Christian Forums

Why do RC's defend politicaly forced christiantiy? why defend what christ nor even peter started and say it was the church he founded?

Can one here answer mer that? If not one will answer I pray if you really understand What christ was all about. and if you do understand what christ is about then why keep defending the papacy? 

As to your first question, I have no real idea what you are asking other than knowing of you having raised such questions before.  It is akin to answering, "When did you stop beating your wife?, WHEN?"  It is unanswerable.  It is also, if I am understanding what you have referred to in the past, far too broad.  You are asking, "Please defend the Catholic Church's role in 2,000 years of the development of Western Europe and Western Civilization."  You might want to narrow that down a bit', to make it more answerable.  As to your other questions, they are based on an erroneous understanding of history.  The Catholic Church is the descendant in an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession as the pilgrim Church founded by Our Lord, Jesus Christ.  Any serious research into the history and the writings of the 'Apostolic' and 'Early Church Fathers' can leave no reasonable person with another answer.  The exception being that we Catholics fully acknowledge our Eastern Orthodox brothers as sharing in that claim.  Non-Catholics Christians, of a certain kind, are often surprised of the rich Catholic history that is well known and documented from the first century AD onward, (One only has to take out a volume of Encyclopedia Britannica on"Christianity" to find it.), because they have been duped by anti-Catholics into the rather silly notion that the Emperor Constantine was the founder or genesis, or some such nonsense, of the beginning of the Church.  A little difficult for them to prove as there were at least 26 Popes before Constantine's birth and HH Eutychian, was already Pope, on the day Constantine was born.  One only has to read the writings of such early Christian leaders and theologians such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Clement I of Rome,  St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Clement of Alexandria, etc, etc, and you can see clearly that the Catholic Church is the continual presence of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.  We take as truth, Christ's actions in appointing the first Bishops of His Church and their direct descendants down to the present day through the "laying on of hands", in the act of ordination to His one Priesthood as revealled in Holy Scripture.  That does not mean that the men of the Church are not, or were not, sinners and could commit horrible acts.  That is not what Christ promised.  What Our Lord did promise was that the "gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church" and that the "Holy Spirit would reside within it until the end of time."  On matters of Faith and Morals, the Church cannot err, because Christ said so in Holy Scripture.  The proof of this can be found in those same Christian writings.  There is no difference then, 2,000 years ago, to today, in any matter of faith and morals.  As a Catholic Christian, I can read the writing of the Early Church Fathers and their teachings on the nature of Our Lord, the Trinity, the Holy Eucharist, Salvation and Grace for example, and it could all be written by any Catholic Bishop today.  We defend the Body of Christ, His Church, and all her Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and lay faithful, because we defend the Mystical Body of Christ itself. 

Quote from: desertknight on Fri Apr 17, 2009 - 13:23:17
As to your first question, I have no real idea what you are asking other than knowing of you having raised such questions before.  It is akin to answering, "When did you stop beating your wife?, WHEN?"  It is unanswerable.  It is also, if I am understanding what you have referred to in the past, far too broad.  You are asking, "Please defend the Catholic Church's role in 2,000 years of the development of Western Europe and Western Civilization."  You might want to narrow that down a bit', to make it more answerable.  As to your other questions, they are based on an erroneous understanding of history.  The Catholic Church is the descendant in an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession as the pilgrim Church founded by Our Lord, Jesus Christ.  Any serious research into the history and the writings of the 'Apostolic' and 'Early Church Fathers' can leave no reasonable person with another answer.  The exception being that we Catholics fully acknowledge our Eastern Orthodox brothers as sharing in that claim.  Non-Catholics Christians, of a certain kind, are often surprised of the rich Catholic history that is well known and documented from the first century AD onward, (One only has to take out a volume of Encyclopedia Britannica on"Christianity" to find it.), because they have been duped by anti-Catholics into the rather silly notion that the Emperor Constantine was the founder or genesis, or some such nonsense, of the beginning of the Church.  A little difficult for them to prove as there were at least 26 Popes before Constantine's birth and HH Eutychian, was already Pope, on the day Constantine was born.  One only has to read the writings of such early Christian leaders and theologians such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Clement I of Rome,  St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Clement of Alexandria, etc, etc, and you can see clearly that the Catholic Church is the continual presence of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.  We take as truth, Christ's actions in appointing the first Bishops of His Church and their direct descendants down to the present day through the "laying on of hands", in the act of ordination to His one Priesthood as revealled in Holy Scripture.  That does not mean that the men of the Church are not, or were not, sinners and could commit horrible acts.  That is not what Christ promised.  What Our Lord did promise was that the "gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church" and that the "Holy Spirit would reside within it until the end of time."  On matters of Faith and Morals, the Church cannot err, because Christ said so in Holy Scripture.  The proof of this can be found in those same Christian writings.  There is no difference then, 2,000 years ago, to today, in any matter of faith and morals.  As a Catholic Christian, I can read the writing of the Early Church Fathers and their teachings on the nature of Our Lord, the Trinity, the Holy Eucharist, Salvation and Grace for example, and it could all be written by any Catholic Bishop today.  We defend the Body of Christ, His Church, and all her Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and lay faithful, because we defend the Mystical Body of Christ itself. 



