What would Ignatius have believed if he said "I believe in the catholic Church"?

[Catholica]

Today in Prayer I was led of the Spirit to recite the apostles creed for tommorow. I was led to make a change in how  verse nine reads without changing any meaning that was intended.

Here is the apostles creed as I felt led to read it.

. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy universal faith in Christ: and the communion of all believers, which are the saints.
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

If you read it in a way that differs from what the Church intended, then it is no longer the "Apostle's Creed".  In this case it is the "mclees8 creed".

No its not the mclees creed but it is stated correctly and in agreement  with the true word definition of  Catholic and with scripture that clearly declares all believers are saints. it is still the apostles creed.  Nothing is incorrect here.

You never responded to when I asked you to correctly interpret St. Ignatius of Antioch's writing when he referred to the Catholic Church.  Perhaps you didn't see my post?  I added a link so that you can read which post I meant.

What would St. Ignatius have thought of when he would have said "I believe in the Catholic Church"?  Bishops and authority and the Eucharist, perhaps?  Or would his "holy universal faith in Christ" also have included the "faith" of the so-called "heretics" which he spoke against, who had a different "faith" in Christ, one that apparently denied the authority of said bishops?

I don't recall you asking me that but I would be glad to talk about when ignatius used the Word catholic.

Great, that would be wonderful.
 

OK lets start by asking you a question. What is the  true meaning and definition of the word catholic without attaching the word Roman to it just as when Ignatius used it.  ...  who was ignatius refering to when he used the term catholic? You will say the church so then who was the church without regard to anything Roman. just as it was when the church was born at pentecost. Answer that and we can go on from there.

Let's look at what Ignatius was saying when he used the term "Catholic Church":

Here is an excerpt from his famous use of the word "Catholic Church" from his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans:

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics

They 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Chapter 9. Honour the bishop

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.

Here is a starter for whom Ignatius believes are the Catholic Church, from this letter:

* They keep the Eucharist and the prayer, and they confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. 
* They should "avoid all divisions as the beginnings of evils".
* They follow the bishop "just as" Jesus Christ does the father.
* They follow the presbytery as they would the apostles
* They reverence deacons as being the institution of God.
* They should do nothing "connected with the Church" without the bishop.
* They believe that the only proper Eucharist is administered by the bishop or by one whom the bishop has entrusted it.
* The bishop and the multitude are connected, just AS wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.  This reveals the deep connection between being connected with the bishop and being part of Jesus' body and the Catholic Church.
* A person in this church should reverence *both* God AND the bishop.
* A person in this church who honors the bishop has been honoured by God, and whoever does something without the "knowledge" of the bishop (in reality) serves the devil.

Thus Ignatius draws as tight a connection between being a member of the "Catholic Church" and being subject to and honoring the clergy (bishops, prebytery, deacons) as has even been written to paper.  This means that the "Catholic Church" which Ignatius is referring to is first and foremost hierarchical, and that anyone who is disobedient to said hierarchy is (in his words) a heretic or (in reality) serving the devil.  Also a characteristic of this people is orthodoxy (the opposite of heresy, aka non-heretics) and that orthodoxy involves (in this piece of writing at least) confessing that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ.

Now you have stated in the past that you believe that the "Catholic Church" is the "universal faith in Christ", at least according to how you claimed the Holy Spirit led you to renumerate the apostles creed.  Is your definition of this "universal faith in Christ" involve "reverencing" the bishop, following the bishop just as Jesus Christ does the father, and that one should do nothing connected to the Church without the bishop, that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and that we should not deem a proper Eucharist to be one celebrated outside the authority of a bishop?

[FireSword]

Unfortunately his words contradict what Jesus said.

Therefore he must be an heretic. Why listen to him?

[trifecta]

Sorry, FireSword,

learn some church history.  Calling St. Ignatius a heretic, a man with was killed by lions at the Coliseum, dishonors his memory.

I am not Catholic, but recognize the holiness of this man, as do many Protestants.

[mclees8]

Today in Prayer I was led of the Spirit to recite the apostles creed for tommorow. I was led to make a change in how  verse nine reads without changing any meaning that was intended.

Here is the apostles creed as I felt led to read it.

. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy universal faith in Christ: and the communion of all believers, which are the saints.
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

If you read it in a way that differs from what the Church intended, then it is no longer the "Apostle's Creed".  In this case it is the "mclees8 creed".

