guest
I never understood the symbolic argument. It just makes zero sense.And it I may expand…
Scripture does not speak of a symbolic only Eucharist. The earliest Christians were accused as being cannibals…symbolic? I think not. The early Church Fathers and all the saints, martyrs, and confessors of the Church up to this day do not speak of a symbolic only Eucharist. Furthermore, if the early Church understood the Eucharist to be symbolic only…somewhere along the timeline of history…we would see an uproar in the Church when this teaching changed to the Real Presence. No such uproar exists. Why? Because the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist is a continous and Apostolic teaching of the Church.
R
Radical
Guest
well, according to Paul, the Lord’s Supper was a thing by which we proclaimed the death of the Lord until he comes again. It was something done in remembrance of Christ. These are not insignificant matters by any means. Ignatius seems to think that a bishop must oversee every significant act within the church. The Didache and the NT give no indication that a bishop is necessary to affect some change to the elements. The thing is, we don’t have enough from Ignatius to know exactly what his reasoning was and it isn’t valid to simply project one’s own ideas upon him. I can’t legitimately assert that he was speaking only symbolically about the Eucharist, but you can’t say that he definitely wasn’t.
b/c they (the Docetists) denied that Christ came in the flesh.
It demonstrates nicely how little you really know about the details of Ignatius’s beliefs. I ask questions and require that your answers be supported by hard evidence. That requirement eliminates your ability to provide an answer. You don’t know the details, but continue to claim that you know the HOW of Ignatius’s claim…some of those details would determine the HOW…so you end up with this:
In his epistles Paul corrected those he taught…so contact with an Apostles did not ensure freedom from error. Your reasoning seems to be: The CC can’t err, so what it teaches now must have been taught from the beginning (or legitimately developed from what was taught from the beginning)…that is merely an assumption and results in you projecting later teachings back onto the apostloic age.
b/c he is included in the topic of the thread
his attribution of power to the office of the bishop seems unavoidably self-serving
again, he is part of the topic. WRT his placement of so much power in the office of the bishop, that is something that served as a practical solution to a problem…if that is all it was, then the corruption is not the concentration of the power, but the declaration that the concentration of the power was ordained by God. That it was not from either the Apostles or from God is easily envisioned given that the monarchical office of the bishop was not the universal practice in the Church at that time.
not true, other less significant churches existed: Waldensian, Moravian, and Coptic to name a few.
in the OT the Israelites were the Children of God. In the Church age, Christians are the Children of God. Paul clarified that it wasn’t physical circumcision or being physically descended from Abraham that made someone a true child of God in OT times…instead it was circumcision of the heart (a spiritual condition). True Israel consisted of those with that spiritual condition. The same goes for the Church age (where spiritual matters are not less important). The Children of God are still those with a circumcized heart… those who possess the Holy Spirit. The True Church consists of those with that spiritual condition and so it has always been around.
not by my definition (that is taken from Paul)
your mistake is equating the True Church with an institutionalized hierarchy and its adherents…that is like equating the True Israel of the OT with its line of kings and its adherents
God is our Father, not the Church. The Holy Spirit is our guarantee, not the Church. Christ is our salvation, not the Church.
Protoevangelium of James
R
Radical
Guest
it designates it to be a memorial and proclamation…nothing about a real bodily presence, nothing about conversion of elements and nothing about a mechanism to distribute grace as if it was a commodity…
at the very same time they were accused of having incestuous orgies…by your logic that would make their brotherly and sisterly love a sexual act and not a spiritual condition.
Again, it we apply your reasoning to another matter we get:
a)Furthermore, if any part of the early Church understood the Shepherd of Hermas to be a scriptural work…somewhere along the timeline of history…we would see an uproar in the Church when this teaching changed to viewing it as a non-scriptural work. No such uproar exists. Why? Because viewing the Shepherd of Hermas as a non-scriptural work is a continous teaching of the Church; or
b)Furthermore, if any part of the early Church understood Revelation to be a non-scriptural work…somewhere along the timeline of history…we would see an uproar in the Church when this teaching changed to viewing it as a scriptural work. No such uproar exists. Why? Because viewing Revelation as a scriptural work is a continous teaching of the Church.
We know that a uniform belief WRT Revelation and the Shepherd of Hermas did not exist in the early Church. Their status as scripture was debated and it was resloved without an uproar being preserved in history. Your assumption that an uproar would necessarily follow is not supported by the way the early Church resolved the status of Revelation and the Shepherd of Hermas
R
Radical
Guest
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.
J
jam070406
Guest
Yep, and I bet all of them, along with yourself, cannot give an explanation of what that “symbolism” is supposed to have meant, in any meaningful way.
R
Radical
Guest
so, proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes and remembering Christ’s work on the cross through a symbol (of how his body was “broken” and how his blood was poured out for the benefit of his followers) wouldn’t be meaningful for you? …I guess we differ.
We should probably also get back to the thread’s topic.
J
jam070406
Guest
Jesus said “unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood you have no life in you”
It definitely has meaning! A meaning carried on for 2000 years. Not merely symbolic. And your response, in an attempt to explain the symbolism, made no sense in explaining the actual words Jesus spoke.
R
Radical
Guest
If you wanted a explanation of John 6, then you could look here at posts 42-45
N
Newsy
Guest
N
Newsy
Guest
Who made you the Authority on John 6? If you are going to explain it contrary to the Teaching of the Church, please give us your credentials. I know the Church’s credentials, I trust them.
J
jam070406
Guest
I find your dismissal of Christ’s words as merely a “figure of speech” to be shallow and lacking.
What sort of figure of speech is that?? It doesn’t even make sense.
It clearly reveals the problem with abandoning the oral Tradition of the Apostles for one’s own private interpretation.
- Status