Honest answers for honest questians

[desertknight]

There is a world of difference between what the church was when Ignatious used the word catholic and what the RCC was after Constantine.  they are not  synonymous.

A "world of difference"?  You mentioned St. Ignatius, here is what he wrote within the lifetime of the last of the original Apostles.  This was written before the ink was even dry on the Books of the New Testament.

{Letter to the Smyrnaeans},  "Do ye all follow the Bishop, as Jesus Christ doth the Father; and follow the Presbyters as the Apostles; and have respect unto the Deacons as unto the commandment of God. Let no one, apart from the Bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the Church. Let that Eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the Bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it, (Presbyters)."

" They, (heretics), 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."

  "Wherever the Bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold an agape, (Holy Eucharist), without the consent of the Bishop;"

I have a few questions Mclees.  Does this sound like the church that you attend?  Did you celebrate the Holy Eucharist as the true Body of Christ?  Was it sanctioned by the Bishop, as St. Ignatius directed?  Does your Church "follow the Bishop as Christ does the Father?  It sounds exactly like the Church that I attended just this morning.  The Holy Catholic Church.

[mclees8]

There is a world of difference between what the church was when Ignatious used the word catholic and what the RCC was after Constantine.  they are not  synonymous.

A "world of difference"?  You mentioned St. Ignatius, here is what he wrote within the lifetime of the last of the original Apostles.  This was written before the ink was even dry on the Books of the New Testament.

{Letter to the Smyrnaeans},  "Do ye all follow the Bishop, as Jesus Christ doth the Father; and follow the Presbyters as the Apostles; and have respect unto the Deacons as unto the commandment of God. Let no one, apart from the Bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the Church. Let that Eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the Bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it, (Presbyters)."

" They, (heretics), 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."

  "Wherever the Bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold an agape, (Holy Eucharist), without the consent of the Bishop;"

I have a few questions Mclees.  Does this sound like the church that you attend?  Did you celebrate the Holy Eucharist as the true Body of Christ?  Was it sanctioned by the Bishop, as St. Ignatius directed?  Does your Church "follow the Bishop as Christ does the Father?  It sounds exactly like the Church that I attended just this morning.  The Holy Catholic Church.

Yes they may do these things in form but that was not the difference I speakiing of.

We do not know how the church was in form at the time of Ignatious as compared to the RCC  You would not see a grand vatican city and thrones for Peter to sit in. And if peter was in true humility he would not parade himself in vestments to call attention to himself or his position. In fact when we read what Christ warned of the Pharisees I doubt he would ever sit as a pope.    We were not there but if we could do a real contrast. I sense something is not right. it is not that we should not obey the leadership.

I doubt I can communincate it. But if all we do we do in spirit and in truth we do well.
I have a saying " it is not the outward things we do but the inward person we are that the Lord sees.

   

[Tantor]

There is a world of difference between what the church was when Ignatious used the word catholic and what the RCC was after Constantine.  they are not  synonymous.

A "world of difference"?  You mentioned St. Ignatius, here is what he wrote within the lifetime of the last of the original Apostles.  This was written before the ink was even dry on the Books of the New Testament.

{Letter to the Smyrnaeans},  "Do ye all follow the Bishop, as Jesus Christ doth the Father; and follow the Presbyters as the Apostles; and have respect unto the Deacons as unto the commandment of God. Let no one, apart from the Bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the Church. Let that Eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the Bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it, (Presbyters)."

" They, (heretics), 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."

  "Wherever the Bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold an agape, (Holy Eucharist), without the consent of the Bishop;"

I have a few questions Mclees.  Does this sound like the church that you attend?  Did you celebrate the Holy Eucharist as the true Body of Christ?  Was it sanctioned by the Bishop, as St. Ignatius directed?  Does your Church "follow the Bishop as Christ does the Father?  It sounds exactly like the Church that I attended just this morning.  The Holy Catholic Church.


The Eucharist as the RCC practices it is a lie.