Why do RC's defend politically forced Christianity? why defend what Christ nor even Peter started and say it was the church he founded?

First I am sorry that I took so long to answer but I have other things to do. I also wanted to bone up a little on some history so as to better answer what you seem to think is to broad for you to undestand my question. You seem to have trouble seeing the RCC as a politically forced Christianity during its mid evil times. You seem to be one who knows his history so I do not know why you don't understand the question.

So let me narrow it down for you what I am talking about   IN the Tim Satples thread I asked you some questions that you never answered. So I am going to ask them again. When I say forced Christianity you think I talking about forced Conversion. But that is not what I was saying . Here is what I said to you in the staples thread

"Mike
Dear Night You keep saying forced conversion. I did not saying anything about forced conversion. I spoke of forced observance to the RCC. It is hard to get an exact history. I just know that it existed.
Who was the power of Rome after Augustus 475 AD.? I cannot get a clear picture . But in my study I did come across things like the popes power to crown and dethrone emperors. Now thats purty powerful political might don't you think.?

Next I asked you  Who were the crusaders and what was the real purpose or the inquisitions. They were trials for things against the church but the church was the government. they tortured and  burned people at the stake. if this is not forced Christianity I do not know what is. They tried heretics. Who were the heretics? What was the crime and since when does Christ church become a judge and jury upon the earth.?
There are any number of web sites on the subject

I am having trouble finding an exact description and purpose of the crusaders. I had read it once some time ago. It really sounded like a police action. they went after those who a threat to the church. Many of them were getting an indulgence by becoming one. I don't want to hear your idea but I would like to read what the catholic encyclopedia says. I do know that they were armies backed by the pope. This is forced Christianity in my eyes. Since when does Christ use armies?
Have we narrowed it down enough  Is this about christ ? Whould he endorse this as being his church?
Is this not forced Christianity?

QuoteWho was the power of Rome after Augustus 475 AD.?

Essentially, the Goths did, or other Germanic tribes, until the development of the nation states of Western Europe.  It depends on what point in time you are talking about.  It covers 1,500 years.

QuoteNow thats purty powerful political might don't you think.?

Yes, and thank God for it.  The alternative was usually internecine warfare and chaos.

QuoteWho were the crusaders (?)

Again, that is allot of people and history.  The Church called for crusades, but then again, the kings and princes of Europe had their own reasons as well.  They were religious and military in nature, with some economic exploitation thrown in.  As the Muslims were busy sacking all they could of Christian Europe, it was one way to tip the strategic balance against them.

Quoteinquisitions. They were trials for things against the church but the church was the government.

No, the Church was not the Government, but the inquisition, was not an agency of the government, but of the Church.  Some countries had their own inquisitions, but they were with the approval of the Church. 

Quotethey tortured and  burned people at the stake. if this is not forced Christianity I do not know what is. They tried heretics. Who were the heretics? What was the crime and since when does Christ church become a judge and jury upon the earth.?

Yes, in many cases they did do that.  In most cases they did not.  It was an unfortunate and brutal age when both Protestants and Catholics routinely engaged in torture and execution. My Church's responsibility in that cannot be mitigated.  The purpose of the inquisition was to root out heresy within the Church.  This was usually Protestant ideas.  Protestants did the same in countries they controlled.  Christ's Church has a responsibility to defend itself and to defend orthodoxy, but that does not mitigate the sins of the Church's leaders in what she did.