No its not the mclees creed but it is stated correctly and in agreement  with the true word definition of  Catholic and with scripture that clearly declares all believers are saints. it is still the apostles creed.  Nothing is incorrect here.

You never responded to when I asked you to correctly interpret St. Ignatius of Antioch's writing when he referred to the Catholic Church.  Perhaps you didn't see my post?  I added a link so that you can read which post I meant.

What would St. Ignatius have thought of when he would have said "I believe in the Catholic Church"?  Bishops and authority and the Eucharist, perhaps?  Or would his "holy universal faith in Christ" also have included the "faith" of the so-called "heretics" which he spoke against, who had a different "faith" in Christ, one that apparently denied the authority of said bishops?

I don't recall you asking me that but I would be glad to talk about when ignatius used the Word catholic.

Great, that would be wonderful.
 

OK lets start by asking you a question. What is the  true meaning and definition of the word catholic without attaching the word Roman to it just as when Ignatius used it.  ...  who was ignatius refering to when he used the term catholic? You will say the church so then who was the church without regard to anything Roman. just as it was when the church was born at pentecost. Answer that and we can go on from there.

Let's look at what Ignatius was saying when he used the term "Catholic Church":

Here is an excerpt from his famous use of the word "Catholic Church" from his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans:

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics

They 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Chapter 9. Honour the bishop

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.

Here is a starter for whom Ignatius believes are the Catholic Church, from this letter:

* They keep the Eucharist and the prayer, and they confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. 
* They should "avoid all divisions as the beginnings of evils".
* They follow the bishop "just as" Jesus Christ does the father.
* They follow the presbytery as they would the apostles
* They reverence deacons as being the institution of God.
* They should do nothing "connected with the Church" without the bishop.
* They believe that the only proper Eucharist is administered by the bishop or by one whom the bishop has entrusted it.
* The bishop and the multitude are connected, just AS wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.  This reveals the deep connection between being connected with the bishop and being part of Jesus' body and the Catholic Church.
* A person in this church should reverence *both* God AND the bishop.
* A person in this church who honors the bishop has been honoured by God, and whoever does something without the "knowledge" of the bishop (in reality) serves the devil.

Thus Ignatius draws as tight a connection between being a member of the "Catholic Church" and being subject to and honoring the clergy (bishops, prebytery, deacons) as has even been written to paper.  This means that the "Catholic Church" which Ignatius is referring to is first and foremost hierarchical, and that anyone who is disobedient to said hierarchy is (in his words) a heretic or (in reality) serving the devil.  Also a characteristic of this people is orthodoxy (the opposite of heresy, aka non-heretics) and that orthodoxy involves (in this piece of writing at least) confessing that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ.

Now you have stated in the past that you believe that the "Catholic Church" is the "universal faith in Christ", at least according to how you claimed the Holy Spirit led you to renumerate the apostles creed.  Is your definition of this "universal faith in Christ" involve "reverencing" the bishop, following the bishop just as Jesus Christ does the father, and that one should do nothing connected to the Church without the bishop, that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and that we should not deem a proper Eucharist to be one celebrated outside the authority of a bishop?

I am more than willing to discuss your points but you still have not told me the meaning of the word catholic without attachingthe  word Roman to it just as when Ignatius first used it. Did it not speak to the whole body of believers, and the body of Christ did not speak specificlly of anything Roman at that time. Am I right?

[trifecta]

Let me answer that one.  The Catholic Church, as used by Ignatius, is the Christian Church, as opposed to the gnostics (who also considered itself Christians) and a host of other heretical groups.

This Catholic Church would become known as the Roman Catholic Church was named such when the church grew.  There were five "headquarters", but this was well after Ignatius.

Here is Ignatius's Catholic quote:

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop.

Note that contrary to popular (Roman) belief, catholic does not mean universal, but "whole" or "completeness."  From this quote you can see it:  If the bishop is there, is the entire church there.  No.
It is saying when you have the faithful gathered for communion with the bishop's approval, you have completeness.  That makes more sense, right?

Take it from us, the Orthodox Churches.  After all, Greek is our native language!

[AVZ]

Today in Prayer I was led of the Spirit to recite the apostles creed for tommorow. I was led to make a change in how  verse nine reads without changing any meaning that was intended.

Here is the apostles creed as I felt led to read it.

. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy universal faith in Christ: and the communion of all believers, which are the saints.
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

If you read it in a way that differs from what the Church intended, then it is no longer the "Apostle's Creed".  In this case it is the "mclees8 creed".

