What teachings would the Catholic Church have to drop for you to be a catholic

[bobzills]

Hey bobzills…

I totally agree with you! As a catholic, I guess what I’m trying to figure out is, if we take the E.O.C. and the C.C. out of the equation, as most protestants do, as can be clearly seen at this thread, which church in the fractured and insular protestant world possesses the necessary authority to say, for example that purgatory does not exist, as Janet has expressed with commanding authority. Both the E.O.C. and the C.C. can trace their lineage back to the apostolic age; not one P.C. can do this; Is apostolic succession unimportant? Can one church, say, 10 years from now, pop into existence, and rightfully usurp the authority of the church in the world today, built by Jesus circa 33 AD, OR FOR THAT MATTER, THE AUTHORITY OF ONE OF THE MYRIAD P.C.'s? For the record I truly believe that the C.C. and the E.O.C. are one and united in the sense that they continue, with a few exceptions, such as the Filioque or the authority of the Pope, to share the same beliefs, such as the 7 Sacraments; there is still hope for these 2 churches to patch things up; SADLY, I see no hope for the P.C.'s to reconcile with the C.C. and the E.O.C. and vice versa.

Why do protestants believe the pillar and foundation of truth is the bible, via private interpretation, when the bible clearly says the church is the pillar and foundation of truth? Why do people e.g. my sister and Janet, believe that the word of God is Infallible, given the fact that their bibles were given to them by a church filled with all fallible and sinful members? By denying that Jesus’ established church on Pentecost is being guided by the Holy Spirit in perpetuity is to deny the infallibility of the word of God -period!!!

Here is another incongruous position. Most P.C.‘s consider the true presence of Christ in the bread, when the minister, doing his priestly duty, as Paul did --does exactly as Jesus told His first ministers: JESUS BLESSED THE BREAD AND BLESSED THE CUP HE SAID: “DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME!!”—a mere symbol!!! I guess my question to all the non-Catholics at CAF is: did the Apostles get it wrong immediately after Pentecost vis-a-vis the true presence? Were the brothers and sisters in Christ, for the 1st 40 years of Christianity wrong to believe in the true presence, as they did? Were the Christians, for the first 300 years wrong to believe in the true presence? How could these early Christians, who lived so close to the time when Jesus walked the earth…to the time when the Infallible Holy Spirit was sent to guide and teach Jesus established church, on Pentecost, believe in the true presence, IF IT IS A LIE, as most protestants insist, as Janet insists? Did the Holy Spirit misguide and misinform Jesus’ Apostles into believing a heretical doctrine right from the get go? If so, why on earth would I want to be a Christian?

Correct.
I don’t see how anyone can deny the teaching of St. Paul and the existence of Purgatory. It just makes commons sense that there will be a purification of many of the saved after death. After all, in addition to the words of St. Paul, we read that it is a “holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins” (2 Mac 12:46),

 

[joe370]

Hey The Iambic Pen…

Thank you so much for responding; most people don’t respond to my questions!

You said:

I am not a defender of Protestant denominationalism. As my profile says, I was raised in the Free Methodist Church, but I have been studying the historic Church since 2005.

As a former Lutheran, it was the study of the early church, among a few other things, that convinced me to join the C.C.

Since my first real look at Catholicism, inititiated partly by seeing the Prayer to St. Michael taped to the windshield of an Army humvee in Iraq, I have developed a great love and respect for the Catholic Church.

Why did that have such a profound effect on you???

I actually have a great desire to enter the Catholic Church someday, and I hope that it will be soon. I have struggled with the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and I still do, but I see them both as having a much greater claim than any Protestant church.

What ever you decide to do, IMHO —take your time; no need to rush anything; you will know when all your doubt melts away; at least that was how it was for me. Father Corapi was integral to my conversion; I stumbled across him one night watching EWTN, and that was it; I was hooked!!!

That being said, I love the Free Methodist Church, I am grateful for my upbringing, and the thought of someday leaving for the Catholic Church (or the Orthodox Church) is bittersweet.

You are so right about people being born into a church. My mom always complains about my sister belonging to a non-denominational church, considering the fact that she raised her as a catholic, but I simply tell her, that familial reasons for belonging to any one church is not enough; we should always love and respect our elders, but I think, choosing a church based on familial fidelity isn’t really searching ones heart soul and mind for the fullness of truth, and a huge disservice to oneself. I could be wrong though. If the Jews, the rightful heirs to the Kingdom of Christ took that attitude, they would never consider Christianity!

God bless my friend…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Why did that have such a profound effect on you???

