The catholic church to which Ignatius belonged...?

[jlhargus]

or, if you read it all (including verse 32) you’ll see the difference.

JL: [1Cor11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.] And the difference is what? Anyone can repent of ANY SIN at any.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by jlhargus
How many thought Christ was speaking literally when he said I am the true vine, door, etc.?

exactly the same number as thought he was speaking literally with “I am the bread of life” and “this bread is my flesh”…zip, zilch…IMHO it took Greek philosophy (Platonism), with its subordination of the world known to the senses to be mixed with Christian doctrine to come up with a non-figurative understanding of the Lord’s Supper.

JL: Show me those in Jn6 who thought Christ was speaking symbolically? Why would anyone find symbolically eating His flesh and drinking His blood a hard saying? So you’re telling us even Christ’s disciples stopped following Him because He was speaking symbolically? So you think it’s sinful to use a philosophic understanding to succinctly convey a revealed truth by Christ without ambiguity or confusion. Ok, are you also one of those Protestants who believe playing cards and drinking coffee is sinful? The RP was there and taught before any philosophic definition.

 

[Newsy]

In 391, St. Augustine said, “How can something which is bread be the body of Christ? Well, by what words is the consecration effected, and whose words are they? The words of the Lord Jesus. All that is said before are the words of the priest… But when the moment comes for bringing the most holy sacrament into being, the priest does not use his own words any longer: he uses the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ’s word that brings the sacrament into being.”

Sounds like St. Augustine believed in the real presence, but even IF he hadn’t , it wouldn’t matter because Augustine is not the Church. The Church has no authority to change sacrament, it passes on what Christ gave it. Divine revelation has deepened our knowledge of Christ and His Body, therefore some forms look different, but the sacraments are exactly the ones Christ gave us.

 

[Radical]

Now you are saying that you read the hearts of about 1 billion Catholics and 300 million Orthodox worldwide.

Please attempt to cease maikng a fool of yourself.

well, this thread seems to have deteriorated and gone further off-topic, so like AmateurPianist I have lost interest in it. The above post serves to demonstrate why. The percentage of Christians who adhere to a real bodily presence (RBP) shouldn’t be threatening to the RBP crowd. It isn’t as if numbers determine validity. Nevertheless, it seems that the RBP crowd here cannot bring themselves to look at the numbers fairly…so here is how I would present it:

Here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take):

Catholics 1143
Orthodox 273
Anglicans 85
Lutherans 80
Methodists 75
Protestants (not above) 258
Independents 361

Total 2275

Now it would seem that about 57% of American Catholics believe in a RBP. See here. Let’s be generous and round up to 66.67% for the world’s Catholics. We’ll use the same generous figure for the Orthodox and use the generous figure of 50% for the Anglicans, Methodists and the Lutherans. We’ll even allow 2% for Protestants and Independents. So with those numbers, here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take) who believe in a RBP:

Catholics 762
Orthodox 182
Anglicans 43
Lutherans 40
Methodists 38
Protestants (not above) 5
Independents 7

Total 1077 out of 2275 or 47%
I might have missed a few smaller RBP groups, but I doubt that the percentages would be significantly effected. Further, if one uses the 57% figure for Catholics (as per the actual study) and leaves the other generous numbers in place, then the RBP crowd is only 42%. I strongly doubt that the worldwide RBP crowd could be any larger than 45% and it may be as low as 35% of all Christians.

Now, if the Catholics on this thread can’t bring themselves to examine that non-threatening issue fairly and acknowledge the likely percentages, then how can I possibly expect that they could bring themselves to fairly consider any interpretation of history, of scripture or of the ECFs that doesn’t validate their belief that Ignatius’s catholic Church is the same as today’s CC?..I can’t and that is why continuing on this thread would appear to be a waste of time. Cheers.

 

[Mickey]

well, this thread seems to have deteriorated and gone further off-topic, so like AmateurPianist I have lost interest in it.

Then I bid you farewell.

Now it would seem that about 57% of American Catholics believe in a RBP.