Quote(The Crusaders), This is forced Christianity in my eyes. Since when does Christ use armies?

If you believe in Christian pacifism, than you would have that critical view.  We believe in the doctrine of "just war".  If you feel the calling to martyr yourself, good on you, but you do not have the option as a Catholic man to stand by and call for the martyrdom of your home and hearth, your wife and children, your country or your Church.  You have the obligation to be a good citizen and a good subject of Christ's vicars on earth.  When Christendom was threatened by Muslim armies, we fought back with a good offense.  God bless them for their efforts in preserving Western Civilization and Christianity from the infidels.  We face the same crisis today, I note.   Which of your children would you sacrifice to Muslim terrorist?  Good Christian men must step up and defend the faith, their Church, their countries and their hearth and homes.  I do not apologize for that now, or then.

What is your position on the St. Bartholomew day massacre and the Pope's glorification of it with a feast day and the minting of coins to commemorate it?

I think it was awful and tragic.  Just as I think that the massacres of Catholics by Protestants has been awful and tragic.  I also think that it was in 1572 and not 1972.  You can't judge people of a different era with our standards.  What do you think of the United States being founded by slave owning racist and lying to the world about it's "liberty"?  See what I mean.  I don't let protestant massacres of Catholics 500 years ago affect my view of Protestants today.  Yes, Catholics massacred Protestants in 1572 France.  They also (Catholic and Protestants), burned people at the stake as witches and bled your veins dry to cure the flu.  Black cats were in danger as well.  It is because of Christianity, however, and the Catholic Church specifically, that we have things like the rules of evidence, impartial judiciaries, Universities, modern medicine, doctrines on human rights and the dignity of all life, responsible government, etc.

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Apr 19, 2009 - 12:38:52
I think it was awful and tragic.  Just as I think that the massacres of Catholics by Protestants has been awful and tragic.  I also think that it was in 1572 and not 1972.  You can't judge people of a different era with our standards.  What do you think of the United States being founded by slave owning racist and lying to the world about it's "liberty"?  See what I mean.  I don't let protestant massacres of Catholics 500 years ago affect my view of Protestants today.  Yes, Catholics massacred Protestants in 1572 France.  They also (Catholic and Protestants), burned people at the stake as witches and bled your veins dry to cure the flu.  Black cats were in danger as well.  It is because of Christianity, and the Catholic church specifically, that we have things like the rules of evidence, impartial judiciaries, Universities, modern medicine, doctrines on human rights and the dignity of all life, responsible government, etc.

Yes, it was tragic... but what is your response to the infallible nature of the pope in this regard.  All the other things you mentioned are incidental to their times.. none of them claimed infallibility.

Slavery was horrible the way it was practiced in the south.  Although slavery is allowed by scripture, there is a very high standard of conduct that is imposed on owners and most slavery was voluntary.

QuoteYes, it was tragic... but what is your response to the infallible nature of the pope in this regard.  All the other things you mentioned are incidental to their times.. none of them claimed infallibility.

I would say that you don't understand the doctrine of infallibility.  Infallibility had nothing to do with the Pope's pronouncement on the massacre, or any other atrocities of the Catholic/Protestant conflict during the 16th century.  Infallibility is a specific doctrine of faith relating to the Church's infallibility in very specific matters.  Every single Pope from St. Peter to HH Benedict, is a sinner and quite fallible in their lives, some more than others

QuoteSlavery was horrible the way it was practiced in the south.  Although slavery is allowed by scripture, there is a very high standard of conduct that is imposed on owners and most slavery was voluntary.

Ever read Leviticus?  See how Scripture taught man to deal with heresy for several thousands of years.   That leaders of both the Protestants and the Catholic Church should have known better, I agree, but do you really think it proves anything to say that Calvinist hung witches in New England or Lutherans massacred the Zwinglist?   All that proves is that man is a sinner by nature and must be redeemed to enter heaven.  The Pope, or the Church's doctrine of infallibility has no bearing on that.  Every Pope goes to Confession and many, I'm sure, are in Hell.  It is Christ's Mystical Body that is infallible, not the men that run it.

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Apr 19, 2009 - 12:12:20

QuoteWho was the power of Rome after Augustus 475 AD.?

