No, he taught that there WAS only ONE true Church, just as there is today. There were communities in Antioch, and Rome, but all believed the same doctrine. They were unified, just as Catholics are today.
This is true, Ignatius was from the Eastern Church. However, at the time, there was no “Roman Rite” and Eastern Rite. The whole church was united without any schism.
No, he taught that there WAS only ONE true Church, just as there is today. There were communities in Antioch, and Rome, but all believed the same doctrine. They were unified, just as Catholics are today.
This is true, Ignatius was from the Eastern Church. However, at the time, there was no “Roman Rite” and Eastern Rite. The whole church was united without any schism.
This is quite right. However, I think you are in error believing that modernints or all those who claim to be Catholic are actually Catholic. If htye are not in union with the teachings,then they are not unified in the faith.
It is very easy to speculate, and the Catholic church, fullfilling Christ’s prophecy, has become the world’s whipping boy. Some of this critcism is self-inflicted, but not all. Maintaining unity has been a struggle from the first, as Christ’s teachings go so against our fallen human nature.
You are judging the Church by it’s ill informed and rebellious “professed” members and this is wrong. The Catholic Church HAS NO FRAGMENTATION! It is completely unified, because it is composed only of those who espouse the true faith. The fact hat “1000 professed Catholics” will give different beliefs does nothing to change the true teaching of the church.
There is much fragmentation in the pews, but that is not to be equated with the Church. Those in the pews who are fragmented in their core beliefs are not Catholic. Professing that they are does not make it so.
It is worth noting that polling Catholics is a bit like polling voters—there is a big difference between “registered” and “likely” voters. Catholics are “registered” at Baptism. They are “likely” if they attend Mass at least weekly.
Atemi;2676301 Who knew that when you counted only those that agree perfectly said:
No, but Ignatius did insist that his particular Christian group was the true representative of Christianity at Antioch, and that the bishops (i.e., chief pastors) in other cities with whom he was in communion were likewise the rightful leaders of the Church in their respective cities. It’s clear that the Church at Rome had an important role in this network of “Catholic” churches–some have argued that Ignatius’s reference to Rome being “pre-eminent in charity” (or “presiding in charity”) indicates that Rome had provided generous financial assistance to the “Catholic” factions in the cities of Syria and Asia Minor. Walter Bauer’s very influential Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity perhaps pushed this understanding of early Christianity too far, but it’s an argument worth considering. And in spite of Bauer’s cynical attitude toward the formation of orthodoxy (he sounds rather like liberal Episcopalians talking about a vast conspiracy to take over mainline denominations with generous funding from right-wing billionaires), his argument by and large supports the claims of Rome. Reading Bauer dealt the death-blow (for me) to any idea of an early “undivided Church”–it neatly complemented my reading of Newman’s Essay on Development a year or two earlier.
with everyone that suits our particular fancy, we are totally united too.
We should have the gift of the Holy Spirit, “fear of the Lord.” It was given to us at baptism and strengthened at confirmation.
Exactly!!!guanophore said:
So, it appears that all discussion of faith can can be distilled down to obedience vs. disobedience. And the disobedient disagree with their title. Whew! We’ve some work to do.
But that’s the only way you can even pretend to assert unity among n-Cs. You can’t have it both ways. Either you compare the faithful of both groups to each other as the exemplary or you create a false dichotomy comparing the best of one against the worst of the other, which is neither fair nor provides a realistic result. I’ve told you before that you seem to want to do just that. Furthermore…you make statements that are not subject to verification and that you cannot support. "Most Catholics this…etc. yet you do not know most Catholics and your “personal sampling” is both unverifiable and possibly not really as you have presented them to us, since you cannot prove that your perceptions of these Catholics that you know really are as you present them to us to be. You do the very same thing with me here on this forum. You often respond to me as you wish I was, instead of the way I actually am. This is probably (giving you the benefit of the doubt here) because I am very often your opponent in debates of things Catholic and therefore colored by that oppositional relationship.
uch:The OP was talking about one church with the same doctrine and faith.
The discussion changed course once we established that the Catholic Church is doctrinally unified and Atemi needed to find another reason to attack the Church.The OP was talking about one church with the same doctrine and faith.
How did this become a discussion about what sins individual catholics commit against church teachings?
If I were ex-communicated as the OP seems to think should happen because of my sins I would never have found my way back.
The RCC does not throw out the baby with the bathwater!
Of course there’s no such thing as a GOOD Catholic! We’re all miserable sinners in need of a Savior.The discussion changed course once we established that the Catholic Church is doctrinally unified and Atemi needed to find another reason to attack the Church.
Now it’s not that there is no such thing as a Catholic, but no such thing as a GOOD Catholic.
Progress, of sorts.
They can use my backyard!