No its not the mclees creed but it is stated correctly and in agreement  with the true word definition of  Catholic and with scripture that clearly declares all believers are saints. it is still the apostles creed.  Nothing is incorrect here.

You never responded to when I asked you to correctly interpret St. Ignatius of Antioch's writing when he referred to the Catholic Church.  Perhaps you didn't see my post?  I added a link so that you can read which post I meant.

What would St. Ignatius have thought of when he would have said "I believe in the Catholic Church"?  Bishops and authority and the Eucharist, perhaps?  Or would his "holy universal faith in Christ" also have included the "faith" of the so-called "heretics" which he spoke against, who had a different "faith" in Christ, one that apparently denied the authority of said bishops?

I don't recall you asking me that but I would be glad to talk about when ignatius used the Word catholic.

Great, that would be wonderful.
 

OK lets start by asking you a question. What is the  true meaning and definition of the word catholic without attaching the word Roman to it just as when Ignatius used it.  ...  who was ignatius refering to when he used the term catholic? You will say the church so then who was the church without regard to anything Roman. just as it was when the church was born at pentecost. Answer that and we can go on from there.

Let's look at what Ignatius was saying when he used the term "Catholic Church":

Here is an excerpt from his famous use of the word "Catholic Church" from his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans:

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics

They 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Chapter 9. Honour the bishop

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.

Here is a starter for whom Ignatius believes are the Catholic Church, from this letter:

* They keep the Eucharist and the prayer, and they confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. 
* They should "avoid all divisions as the beginnings of evils".
* They follow the bishop "just as" Jesus Christ does the father.
* They follow the presbytery as they would the apostles
* They reverence deacons as being the institution of God.
* They should do nothing "connected with the Church" without the bishop.
* They believe that the only proper Eucharist is administered by the bishop or by one whom the bishop has entrusted it.
* The bishop and the multitude are connected, just AS wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.  This reveals the deep connection between being connected with the bishop and being part of Jesus' body and the Catholic Church.
* A person in this church should reverence *both* God AND the bishop.
* A person in this church who honors the bishop has been honoured by God, and whoever does something without the "knowledge" of the bishop (in reality) serves the devil.

Thus Ignatius draws as tight a connection between being a member of the "Catholic Church" and being subject to and honoring the clergy (bishops, prebytery, deacons) as has even been written to paper.  This means that the "Catholic Church" which Ignatius is referring to is first and foremost hierarchical, and that anyone who is disobedient to said hierarchy is (in his words) a heretic or (in reality) serving the devil.  Also a characteristic of this people is orthodoxy (the opposite of heresy, aka non-heretics) and that orthodoxy involves (in this piece of writing at least) confessing that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ.

Now you have stated in the past that you believe that the "Catholic Church" is the "universal faith in Christ", at least according to how you claimed the Holy Spirit led you to renumerate the apostles creed.  Is your definition of this "universal faith in Christ" involve "reverencing" the bishop, following the bishop just as Jesus Christ does the father, and that one should do nothing connected to the Church without the bishop, that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and that we should not deem a proper Eucharist to be one celebrated outside the authority of a bishop?

Ignatius' comment was against those who abstain from the eucharist and prayer, and in particular to those who rejected the idea that Jesus had a human body before and after the resurrection (chapter 5).
In Protestant churches when Holy Communion is being held, the pastor proclaims "this is the body of Christ". The only difference is that Protestants see the eucharist as a symbol of the body, whilst Catholics actually believe the eucharist transforms into flesh.
Ignatius' comment does not address this, hence there is no reason for you to assume that Ignatius believed in transformation.

Outside the Catholic Church there is no objection to hierarchy in the church. In fact all churches have and must have some form of leadership.
This leadership is held in awe and is deeply respected. The church itself is deeply respected and believers do upheld the teachings.
I don't see how Ignatius' comments on this issue would point to the RCC only.

In Ignatius' time there was not a single bishop, there were many, and in fact in chapter 12 that is clearly seen. It is the RCC that later appointed a "super bishop" called "Pope", which happened long after Ignatius.
So Ignatius' comment is about leaders of the church. This refers to teachers such as priests and clergy, but also elderlies, deacons, pastors and reverents.

Your claim however that Ignatius used the word "Catholic Church" is incorrect.
The term used is "he katholike ekklesia" in underscore, not capital letters. This simply means "universal church".