Essentially, the Goths did, or other Germanic tribes, until the development of the nation states of Western Europe.  It depends on what point in time you are talking about.  It covers 1,500 years.

QuoteNow thats purty powerful political might don't you think.?

Yes, and thank God for it.  The alternative was usually internecine warfare and chaos.

QuoteWho were the crusaders (?)

Again, that is allot of people and history.  The Church called for crusades, but then again, the kings and princes of Europe had their own reasons as well.  They were religious and military in nature, with some economic exploitation thrown in.  As the Muslims were busy sacking all they could of Christian Europe, it was one way to tip the strategic balance against them.

Quoteinquisitions. They were trials for things against the church but the church was the government.

No, the Church was not the Government, but the inquisition, was not an agency of the government, but of the Church.  Some countries had their own inquisitions, but they were with the approval of the Church. 

Quotethey tortured and  burned people at the stake. if this is not forced Christianity I do not know what is. They tried heretics. Who were the heretics? What was the crime and since when does Christ church become a judge and jury upon the earth.?

Yes, in many cases they did do that.  In most cases they did not.  It was an unfortunate and brutal age when both Protestants and Catholics routinely engaged in torture and execution. My Church's responsibility in that cannot be mitigated.  The purpose of the inquisition was to root out heresy within the Church.  This was usually Protestant ideas.  Protestants did the same in countries they controlled.  Christ's Church has a responsibility to defend itself and to defend orthodoxy, but that does not mitigate the sins of the Church's leaders in what she did.

Quote(The Crusaders), This is forced Christianity in my eyes. Since when does Christ use armies?

If you believe in Christian pacifism, than you would have that critical view.  We believe in the doctrine of "just war".  If you feel the calling to martyr yourself, good on you, but you do not have the option as a Catholic man to stand by and call for the martyrdom of your home and hearth, your wife and children, your country or your Church.  You have the obligation to be a good citizen and a good subject of Christ's vicars on earth.  When Christendom was threatened by Muslim armies, we fought back with a good offense.  God bless them for their efforts in preserving Western Civilization and Christianity from the infidels.  We face the same crisis today, I note.   Which of your children would you sacrifice to Muslim terrorist?  Good Christian men must step up and defend the faith, their Church, their countries and their hearth and homes.  I do not apologize for that now, or then.

Mike
Night you said that you thank God for the political power of the popes over kings and emperors to prevent Chaos

Since when was Jesus was about political anything and how was it that the church existed over 400 years without it. They were surrounded by pagans and I'm sure they would have liked to be able to dethrone a few cruel emperors, But the call of believers was to live in peace with all men and governments. And obey those who were in authority  Not control them. Or have any power over them. We live in a lost world and we are to preach Jesus Christ gospel of salvation and be a living testimony for Christ no matter what government good or bad they happen to be in.


Next you said of the crusaders under the popes were religious and military . Again since when is the church about being military and when did Jesus say to fight any war with anyone.  On the night that Jesus was  taken Peter drew his sword , but Jesus said if you live by the sword you shall die it.

WE all at times  have to join the military to defend our homeland and this is Christians also. But by nature no believer is to be  about war. And Peter was never a commander and chief of any Christian military.  The popes were married to the political power of Rome but Christ's church was never to be political or military  When Jesus was tempted of Satan in the wilderness Satan offered him the whole world if he would worship him. Jesus could have ruled the whole world politically and militarily. But Jesus said we were to serve God only. 

The Jews were looking for the messiah but they thought he would be about restoring them in their homeland and deliver then From Roman domination. Even the disciples wanted this before they understood Christ's true mission. There was no command by Jesus to raise up any army or fight the Romans,  Muslims, or anyone.  In fact many were persecuted and died at the hands of the Romans while they were just living at peace even under Roman rule

Your idea of just war sounds right from the human perspective. And yes I would defend my family, but how many Christians in countries  that murdered their families in front of them. Would he be just to seek revenge and kill them just as they killed his family. Its hard to love you enemy isn't it ?     Before Christianity became an excepted religion the Pagan emperors persecuted and murdered the Christians  We do not  see them raising up  militias or armies to fight a just war. This ideal was the brain child of the papacy who did it in the name of the power of Rome. Did Jesus have his disciples raise an army to save him from the cross. No he went to the cross  a willing sacrifice and so did all the apostles. When is salvation about a just war to defend  Christianity on the earth. Our hope is not of this world but it is in Christ  and it is Christ himself who will call his saints from the four winds of heaven to fight the final battle. That is the only just war of God, when all the political governments, unbelievers and religions including false Christianity will come to a just judgment.