I was curious about the prayer, because I did not know that an angel could be referred to as a saint. I ended up coming here to this forum to find out about it, and, after lurking for a few days, I started a thread. You can view my very first post here. I asked about several issues at once, which can be a mess, but people were very helpful. I asked about the St. Michael prayer in post 78 of that first thread.

Since that thread, I have read numerous books and participated in quite a few forum discussions, both here and at an Eastern Orthodox forum. I even entered RCIA in the fall of 2006, but I ended up withdrawing from the class, as I had too many unresolved issues dealing with Eastern Orthodoxy at the time.

What ever you decide to do, IMHO —take your time; no need to rush anything; you will know when all your doubt melts away; at least that was how it was for me. Father Corapi was integral to my conversion; I stumbled across him one night watching EWTN, and that was it; I was hooked!!!

I don’t intend to rush, but I have been studying the Catholic Church for nearly four years now. It would be nice to come to some sort of resolution…

God bless my friend…

May God bless you too!

I just finished reading the book Lead, Kindly Light: My Journey to Rome, by Thomas Howard. It is a short, yet excellent, tale of Dr. Howard’s conversion to Catholicism. I had earlier read his book Evangelical is Not Enough and found it thoroughly convincing. In the forward to Lead, Kindly Light, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus says the following:
Fr. John Neuhaus:

Dr. Howard is keenly aware that there are many reasons why one might become a Catholic, some of them very attractive reasons. But he knows that the only consideration that “will stand up when the foundations are shaken [is] whether something is true or not.” Is the Catholic Church what she claims to be? If the answer is yes, then that answer changes the question. The question is no longer “Why should I become a Catholic?” but “Why am I not a Catholic?”

I am drawn to the Catholic Church for many reasons, but what truly matters is whether or not the Catholic Church is true. If it is true, then I ought to enter it as soon as possible. Why should one delay in doing the will of God?

This thread is full of lists of doctrinal objections people have about the Catholic Church. The implication is that if the Catholic Church passes my (or anyone’s) scrutiny, then I (or anyone) will enter it. I (or anyone) will set myself (or himself or herself) up as a judge of the Catholic Church. Ultimately, I think we have it backwards. If we determine that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be, then it is time to stop judging and time to start learning. As Thomas Howard says in his book:
Thomas Howard:

On certain points I had to step down, as it were, from my unwitting, self-appointed role as arbiter and judge of all doctrine, and remind myself that I had, indeed, become convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church–and that there was a sense in which a man may have to “hand over” to that Church the final responsibility for doctrine.

What matters is not whether or not I can be convinced by doctrinal arguments. What matters is whether or not I believe the Catholic Church to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, founded by Jesus Christ. If I come to believe that, then I must trust the Church in its teachings and not be led astray simply because my understanding of certain doctrines is not yet complete.

 

[Thing]

For lots of people, initially, there is an attraction to the CC and thats about it. They might not at first understand exactly the nature of what it might be. Many facets of attraction; there is an attractiveness for some in the image of the wild but free and happy hermit monk praying clinging to a cold island rock in an Atlantic winter storm. Catholicism caters perfectly to a soul attracted to that. The worse things get the more interesting it is. When your religion requires the acquisition of objects and matter, like the materialists’ personal religion of happiness that needs to accumulate more possessions to advance, you know that conversely the more that person loses the less happy they must become. Catholicism at the very least offers that freedom from attachment to stuff so that stuff can be enjoyed! And freedom from attachment to life so that life can be enjoyed.
And, as opposed to performing a sort of psychological mind trick on yourself which is not real, the CC offers a reason which is real. The reason is defined by the CCs’ teachings.
I don’t really think you can drop a teaching someone else might find attractive.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Guanophore,

Truly an excellent post - and, one very patiently written. Great job!

God bless

You are misunderstanding the Teaching, Janet. The Pope is not an infallible person. It does not mean he is impeccable (cannot or does not sin or otherwise fall short). The Teaching applies to the proclamation of the faith. Just as the Apostles were infallible by the Power of the HS when they proclaimed the Gospel, this charism is preserved in the Church so that Jesus can protect us from error.

 

[cazayoux]

What matters is not whether or not I can be convinced by doctrinal arguments. What matters is whether or not I believe the Catholic Church to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, founded by Jesus Christ. If I come to believe that, then I must trust the Church in its teachings and not be led astray simply because my understanding of certain doctrines is not yet complete.

I commend you for asking the hard questions and, even more so, admitting you may not understand it all which leads to you following as a child with a paradigm of learning.
This is a very humble place to be … which is when I think we are ripe to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us.

pray pray pray

Let me ask … what, in particular, is left for you to discern that is keeping you from the Catholic Church?