Communion is nothing more then some bread and wine after dinner set aside to remember what Christ did for us and his promise to return... nothing more and nothing less.

[desertknight]

The Eucharist as the RCC practices it is a lie.

Communion is nothing more then some bread and wine after dinner set aside to remember what Christ did for us and his promise to return... nothing more and nothing less.

Then I guess you don't believe in the Bible...

1 Cor. 11:27-30 "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning it as the Lord’s Body.  For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many have died."

...and how do you square your opinion against the writing of St. Ignatius, above, who was ordained by the Apostle John and was the Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter the Apostle and St. Evodius?

[papist1]

There is a world of difference between what the church was when Ignatious used the word catholic and what the RCC was after Constantine.  they are not  synonymous.

A "world of difference"?  You mentioned St. Ignatius, here is what he wrote within the lifetime of the last of the original Apostles.  This was written before the ink was even dry on the Books of the New Testament.

{Letter to the Smyrnaeans},  "Do ye all follow the Bishop, as Jesus Christ doth the Father; and follow the Presbyters as the Apostles; and have respect unto the Deacons as unto the commandment of God. Let no one, apart from the Bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the Church. Let that Eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the Bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it, (Presbyters)."

" They, (heretics), 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."

  "Wherever the Bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold an agape, (Holy Eucharist), without the consent of the Bishop;"

I have a few questions Mclees.  Does this sound like the church that you attend?  Did you celebrate the Holy Eucharist as the true Body of Christ?  Was it sanctioned by the Bishop, as St. Ignatius directed?  Does your Church "follow the Bishop as Christ does the Father?  It sounds exactly like the Church that I attended just this morning.  The Holy Catholic Church.

Yes they may do these things in form but that was not the difference I speakiing of.

We do not know how the church was in form at the time of Ignatious as compared to the RCC  You would not see a grand vatican city and thrones for Peter to sit in. And if peter was in true humility he would not parade himself in vestments to call attention to himself or his position. In fact when we read what Christ warned of the Pharisees I doubt he would ever sit as a pope.    We were not there but if we could do a real contrast. I sense something is not right. it is not that we should not obey the leadership.

I doubt I can communincate it. But if all we do we do in spirit and in truth we do well.
I have a saying " it is not the outward things we do but the inward person we are that the Lord sees.

  

You sounded a lot like a president I know, saying a lot of words, but none of them have to do with the question asked.

St Justin the Martyr outlined what the early church did in it's worship, and it matches the Mass almost exactly, from the 2nd century. Also, the didache mentions this also.

Where is your church and it's writings concerning how it worshiped specifically in the first 15 centuries? Do you have the writings from your church and their take on the NT scriptures in those years?

peace, papist

[papist1]

[
[/quote]

Dear papist you have an RCC mindset that has been instilled in you by RC teaching and tradition. You see the church through institutional eyes but you don't see the church as God see it.

They have taught you that the church was always catholic and use it to justify a church that became something it was never to be.  We know the word catholic means universal church   or one universal faith in Christ and that is true. that makes all believers then and now Catholic. But that does not make the Church Roman Catholic The word was just a borrowed term that Ignatius used that caught on to become the excepted term for the church. when he used it there was nothing like the RCC and its papacy   yet they want you to believe the the church has always been Roman Catholic by using that term .

There is a world of difference between what the church was when Ignatious used the word catholic and what the RCC was after Constantine.  they are not  synonymous. The church was not always Roman Catholic.

And to go one further the word catholic does not even have to be used to describe  Christ church. for before 110 AD the church was just followers of Christ Just as you and I are. and as far as the papcay being Holy and Apostilic they were not. 
[/quote]

Okay, so first it was not Catholic until constantine(325ad), and now it was not Catholic previous to 110ad?

prove it. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

The Church is known by four marks.

The Church is

ONE, as Christ commanded it to be in several places in scripture.

HOLY, as it is called to be not only in doctrine, but in persons within it as scripture calls it to be.