You talked about the Goths. From what I read they became Christians. The only Christianity understood at that time was RCC the and the papacy. I don't know what the circumstances were that they converted. I really don't think it was motivated by true conviction but I am not the judge. How ever they became subject to the popes, so who really was the power of The empire. Was it not the Popes. The ones who crowned and dethroned kings.. What is the thinking in this world . Is it not about power control and destroy your enemies. Leaders who invoke their will upon the people. Do we invoke Christ on the world?.

One last thought. The Book of Revelation tells us of the antichrist, who will rise up to be a world leader and cause all men to receive his mark. He will seek out and kill all that will not honor him. Mainly this will be the true believers in Christ. This will be Satan's final assault to destroy Christ church. Will the popes raise up an army to fight him in some just war to preserve Christianity and defend  the vicars, or will they say its about time we had a world order. One that will invoke peace and religious harmony. One who will kill anyone who will only serve Christ.

We see in Rev 15 the true bride of Christ standing before God who got the victory over the beast. What is that victory/. Are they those who fought a just war and won. Oh they won all right but not by military might but  were willing to give their life for their faith.   



 

Quote from: mclees8 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 - 11:32:24
Why do RC's defend politicaly forced christiantiy? why defend what christ nor even peter started and say it was the church he founded?

Can one here answer mer that? If not one will answer I pray if you really understand What christ was all about. and if you do understand what christ is about then why keep defending the papacy? 

Can you please show me in catholic doctrine, where the church teaches that we must force Christianity upon people for political reasons? I have studied the teachings of the church and have yet to fnd this teaching in any age. Maybe you can enlighten me.

If you are implying that the sins of men in the church over about a 150 year period, make the entire church wrong in some way, you would be mistaken. That would be like saying if you had a rotten toenail, then your entire body was rotten, and we know this not to be true.

The weeds will grow amongst the wheat until harvest.

peace, papist

Mike, there is no way I am going to convince you that the Catholic Church was not, what you say it is.  Not all of your points are bad, but you way, way, over-exaggerate the power of the Pope.  The Catholic Church in the West was faced with a very different set of circumstances than in the East.  The West collapsed in the early 400's AD and barbarian pagans were literally in charge.  The Church acted to convert, civilize, educate, and settle, these semi-nomadic Celtic and Germanic warrior tribes.  The history of what we call "Christian Civilization" is exactly that effort.  You, and others seem to think that it is , somehow, a "bad", "evil" and "rotten" thing that we did.  Of course you do so from all the luxury of the rule of law, classical learning, education, responsible government, etc. that this very Western Civilization and the Catholic Church bought and paid for with the blood of it's martyrs and leaders.  Constantine was not this evil man.  He was not perfect.  He sinned and made errors, just as the Church's Bishops did.  He is declared a "Saint" by our Eastern Orthodox brothers for his efforts to protect and promote Christianity and his ending of such un-Christian practices such as gladiatorial slaughter or the arbitrary killing of slaves and children.  He established a Christian justice throughout the Empire and yet, some "Christians" think that makes him evil.  It is perplexing to me how some Evangelicals have pronounced him evil at the same time they work so diligently in American politics to end abortion and fight secular modernism.  i.e., to make us a nation that respects and honors our Christian heritage and teaching again.  Sounds kind of hypocritical to me.  I guess we could have done nothing and let the barbarians have their way.  I'm glad we didn't.

Christian Europe was under constant siege by Muslim infidels for hundreds of years.  You admit that even you agree in defending country and family, but somehow, you don't extend the same benefit of the doubt to Christian Europe.  If it's good for America to defend ourselves against Muslim extremist, why wasn't it for Europe?  The last siege of a European capitol, (Vienna), was in 1683!  New York, Boston, and Baltimore were already cities then.  The war we are fighting today is the same war we were fighting then.  People better wake up and realize that fact.  Lastly, the Book of Revelation does talk about the "anti-Christ".  The NT says in...