Cheers!

michel

 

[1beleevr]

Hey, bobzills: It’s easy, to disagree with purgatory; you just close your eyes, and say"There’s no place like home…There’s no place like home…! But seriously, if you are a non-catholic, you just say, “I choose not to believe in purgatory!” However, if you are a catholic, I think you are pretty much obligated to believe in that, among many other things

 

[bobzills]

Hey, bobzills: It’s easy, to disagree with purgatory; you just close your eyes, and say"There’s no place like home…There’s no place like home…!

To close one’s eyes to avoid the reasonable arguments in favor of Purgatory does not make too much sense to me.

 

[1beleevr]

It’s okay, bobzills; as my brother in Christ, I still love you:thumbsup:

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Let me ask … what, in particular, is left for you to discern that is keeping you from the Catholic Church?

The disputes between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are not so easy to resolve. Obviously, if they were, the two Churches would have reunited long ago, and I would not have to choose between them. There are two questions that I have not yet answered to my satisfaction:

Is it the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church which has maintained the correct view of the role of the Bishop of Rome?

Are the doctrinal developments present in the Catholic Church since the separation the result of the guidance of the Holy Spirit or the result of popular opinion being turned into dogma?

I also believe that the Orthodox have preserved a sense of the sacred that is, sadly, often missing from local Catholic churches.

In regard to those two questions, I am increasingly inclined to answer them both in favor of the Catholic Church. In regard to the statement following those questions, I must admit that what is true is more important than what feels more reverent. I do sometimes wish, though, that the Mass of the Latin rite was more like the Divine Liturgy.

 

[joe370]

For all those who believe that the Eucharist would have to be dropped in order to become catholic, (specifically Janet, for you are the one who called this teaching --a “blasphemy”} --I ask: was St. Ignatius, a pupil Of the Apostle John blaspheming?

St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple and contemporary of the Apostle John. His comment, (around 110 A.D.) concerning certain heretics: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”

Was he the heretic, or were those who abstained from the Eucharist the heretics?

Did the Apostle John teach St. Ignatius a blasphemous doctrine???

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

I think you hit the nail squarely on the head! Nice post

For all those who believe that the Eucharist would have to be dropped in order to become catholic, (specifically Janet, for you are the one who called this teaching --a “blasphemy”} --I ask: was St. Ignatius, a pupil Of the Apostle John blaspheming?

God bless,

St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple and contemporary of the Apostle John. His comment, (around 110 A.D.) concerning certain heretics: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."

Was he the heretic, or were those who abstained from the Eucharist the heretics?

Did the Apostle John teach St. Ignatius a blasphemous doctrine???

 

[Cinette]

For all those who believe that the Eucharist would have to be dropped in order to become catholic, (specifically Janet, for you are the one who called this teaching --a “blasphemy”} --I ask: was St. Ignatius, a pupil Of the Apostle John blaspheming?

St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple and contemporary of the Apostle John. His comment, (around 110 A.D.) concerning certain heretics: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."

Was he the heretic, or were those who abstained from the Eucharist the heretics?

Did the Apostle John teach St. Ignatius a blasphemous doctrine???

I would be surprised if you get a response to your questions because I suspect that Janet and others don’t believe in St Ignatius (for them he didn’t exist). They believe in “St Luther” although the latter believed in the Eucharist - but then Protestants today don’t believe in many things Luther believed.

 

[joe370]

For those who say confessing to a sinful fallible holy man, would have to be dropped for you to be a catholic, I say: why were the first apostolic ministers via the Holy Spirit, sent out into the world to forgive or retain sins; were they, upon their demise, to continue sending confessors out into the world, as the Father sent the son, and as the Son sent His Apostles, or did Jesus only have in mind, ministers of the apostolic age to forgive or retain sins, even though the H.S. is still with Jesus’ church?

These 1st century ministers of Jesus’ established church were no different than the ministers of Jesus’ established church today, when it came to sin; they were both fallible and sinful ministers, and via apostolic succession, both were/are being guided by the Holy Spirit; Neither the ministerial apostles, their immediate ministerial successors, nor their present day successors possess any magical powers; all power to forgive sins is derived from the Holy Spirit, as per scripture, sent to Jesus’ One church on Pentecost; is the Holy Spirit still present in Jesus’ church? Heres a hypothetical: If you had lived during the apostolic age, would you have confessed your sins to an apostolic minister, who is no different than you or me, or a minister of the catholic and orthodox church, when it comes to sin and fallibility?