Catholic(universal) for everyone, the whole earth, since Christ redeemed the whole world through His once for all sacrifice.

Apostolic, as scripture is clear.

Does this describe your church, and is your church's doctrine traceable in every age from the apostles to this very day, unchanged?

The church I am a member of fits this description and has these historical proof's.

peace, papist

[Tantor]

The Eucharist as the RCC practices it is a lie.

Communion is nothing more then some bread and wine after dinner set aside to remember what Christ did for us and his promise to return... nothing more and nothing less.

Then I guess you don't believe in the Bible...

1 Cor. 11:27-30 "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning it as the Lord’s Body.  For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many have died."

...and how do you square your opinion against the writing of St. Ignatius, above, who was ordained by the Apostle John and was the Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter the Apostle and St. Evodius?

That has nothing to do with 'real presence'.. the blood and bread are just representations.   It has been a common misconception with the church throughout the ages to try and legitimize their authority... after all, the more the church can control the more they control their members.

Does it say anywhere that a priest has to administer communion?   or some sort of cerimony needs to be done to prepare the wine and bread?... nope... that's a man made fabrication.

I would NEVER allow anyone to administer communion to me that was not my equal within the church.. ever.

[papist1]

The Eucharist as the RCC practices it is a lie.

Communion is nothing more then some bread and wine after dinner set aside to remember what Christ did for us and his promise to return... nothing more and nothing less.

Then I guess you don't believe in the Bible...

1 Cor. 11:27-30 "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning it as the Lord’s Body.  For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many have died."

...and how do you square your opinion against the writing of St. Ignatius, above, who was ordained by the Apostle John and was the Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter the Apostle and St. Evodius?

That has nothing to do with 'real presence'.. the blood and bread are just representations.   It has been a common misconception with the church throughout the ages to try and legitimize their authority... after all, the more the church can control the more they control their members.

Does it say anywhere that a priest has to administer communion?   or some sort of cerimony needs to be done to prepare the wine and bread?... nope... that's a man made fabrication.

I would NEVER allow anyone to administer communion to me that was not my equal within the church.. ever.

please show me anyone in any of the first 16centuries of Christianity claiming that the Eucharist is a representation.

Also, please provide scriptural basis for this also.

thanks, papist

[Tantor]

The scriptures plainly state that in the verses already provided.  Unless you view them with another interpretation already in mind prior to reading them.

As far as the first 16 centuries... the RCC destroyed any and all writings that might oppose their views.. so it would be a hard thing to prove as your own church tried as hard is it could to wipe and rewrite history.

I also do not see the word Eucharist ANYWHERE in scripture.

[desertknight]

That has nothing to do with 'real presence'.. the blood and bread are just representations.

Tantor, and please don't take this the wrong way, but is English your first language?  I mean, I read your post, but I have to think that maybe you either didn't read, or didn't understand, that the Apostle Paul said in 1 Cor. 11:27-30, that to eat and drink unworthily is to defile the Body and Blood of Our Lord.  Why would anyone get sick or even die if it were only bread and wine?  It is clear as can be when he says that their transgression is exactly the same as yours, Tantor.  That they do not discern, (recognize), it as the Lords Body.  I also noticed you made no comment at all on what St. Ignatius has to say about it.  Do you think you may know more than someone who was a Bishop, ordained by the Apostle John himself?

Does it say anywhere that a priest has to administer communion?

St. Justin Martyr's First Apologia, 150 AD,  "On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president, (Presbyter), verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president, (Presbyter), in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons."

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

[Tantor]

That has nothing to do with 'real presence'.. the blood and bread are just representations.