50 different studies could be presented with 50 different results. Have you conducted surveys for millions…or do you just claim to read hearts? Please stop the nonsense.

Now, if the Catholics on this thread can’t bring themselves to examine that non-threatening issue fairly and acknowledge the likely percentages, then how can I possibly expect that they could bring themselves to fairly consider any interpretation of history, of scripture or of the ECFs that doesn’t validate their belief that Ignatius’s catholic Church is the same as today’s CC?

The Orthodox and the Catholic Churches teach the Real presence. This is a fact. The teaching comes from Sacred Scriptures and is supported by the early Christians, Church Fathers (including St Ignatius), the Saints, Martyrs, Confessors, Councils and Synods. This was also a teaching amongst the earliest protestants after the reformation. Gradually, sects developed within the reformed assemblies which started to teach a heretical understanding…by denying the Real Presence.

Today,** YOU** find yourself in one of those sects. May your journey lead you to the fullness of truth.

that is why continuing on this thread would appear to be a waste of time.

And again…I bid you farewell.

 

[jam070406]

well, this thread seems to have deteriorated and gone further off-topic, so like AmateurPianist I have lost interest in it. The above post serves to demonstrate why. The percentage of Christians who adhere to a real bodily presence (RBP) shouldn’t be threatening to the RBP crowd. It isn’t as if numbers determine validity. Nevertheless, it seems that the RBP crowd here cannot bring themselves to look at the numbers fairly…so here is how I would present it:

Here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take):

Catholics 1143
Orthodox 273
Anglicans 85
Lutherans 80
Methodists 75
Protestants (not above) 258
Independents 361

Total 2275

Now it would seem that about 57% of American Catholics believe in a RBP. See here. Let’s be generous and round up to 66.67% for the world’s Catholics. We’ll use the same generous figure for the Orthodox and use the generous figure of 50% for the Anglicans, Methodists and the Lutherans. We’ll even allow 2% for Protestants and Independents. So with those numbers, here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take) who believe in a RBP:

Catholics 762
Orthodox 182
Anglicans 43
Lutherans 40
Methodists 38
Protestants (not above) 5
Independents 7

Total 1077 out of 2275 or 47%
I might have missed a few smaller RBP groups, but I doubt that the percentages would be significantly effected. Further, if one uses the 57% figure for Catholics (as per the actual study) and leaves the other generous numbers in place, then the RBP crowd is only 42%. I strongly doubt that the worldwide RBP crowd could be any larger than 45% and it may be as low as 35% of all Christians.

Now, if the Catholics on this thread can’t bring themselves to examine that non-threatening issue fairly and acknowledge the likely percentages, then how can I possibly expect that they could bring themselves to fairly consider any interpretation of history, of scripture or of the ECFs that doesn’t validate their belief that Ignatius’s catholic Church is the same as today’s CC?..I can’t and that is why continuing on this thread would appear to be a waste of time. Cheers.

Or maybe you can’t admit to others and yourself that you are wrong?

 

[Newsy]

Does this mean I won’t be receiving replies to my posts?

 

[joe370]

Radical…

Radical, Ignatius, a pupil of the apostle John, belonged to the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, to which the apostles belonged - correct?

In your opinion, do I belong to the Catholic Church to which Ignatius belonged, or do I belong to the Catholic Church founded by someone else other than Jesus to which the apostles did not belong? If it’s the latter, in your opinion then perhaps you could provide the name of the man or men that founded the Catholic Church to which I belong and when he (or they) - founded the Catholic Church to which I belong?

 

[Radical]

Radical, Ignatius, a pupil of the apostle John,…

I wouldn’t bet the farm on that claim

…belonged to the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, to which the apostles belonged - correct?

yep, though innovations had already taken root

In your opinion, do I belong to the Catholic Church to which Ignatius belonged, or do I belong to the Catholic Church founded by someone else other than Jesus to which the apostles did not belong? If it’s the latter, in your opinion then perhaps you could provide the name of the man or men that founded the Catholic Church to which I belong and when he (or they) - founded the Catholic Church to which I belong?