Look at chapter 11 & 12
Your prayer has reached to the church which is at Antioch in Syria.
...your church should elect some worthy delegate...
I salute your most worthy bishop, and your very venerable presbytery, and your deacons...

It is clear that Ignatius acknowledges that there is a church in Antioch, but there is also a church in Smyrnea.
It is also clear that Ignatius acknowledges the existance and importance of other bishops, presbetery and deacons and it makes Ignatius more a protestant than a Catholic.

Someone eager in this New Advent Church has been changing all "C's" into capitals when translating the letter from Ignatius, meaning for it to appear specifically to refer to the Catholic Church.
This of course is misleading. Both the historical background of the letter as well as the message it contains does not even slightly hint to a Catholic Church.

If it was...tell me...where is Mary in all this? If Mary was that much an important person, surely Igantius would have stretched out her importance to the churches in his farewell letter...wouldn't you thing?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

On the other hand, how many of the so-called Ignatian epistles were actually authored by Ignatius?

If you said two, i would take the under...

[FireSword]

Sorry, FireSword,

learn some church history.  Calling St. Ignatius a heretic, a man with was killed by lions at the Coliseum, dishonors his memory.

I am not Catholic, but recognize the holiness of this man, as do many Protestants.

I would not call him a heretic, but the catholic church might because he teaches things contrary to scripture.

When Origen did this with a few topics, I think pre existence of the soul, they called him a heretic. So why they not call Ignatius a heretic, for calling the followers of Jesus heretics.  The Disciples of Jesus said master we forbade them {disciples] because they follow not us Jesus said, "forbid them not".
But Ignatius according to catholica calls those who do not follow the apostles or bishops heretics.

[trifecta]

Do you consider Mormons, JWs and crazy sects of Christianity to be these 'disciples of Christ' or for that matter gnostics?

Neither did Paul nor John.  That's what Ignatius was dealing with here--people claiming that they had the faith but didn't.

Understand the times and context, and Ignatius will make more sense to you.

[Catholica]

I am more than willing to discuss your points but you still have not told me the meaning of the word catholic without attachingthe  word Roman to it just as when Ignatius first used it. Did it not speak to the whole body of believers, and the body of Christ did not speak specificlly of anything Roman at that time. Am I right?

Let's try to discern what Ignatius meant when he said the words "Catholic Church".  For that I have provided my analysis which I won't restate.  As has already been noted, there were a group of people who called themselves Christians at that time whom Ignatius deemed as "heretics".  Thus I believe that we can derive that Ignatius did NOT apply the words "Catholic Church" to a squishy "whole body of believers".  In fact it seemed quite important to Ignatius as to what people believed, and that people who did not believe that he did not deem as part of what he referred to as the "Catholic Church".  If we want to see what it was that Ignatius believed were orthodox beliefs to be held by said "Catholic Church", we can continue to look through the rightly attributed epistles.

As to whether the body of Christ "did not speak specifically of anything Roman at that time", you can be assured that Ignatius was well aware that this one Church, this "Catholic Church", was in fact established in Rome as well as other places, as one of Ignatius' other epistles (the set widely accepted as authentic) is addressed to the Romans.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

Greeting

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

We can see in this writing that Ignatius sees the Church as united in one.  Also we see that though Ignatius sees the Church in many places, he also sees them as people who he could rightly instruct.  This highly suggests centralized authority and unified doctrine.  And it is well known that Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch and a direct disciple of the apostle John, thus uniting him to the one Church established by the Apostles and by extension, founded by Jesus.

In the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans which I quoted before, he denounced divisions, and made distinctions between who is in the Church and who is not based on both who they should submit to (the established bishops, presbytery and deacons) as well as what the so-called "heretics" did not believe (and by implication, what was orthodox belief). His emphasis in the letter to the Smyrnaeans was belief that the Eucharist was the flesh of Jesus Christ, the necessity to observe a valid Eucharist in union with the bishop, to avoid divisions, and to honor the hierarchy of the Church.  Why would Ignatius bring up the Eucharist being the "flesh" of Jesus?  One because that was a belief of the "Catholic Church" and two because the (so-called by Ignatius) "heretics" denied it, as they also denied the resurrection of Jesus being of the body, rather purporting that he was a spirit only.