(1 John 4:1-3) "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world".

Please point out to me in 2,000 years of dogma, doctrine, practice or tradition where the Holy Catholic Church has, at any time, at any place, in any way, not believed and taught that Jesus Christ was the Incarnation of God and Our Lord and Saviour.  If you can't, than you and others are blaspheming against both Holy Scripture and your brother Christians, for slandering the Catholic Church as the "Beast" of Revelation or the "Antichrist."  You will be judged by the Almighty according to the judgment you have passed on others.

chirp chirp, silence is certainly vindicating when it comes to facts about what the church actually teaches.

It is easy to slander the church with the sins of it's members, but when it comes to the teachings, they are irrefutable, as seen in this instance.

This canot be said for any other institution calling itself christianity, for no other institution has been around for 2000 years, and those which have been around awhile, have inevitably changed their teachings to mean something diffeent than originally proposed.

peace, papist

Quote from: papist1 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 - 11:05:57
chirp chirp, silence is certainly vindicating when it comes to facts about what the church actually teaches.

It is easy to slander the church with the sins of it's members, but when it comes to the teachings, they are irrefutable, as seen in this instance.

This canot be said for any other institution calling itself christianity, for no other institution has been around for 2000 years, and those which have been around awhile, have inevitably changed their teachings to mean something diffeent than originally proposed.

peace, papist

It is true papist that Christianity has been here for 2000 years but the word Christian no longer carries the weight and value it did when the believers were first called Christans in Antioch. It is now just an umbrella word that covers a multitude of beleifs traditions doctrines and ideals of men. From the beggining the church was neither RC or Protestant and God has no pet denomination. The tares do grow with the wheat and will be seperated at the harvest  Thise who love Christ do the will of the Father. They Love god with all their heart mind and soul and love their neightbor as them self
There is no slander in pointing out who the church is and how god sees it.
peace Mike

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 - 10:42:45

Quote from: papist1 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 - 11:05:57
chirp chirp, silence is certainly vindicating when it comes to facts about what the church actually teaches.

It is easy to slander the church with the sins of it's members, but when it comes to the teachings, they are irrefutable, as seen in this instance.

This canot be said for any other institution calling itself christianity, for no other institution has been around for 2000 years, and those which have been around awhile, have inevitably changed their teachings to mean something diffeent than originally proposed.

peace, papist

It is true papist that Christianity has been here for 2000 years but the word Christian no longer carries the weight and value it did when the believers were first called Christans in Antioch. It is now just an umbrella word that covers a multitude of beleifs traditions doctrines and ideals of men. From the beggining the church was neither RC or Protestant and God has no pet denomination. The tares do grow with the wheat and will be seperated at the harvest  Thise who love Christ do the will of the Father. They Love god with all their heart mind and soul and love their neightbor as them self
There is no slander in pointing out who the church is and how god sees it.
peace Mike

I would agree with you that the term "Christian" has been watered down, but this is due tothe false doctrine of sola scriptura which has caused unprecedented division and error in the realms of what is deemed to be the Church.  I would disagree with you on the history of the church, as we onlysee Catholic doctrine from the first century forward historically. To say the church was not Catholic is like saying that America was communist in the first 100 years. We know from history that neither of these is true or factual.

You must remember that the Bible did not exist as a book for us to read until after 382ad, and it was God working through the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to bring the canon forth, no one else.

Peace, papist

Quote from: papist1 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 - 11:59:49

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 - 10:42:45

Quote from: papist1 on Fri Apr 24, 2009 - 11:05:57
chirp chirp, silence is certainly vindicating when it comes to facts about what the church actually teaches.

It is easy to slander the church with the sins of it's members, but when it comes to the teachings, they are irrefutable, as seen in this instance.

This canot be said for any other institution calling itself christianity, for no other institution has been around for 2000 years, and those which have been around awhile, have inevitably changed their teachings to mean something diffeent than originally proposed.

peace, papist

It is true papist that Christianity has been here for 2000 years but the word Christian no longer carries the weight and value it did when the believers were first called Christans in Antioch. It is now just an umbrella word that covers a multitude of beleifs traditions doctrines and ideals of men. From the beggining the church was neither RC or Protestant and God has no pet denomination. The tares do grow with the wheat and will be seperated at the harvest  Thise who love Christ do the will of the Father. They Love god with all their heart mind and soul and love their neightbor as them self
There is no slander in pointing out who the church is and how god sees it.
peace Mike

I would agree with you that the term "Christian" has been watered down, but this is due tothe false doctrine of sola scriptura which has caused unprecedented division and error in the realms of what is deemed to be the Church.  I would disagree with you on the history of the church, as we onlysee Catholic doctrine from the first century forward historically. To say the church was not Catholic is like saying that America was communist in the first 100 years. We know from history that neither of these is true or factual.