What you call the Catholic Church is the product of innovation and development over a considerable period of time…it contains a number of errors that have been introduced by that innovation and development and as such, it is not appropriate to identify the modern CC with the original Church. What we call the Lutheran Church (for example), is something that was started for the purpose of eliminating some of those errors. If it succeeded in that purpose (w/o replacing the eliminated error with other error), then it would be a more legitimate representative of the original Church than the CC.

As such, I think that the best answer your question as to who founded the modern CC is: Mr. Development, Mrs. Innovation and Father Time (this trinity pointing to the gradual accumulation of man-made tradition)…when exactly they had built enough to distinguish their product from the original Church is a matter of opinion. Perhaps you remember that we have covered this already in another of your many, many threads.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Lord’s Supper
1 Cor 11:23-31
"Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord… For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep (as in “dirt nap”, “6 feet under”, DEAD)

If these are just symbols, does that not seem extreme that it would kill and injure people?

In light of this verse, does a literal interpretation of john 6 really seem implausible?

And we say, this is the Mystery of Faith. When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim You death…until you come again.

 

[wisdomseeker]

well, this thread seems to have deteriorated and gone further off-topic, so like AmateurPianist I have lost interest in it. The above post serves to demonstrate why. The percentage of Christians who adhere to a real bodily presence (RBP) shouldn’t be threatening to the RBP crowd. It isn’t as if numbers determine validity. Nevertheless, it seems that the RBP crowd here cannot bring themselves to look at the numbers fairly…so here is how I would present it:

Here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take):

Catholics 1143
Orthodox 273
Anglicans 85
Lutherans 80
Methodists 75
Protestants (not above) 258
Independents 361

Total 2275

Now it would seem that about 57% of American Catholics believe in a RBP. See here. Let’s be generous and round up to 66.67% for the world’s Catholics. We’ll use the same generous figure for the Orthodox and use the generous figure of 50% for the Anglicans, Methodists and the Lutherans. We’ll even allow 2% for Protestants and Independents. So with those numbers, here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take) who believe in a RBP:

Catholics 762
Orthodox 182
Anglicans 43
Lutherans 40
Methodists 38
Protestants (not above) 5
Independents 7

Total 1077 out of 2275 or 47%
I might have missed a few smaller RBP groups, but I doubt that the percentages would be significantly effected. Further, if one uses the 57% figure for Catholics (as per the actual study) and leaves the other generous numbers in place, then the RBP crowd is only 42%. I strongly doubt that the worldwide RBP crowd could be any larger than 45% and it may be as low as 35% of all Christians.

Now, if the Catholics on this thread can’t bring themselves to examine that non-threatening issue fairly and acknowledge the likely percentages, then how can I possibly expect that they could bring themselves to fairly consider any interpretation of history, of scripture or of the ECFs that doesn’t validate their belief that Ignatius’s catholic Church is the same as today’s CC?..I can’t and that is why continuing on this thread would appear to be a waste of time. Cheers.

Obviously you so far from us in beliefs, that is very hard to even reason with you. We Catholics dont go by what we believe or what we believe makes it true type of thing. We believe because our Lord says we must believe Him and what He says,not to make it true but because what He says is True. That is why we Believe. We have a reason to believe.

 

[pablope]

well, this thread seems to have deteriorated and gone further off-topic, so like AmateurPianist I have lost interest in it. The above post serves to demonstrate why.

Well, you started it by claiming a majority of Christians do not believe in the RBP.

You fail to take into account that there are also protestant groups that do believe in the RBP.

The percentage of Christians who adhere to a real bodily presence (RBP) shouldn’t be threatening to the RBP crowd. It isn’t as if numbers determine validity.

So what is your objective basis for your percentages? It looks like your fallible conclusions…and to prove what? To prove to yourself that your unbelief in the RBP is a prevalent belief?