Tantor, and please don't take this the wrong way, but is English your first language?  I mean, I read your post, but I have to think that maybe you either didn't read, or didn't understand, that the Apostle Paul said in 1 Cor. 11:27-30, that to eat and drink unworthily is to defile the Body and Blood of Our Lord.  Why would anyone get sick or even die if it were only bread and wine?  It is clear as can be when he says that their transgression is exactly the same as yours, Tantor.  That they do not discern, (recognize), it as the Lords Body.  I also noticed you made no comment at all on what St. Ignatius has to say about it.  Do you think you may know more than someone who was a Bishop, ordained by the Apostle John himself?

Does it say anywhere that a priest has to administer communion?

St. Justin Martyr's First Apologia, 150 AD,  "On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president, (Presbyter), verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president, (Presbyter), in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons."

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

1.) I understand English... and your interpretation of things is based on your theologic upbringings and not strict english interpretation (nor greek for that matter).

2.) What Ignatius said is of no consequence as it is not inspired... I also have no idea whether God will entitle hims to be a saint in heaven.. as that title is reserved for God to bestow.. not man or the church.

3.) What Justin says is just that.  prayers and thanksgivings are given... prayers for the body and thanksgiving for the blessings God has bestowed on the body (congregation). and then the bread and wine are distributed.

4.) The fact that Justin made a grave error in his interpretation of scripture is not really my concern, as his writings are not inspired...

You still have proven nor justified for making the bread and wine anything other then what it is.  The consuming BY THE INDIVIDUAL is where things might change, but not at the hands of any priest or presbyter.

On a side note, I tend to believe that any human the RCC elevates to sainthood is probably in hell.

[desertknight]

Tantor, your explanation is not very logical, for in it we can discount the person who knew the Apostles and was baptized by the Apostle John and became the third Bishop of Antioch, as uninspired, but we are to believe your interpretation, 2,000 years later, and in complete opposition to the understanding of the Early Church Fathers, as true.  How is it that your interpretation is, somehow, inspired, and thus true? You don't see a problem with this?

You are also incorrect in you Greek.   John 6:23-53 - Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).  Note:  These are the avowed opponents of Jesus who say this.

[Tantor]

Tantor, your explanation is not very logical, for in it we can discount the person who knew the Apostles and was baptized by the Apostle John and became the third Bishop of Antioch, as uninspired, but we are to believe your interpretation, 2,000 years later, and in complete opposition to the understanding of the Early Church Fathers, as true.  How is it that your interpretation is, somehow, inspired, and thus true? You don't see a problem with this?

You are also incorrect in you Greek.   John 6:23-53 - Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).  Note:  These are the avowed opponents of Jesus who say this.

If you say so.... but you have to have a theological bias to interpret it as you do... and you do so at your own peril.

Even if what you say is true... do you honestly think for one second that your church is legitimate in providing it?

Personally, I would like to see the world confiscate the vast wealth of the Catholic church and for the church to be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity and made to pay restitution.

[desertknight]

If you say so.... but you have to have a theological bias to interpret it as you do... and you do so at your own peril.

You have to have a theological bias for yours.  All theology is is the act of discerning the truth.  I take the word of Our Lord and Saviour, "This is my Body!" and the Apostle Paul with those of the Early Church Fathers over some "invented" interpretation that didn't come about for over 1,500 years later.  I would echo another poster's challenge.  If you can find a single Early Church Father, (their writings are readily available online), who supports your interpretation...please post it.

Even if what you say is true... do you honestly think for one second that your church is legitimate in providing it?

Absolutely.

[Tantor]

If you say so.... but you have to have a theological bias to interpret it as you do... and you do so at your own peril.

You have to have a theological bias for yours.  All theology is is the act of discerning the truth.  I take the word of Our Lord and Saviour, "This is my Body!" and the Apostle Paul with those of the Early Church Fathers over some "invented" interpretation that didn't come about for over 1,500 years later.  I would echo another poster's challenge.  If you can find a single Early Church Father, (their writings are readily available online), who supports your interpretation...please post it.

Even if what you say is true... do you honestly think for one second that your church is legitimate in providing it?

Absolutely.

Even though your church is living in unconfessed sin?