After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21)

Why is it so unreasonable to think that Jesus gave his authority to others to forgive our sins, when it’s clearly spelled out in your bible? In the early Church, the same church that codified and canonized your bible, sins where often confessed in public and often in private; confession was never limited to silence with God alone; both forms are very biblical; one never supplants the other! Confession to Christ directly should be done as often as one thinks, is necessary; confession to Christ via His minister on earth, is nothing more than getting right with Jesus, who is His Church, to which He is the Head and Savior…trading up, sin for Christ; give Him your sins, and you can partake of His Divine Flesh, in the form of bread, and give thanks, hence the word Eucharist.

Was baptism limited to the apostolic age? If confession was, certainly there is a plausible argument for believing that baptism was? Should baptism be dropped as well?

The fact that the lower earthly priest, who continues to do as Jesus, the Heavenly High Priest said to do, when He said: “do this in remembrance of me” --is a fallible sinner, as are all men/women, does not affect the function as a mere conduit for the Holy Spirit, to forgive one’s sins, as per sacred scripture --so one can become one with Christ! If flesh and blood is the life force of the body, in this life, surely Jesus’ Flesh and Blood is the life force for the soul, in the next.

 

[1beleevr]

Okay, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the interpretation of John 20:23, was Jesus giving mortal men, the power and authority to forgive sin(something that is God’s realm). Can we infer from scripture, because it is not specifically noted, that there is a duty or obligation to visit these priests? Can we be sure that they themselves are without unconfessed sin? Or in the case of the sex abuse scandals; what about priests who were found guilty, what becomes of any sins they may have “forgiven?” And as far as baptism, every church or denomination, should strongly encourage baptism, as it not only solidifies your salvation(a public profession of you faith, and committment to follow Christ), but it is an act of obedience! And Jesus was baptized, full immersion, so we should follow His example, if we want to bemore like Him:thumbsup:

 

[1beleevr]

Oh, my goodness, do catholics seriously use 1Corinthians 3:14-15, to justify creating a word like purgatory? Verses 11-13, I believe strongly remind us that we must lay no other foundation, than the one we have-Jesus Christ! And that ON the day of judgement, fire will reveal, what type of work each builder has done The fire will show if each person’s work has value If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer great loss! He will be saved, but it will be like a man, barely escaping through a wall of flames! And that clever story about the family man, who does all the "right " things, and does not make it to Heaven, versus the serial killer, is not so much a non-catholic belief, so much as we believe that no one is beyond the love, or saving grace of God(our only Holy Father)

 

[bobzills]

Oh, my goodness, do catholics seriously use 1Corinthians 3:14-15, to justify creating a word like purgatory? Verses 11-13, I believe strongly remind us that we must lay no other foundation, than the one we have-Jesus Christ! And that ON the day of judgement, fire will reveal, what type of work each builder has done The fire will show if each person’s work has value If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer great loss! He will be saved, but it will be like a man, barely escaping through a wall of flames! And that clever story about the family man, who does all the "right " things, and does not make it to Heaven, versus the serial killer, is not so much a non-catholic belief, so much as we believe that no one is beyond the love, or saving grace of God(our only Holy Father)

Our Divine Lord says something differet. He doesn’t say those who at the last minute say Lord, Lord, I accept you as my personal Savior, will enter into the kingdom of heaven, without first being purified by fire. . Do you really believe that there will be no punishment at all for the truly wicked who have repented at the last moment?
Let us read Matthew 25, and see how Our Savior rewards good works:
34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

I believe this to illustrate convincingly, that good works are necessary for salvation.

 

[joe370]

All valid points my friend; I knew someone would respond to this post as opposed to my other posts!

Okay, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the interpretation of John 20:23, was Jesus giving mortal men, the power and authority to forgive sin(something that is God’s realm).

First, did Jesus or did He not say: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21)

Can we infer from scripture, because it is not specifically noted, that there is a duty or obligation to visit these priests?

Well, Jesus clearly specified that there was a duty or obligation for the ministerial apostles to forgive or remit sins; was this to be a temporary function?

Can we be sure that they themselves are without unconfessed sin?

That’s what I said, then I found out that priests go to confession constantly! They confess their sins to other ministers! Remember, they too, as the apostles were, are SINNERS!!! They are not exempt.

Or in the case of the sex abuse scandals; what about priests who were found guilty, what becomes of any sins they may have “forgiven?”

Good question; another question I asked as a former Lutheran; what about the protestant pedophile who baptizes thousands of people in his life time; what becomes of them; is their baptism no longer valid???