I might have missed a few smaller RBP groups, but I doubt that the percentages would be significantly effected. Further, if one uses the 57% figure for Catholics (as per the actual study) and leaves the other generous numbers in place, then the RBP crowd is only 42%. I strongly doubt that the worldwide RBP crowd could be any larger than 45% and it may be as low as 35% of all Christians.

So what makes your conclusion valid aside from your own believing in it?

Now, if the -]Catholics/-] RADICALs

on this thread can’t bring themselves to examine that non-threatening issue fairly and acknowledge the likely percentages, then how can I possibly expect that they could bring themselves to fairly consider any interpretation of history, of scripture or of the ECFs that doesn’t validate their belief that Ignatius’s catholic Church is NOT the same as today’s CC?..-]I can’t and that is why continuing on this thread would appear to be a waste of time/-]. Cheers.

[/QUOTE]

 

[joe370]

I wouldn’t bet the farm on that claim

yep, though innovations had already taken root

 

[Newsy]

I wouldn’t bet the farm on that claim
yep, though innovations had already taken root

What you call the Catholic Church is the product of innovation and development over a considerable period of time…it contains a number of errors that have been introduced by that innovation and development and as such, it is not appropriate to identify the modern CC with the original Church. What we call the Lutheran Church (for example), is something that was started for the purpose of eliminating some of those errors. If it succeeded in that purpose (w/o replacing the eliminated error with other error), then it would be a more legitimate representative of the original Church than the CC.

As such, I think that the best answer your question as to who founded the modern CC is: Mr. Development, Mrs. Innovation and Father Time (this trinity pointing to the gradual accumulation of man-made tradition)…when exactly they had built enough to distinguish their product from the original Church is a matter of opinion. Perhaps you remember that we have covered this already in another of your many, many threads.

So, you have no evidence. Please address the questions with facts. Or does that only apply to those of us answering your questions? This was a very weak argument.

 

[pablope]

I wouldn’t bet the farm on that claim
yep, though innovations had already taken root

What you call the Catholic Church is the product of innovation and development over a considerable period of time…

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical
I wouldn’t bet the farm on that claim
yep, though innovations had already taken root

What you call the Catholic Church is the product of innovation and development over a considerable period of time…it contains a number of errors that have been introduced by that innovation and development and as such, it is not appropriate to identify the modern CC with the original Church. What we call the Lutheran Church (for example), is something that was started for the purpose of eliminating some of those errors. If it succeeded in that purpose (w/o replacing the eliminated error with other error), then it would be a more legitimate representative of the original Church than the CC.

As such, I think that the best answer your question as to who founded the modern CC is: Mr. Development, Mrs. Innovation and Father Time (this trinity pointing to the gradual accumulation of man-made tradition)…when exactly they had built enough to distinguish their product from the original Church is a matter of opinion. Perhaps you remember that we have covered this already in another of your many, many threads.

Innovation and development? what do you think that protestants beliefs are? I am still waiting for you to present how your beliefs is compared with teh early Church.

The CC has many witness that testifies of her. do you have any witness that testify to your belief from the beginning of the Church.
If you dont, then where did you get your beliefs from?

 

[mark_a]

yep…but you need to count only those Catholics and Orthodox, the Lutherans and the Episcopalians/Anglicans who actually believe in a real bodily presence…and then tell me what happens to your supermajority.

Source please.

 

[jlhargus]

What you call the Catholic Church is the product of innovation and development over a considerable period of time…it contains a number of errors that have been introduced by that innovation and development and as such, it is not appropriate to identify the modern CC with the original Church. .

JL: What innovations and errors are you talking about? If not the Catholic Church name that original Church today. Was Christ unable to keep His promise that the gates of hades would never prevail against His Church?

Also how about telling us the name of your faith group so we can see it’s historic development? Don’t you think that would be less hypocritical?

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Radical,
Which cartoon books do you get your information from. I’d like to find them so that I can be intertained. Your academic honesty is seriously lacking. The fact and the way you say what you say is a direct insult to our intelligence. What gets me more than anything is the fact you don’t know what your talking about and have failed to ever provide any legitimate references other than Jack Chick Tracts.