You must remember that the Bible did not exist as a book for us to read until after 382ad, and it was God working through the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to bring the canon forth, no one else.

Peace, papist

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 beleive 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 from: Mclees8There 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.

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Apr 26, 2009 - 10:42:52

Quote from: Mclees8There 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.

   

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Apr 26, 2009 - 10:42:52

Quote from: Mclees8There 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.

Quote from: TantorThe 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?

Quote from: mclees8 on Sun Apr 26, 2009 - 14:19:40

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Apr 26, 2009 - 10:42:52

Quote from: Mclees8There 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

[
[/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

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Apr 26, 2009 - 21:11:54

Quote from: TantorThe 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.

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 09:02:22

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Apr 26, 2009 - 21:11:54

Quote from: TantorThe 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

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.

Quote from: TantorThat 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?

QuoteDoes 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."

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 10:33:30

Quote from: TantorThat 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?

QuoteDoes 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.

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

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 11:05:24
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

QuoteIf 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.

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

Absolutely.

Quote from: desertknight on Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 11:23:33

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteEven 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?

Your baiting and evading the topic Tantor.  You have no answer for the topic we were discussing?

Not really... You base your entire doctrine and theology based upon what the popes have decreed as dogma over the centuries... you believe what they tell you without question.

The culture that the RCC has developed is that it is without reproach and the final arbitor for any and all doctrinal matters.  Basically, they have set them up in a position where they can do anything they want and never have to apologize for it.  It a mafioso type of culture that has trickled its way all the way down to the diocese level where cardinals and priests are more interested in covering their sins then openly repenting for them.  When the american priests were found to have been pedifiles, their superiors decided to hide them and move them to other positions rather then turn them over to the authorities.

The fact that these priests and cardinals are still in the church even though moved or disciplined shows the deep seated contempt that the Catholic church has for the governments of the world.

And you are willing to forgo this.. turn a blind eye, and continue to follow and be involved in the same church that tried to sweep these hideous offenses under the carpet.

If the church were truly God's.. the church would without question be paying the victims double what they asked for.. gladly... as the bible prescribes.  But I guess they would rather interpret the bible to their own benefit.

Until the RCC starts acting Christlike, i will be vehemently opposed to any an all who would subject themselves to its leadership or try and woo others into their fold.

Isn't that what the bible teaches?

And no, I am not trying to bait you.. I am seriously trying to find out how someone can look past all the unrepented offenses past and present and still look to the church leadership as being Jesus ambassador on the earth.

How do you reconcile it all?... I know we are called to forgive.. but we are also called to pay restitution.. and ask for forgiveness directly.  IMNSHO, the pope should travel to each and every family that has had one of their children victimized by a priest and get down on his knees and beg for forgiveness and personally pay restitution.. because as the leader of any institution, ultimate blame lies with the person ultimately in charge.

So when it comes to the 'Eucharist' or whatever.. I will go opposite pretty much on every RCC doctrine on the matter out of principle.. no matter what old writings you can dig up... because I consider the source... its really a character issue.

Your still evading.  We were discussing the Eucharist.  Now you want to change the topic.  It is of course, because you now find your original statements impossible to defend, yes?  A sure sign of weakness in your beliefs.

Nope... I can defend them via scripture alone and should not have to defend them against what some non-inspired person wrote.

You keep bringing non-relevant material to bear.

OK, then why did the Apostle Paul admonish the Corinthians, (1 Cor. 11:27-30), for when they partook of the Eucharist they did not understand what they were eating, by telling them that they "did not recognize it as the Body of Christ.", and that this was the reason that "many had become sick, and many had even died." (?).  Did Paul also misunderstand the Eucharist?  If you object to St. Ignatius's belief, why did no one else in authority?  Why did they make him a Bishop?