And as far as baptism, every church or denomination, should strongly encourage baptism, as it not only solidifies your salvation(a public profession of you faith, and committment to follow Christ), but it is an act of obedience! And Jesus was baptized, full immersion, so we should follow His example, if we want to bemore like Him

Agreed my friend!!! Again, what if I was baptized by a protestant or catholic minister, who was involved in sex abuse scandals??? Just recently a 70 year old protestant pastor was convicted of multiple assaults on children over a 40 year period; he jumped around from one protestant church to another committing these evil crimes; are those he baptized —REALLY BAPTIZED???

1beleevr…

I am on vacation so I have some time; will you address some of the other questions I submitted? I enjoy learning things from different perspective, other than my own, and you are just the type of person I enjoy debating with; cool as a cucumber!!!

 

[Cinette]

Okay, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the interpretation of John 20:23, was Jesus giving mortal men, the power and authority to forgive sin(something that is God’s realm). Can we infer from scripture, because it is not specifically noted, that there is a duty or obligation to visit these priests? Can we be sure that they themselves are without unconfessed sin? Or in the case of the sex abuse scandals; what about priests who were found guilty, what becomes of any sins they may have “forgiven?” And as far as baptism, every church or denomination, should strongly encourage baptism, as it not only solidifies your salvation(a public profession of you faith, and committment to follow Christ), but it is an act of obedience! And Jesus was baptized, full immersion, so we should follow His example, if we want to bemore like Him:thumbsup:

Hi beleevr!

When we go before a priest for Confession he is there to listen and counsel and if we make an act of contrition by which we express our repentance and declare that we will try never to commit those sins again, then the priest pronounces the words of Absolution. Now, God sees everything and he sees our hearts and if we are not truly repentant then our sins will not be forgiven - we know this and so does God.

The Priest also has a Confessor - another Priest who will listen to him and give Absolution. I don’t think this is hard to understand.

You speak about the priests who abused. That is a terrible thing. If I hurt when I think about it I am sure all Catholics must also hurt. It is true however that these priests who abuse their position, are a very small minority. You will find abuse among all clergy Protestants, Jewish, you name it. It is a reflection of our evil secular society. I am sure this kind of thing has always existed but it seems worse these days. Could it be because it is more transparent? I don’t know. But you seem to always hone in on the Catholic clergy as if they are the only clergy who have done such things. You are very much mistaken - we know also that teachers, boys scout masters and youth leaders have also been involved in such activity. We should always pray for the youth to be “delivered from evil”

I would like to add that I spent my entire school life in Convent schools - both day school and later boarding schools (2) and I never witnessed any abuse whatsoever. Nothing. I experienced love and guidance. Sure there were a couple of strict nuns and we sure needed some discipline.

Why do you never speak of the good, holy priests who give up all their worldly goods, give up a family, give up EVERYTHINg to dedicate their lives to God? I posted about the tragic deaths of priests here in South Africa and how they go on with their work - a lonely life sometimes and they have to put up with ingratitude. Why don’t you speak about the Catholic martyrs? Priests and nuns who have been slaughtered for their Faith - the work goes on. Do you know that the Catholic Church has Charity Agencies in different parts of the world who give financial and personal assistance to people of different Faiths? Do you know they also support other Christians Missionaries who may be in difficulty? When are you ever going to say a good word about the tremendous sacrificial work of the Catholic Church?

Every year there is a collections for the Missions. This money goes to Rome from all over the world. I remember some years ago I happened to check on this - that year we sent R800 000 (our S African currency) to Rome and got back R38 000 000. The money collected is sent out to where it is most needed. You could say S Africa “made a profit” of R37 200 000!!! Maybe you should look into Aid to the Church in Need and Caritas - only two organizations who reach out to help those who are in need.

As for baptism. If a child is born into a Christian family that child will be instructed as a Christian - what is wrong to baptise the child. And what difference does it make to have the water sprinkled as opposed to full emersion. The Catholic Church do both but the former is more practical.

Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

For all those who believe that the Eucharist would have to be dropped in order to become catholic, (specifically Janet, for you are the one who called this teaching --a “blasphemy”} --I ask: was St. Ignatius, a pupil Of the Apostle John blaspheming?

St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple and contemporary of the Apostle John. His comment, (around 110 A.D.) concerning certain heretics: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."

Was he the heretic, or were those who abstained from the Eucharist the heretics?

Did the Apostle John teach St. Ignatius a blasphemous doctrine???

Yes he was a heretic and he was blaspheming because Janet has declared this doctrine a heresy and blasphemy therefore it must be so!.

Besides, Ignatius of Antioch is not in the Bible