I wouldn’t bet the farm on that claim
yep, though innovations had already taken root

What you call the Catholic Church is the product of innovation and development over a considerable period of time…it contains a number of errors that have been introduced by that innovation and development and as such, it is not appropriate to identify the modern CC with the original Church. What we call the Lutheran Church (for example), is something that was started for the purpose of eliminating some of those errors. If it succeeded in that purpose (w/o replacing the eliminated error with other error), then it would be a more legitimate representative of the original Church than the CC.

As such, I think that the best answer your question as to who founded the modern CC is: Mr. Development, Mrs. Innovation and Father Time (this trinity pointing to the gradual accumulation of man-made tradition)…when exactly they had built enough to distinguish their product from the original Church is a matter of opinion. Perhaps you remember that we have covered this already in another of your many, many threads.

 

[Radical]

Well, you started it by claiming a majority of Christians do not believe in the RBP.

and I am right…notice how nothing of substance has been produced by your side of the issue?

You fail to take into account that there are also protestant groups that do believe in the RBP.

so you failed to notice that I included Methodists and Lutherans in my calculation? Who else did you have in mind?

You are the one who inferred it.

did you think that I implied it? If so, then you made the wrong inference.

if I am not mistaken, you are citing that survey taken several years back. Someone here on CAF looked at the questions of that survey, and it turns out, the question did not ask whether US Catholics believed or not, the question was framed in the sense if they understood it or not, or something to that effect, that had something to do with transubstantation, not whether they believed it or not.

I guess actually looking at the survey was just too much effort? The question and results are on page 54. The question was:

Which of the following statements best agrees with your belief about the Eucharist/Holy Communion?

a)Jesus Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

b)Bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not really present.

In 2001 63% answered (a) and in 2008 it was down to 57%

In 2001, 37% answered (b) and in 2008 it was up to 43%

Note the downward trend….if it continued, you are at about 55%. Please also note that it doesn’t mention transubstantiation or even a bodily presence. If anything the question inflated your percentage.

So what is your objective basis for your percentages?

instead of blustering (w/o reading), perhaps you could produce a more informative survey.

So you even doubt that Ignatius and the apostle John belonged to the CC?

you need to read more carefully Joe…I have doubts that Ignatius ever met the Apostle John.

Which must mean: it is not appropriate to identify any modern non- CC with the original Church? Correct?

correct

Lutheran church founded by Luther in the 16th century, therefore it is not the church established by Christ. That does not matter to you - correct?

your assessment doesn’t matter to me.

It can be a tad frustrating when trying to have a friendly, honest dialogue with you Radical. If you don’t want to be serious about our exchanges, that’s cool. Take care …

Joe, I find your approach less than honest. It seems to me that you have started quite a number of threads challenging Protestants to explain Protestant belief X…which you portray as untenable. Often you attempt to limit the Protestants to those answers that you can most easily attack. If the Protestant refuses to answer the way that you think he must, then you get frustrated and dismiss the answer for whatever reason. That is not an honest dialogue.

So, you have no evidence. Please address the questions with facts. Or does that only apply to those of us answering your questions? This was a very weak argument.

Newsy, if you want evidence then start by reading Dunn’s Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry Into the Character of Earliest Christianity….when you have finished that, I’ll recommend a book for the next period.

… what makes your opinion authoritative?

I never claimed it was.

Innovation and development? what do you think that protestants beliefs are?

better, for the most part

The CC has many witness that testifies of her.

how many of those witnesses are eyewitnesses who actually saw the Church as it first existed?

…do you have any witness that testify to your belief from the beginning of the Church.

what do you mean by testify? Do you think you have someone from the first century that said: “Yep, the large Church that will be loyal to the bishop of Rome (who resides in the Vatican) 2000 years from now will have the same beliefs as I do now.”

If you dont, then where did you get your beliefs from?

the NT with a little help from my friends…Yes, I get by with a little help from my friends.

Source please.

find the link that I provided…click on it