I'm looking forward to finally reading your analysis which you have not yet provided though you promised you would.  This is not about me, and it is not about you, this is about Ignatius and what he meant when he used his phrase "Catholic Church".  So far I think we can put to rest the idea of a "universal faith in Christ", a phrase too squishy to have any meaning at all, a phrase which doesn't even define what this faith in Christ contains for aspects of belief or church structure.  That phrase would have included the people that Ignatius is clearly saying are not part of the Catholic Church even though they attribute their beliefs to Christ.  Historically we know these people to be the Gnostics.  The Gnostics probably would have said that they have faith in Christ as well, but they clearly are not considered part of the "Catholic Church" to Ignatius.

[Catholica]

Ignatius' comment was against those who abstain from the eucharist and prayer, and in particular to those who rejected the idea that Jesus had a human body before and after the resurrection (chapter 5).
In Protestant churches when Holy Communion is being held, the pastor proclaims "this is the body of Christ". The only difference is that Protestants see the eucharist as a symbol of the body, whilst Catholics actually believe the eucharist transforms into flesh.
Ignatius' comment does not address this, hence there is no reason for you to assume that Ignatius believed in transformation.

Ignatius explictly states here that the so-called "heretics": "abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ".  Thus Ignatius' comment certainly does address this.

Outside the Catholic Church there is no objection to hierarchy in the church. In fact all churches have and must have some form of leadership.
This leadership is held in awe and is deeply respected. The church itself is deeply respected and believers do upheld the teachings.

True, every community has their own structure (though some communities intentionally do away with anything hierarchical).  Though most do not put such a high value on this structure as Ignatius says, that they should honor their bishop, the presbytery and the deacons in such a way as Ignatius has outlined.  The scandal seems here that Ignatius is big on "no divisions".  We see in the present state of many communities that there are indeed great divisions between different structures.  A Baptist would not honor the hierarchy of a Methodist or Lutheran Church for example.  Yet these people seem to be implied to honor Ignatius even though he is not their bishop, as Ignatius seems to feel like he has some manner of teaching authority for them to follow.  Can you imagine a Seventh Day Adventist actually doing what a Lutheran bishop suggested?

I don't see how Ignatius' comments on this issue would point to the RCC only.

I am not implying that it does.  This thread is to try to understand how Ignatius characterized the Church that he called "the Catholic Church".

In Ignatius' time there was not a single bishop, there were many, and in fact in chapter 12 that is clearly seen. ... So Ignatius' comment is about leaders of the church. This refers to teachers such as priests and clergy, but also elderlies, deacons, pastors and reverents.

Agreed that there were many bishops in Ignatius time.  That is clear from his writings.  Since this thread is not necessarily in reference to the Roman Catholic Church, I'm not going to address that at all.  We just want to find out what Ignatius meant when he called this Church the "Catholic Church".

Your claim however that Ignatius used the word "Catholic Church" is incorrect.
The term used is "he katholike ekklesia" in underscore, not capital letters. This simply means "universal church".

The words are literally "catholic church" translated.  We want to analyze what constituted this church.  Yes the word "catholic" could be translated "universal", but we are looking more at what Ignatius meant by this word "catholic" more than what it translates as, because it is clear that this "catholic church" has a set structure and a known set of beliefs.  That would make it a "religion" by the way.

Look at chapter 11 & 12
Your prayer has reached to the church which is at Antioch in Syria.
...your church should elect some worthy delegate...
I salute your most worthy bishop, and your very venerable presbytery, and your deacons...

It is clear that Ignatius acknowledges that there is a church in Antioch, but there is also a church in Smyrnea.
It is also clear that Ignatius acknowledges the existance and importance of other bishops, presbetery and deacons and it makes Ignatius more a protestant than a Catholic.

Ignatius indeed does call each local area a church.  The Catholic Church does this as well.  Every diocese we call our "local Church".  The difference between Catholic and Protestant is not that different areas are called "Churches" (plural) but that the said "Churches" are in union in belief and free from divisions.  This is how what today is called the "Catholic Church" is organized.  Protestant "churches" are divided from each other, and have been from their beginning, but the Catholic Church has always valued unity in belief from the beginning, when what was called "The Holy Catholic Church" had not yet been divided by Schism.  Even today the Roman Catholic Church seeks to end that schism, and still consider the Orthodox Church part of that "One Church".  The only way to consider the different "Protestant churches" "one" is if you dilute the meaning of unity to not include belief, which Ignatius clearly does not.  So in that way it appears that this thing Ignatius calls "the Catholic Church" is more similar to what today we call "the Catholic Church" than what we now see as "Protestant Churches".

If it was...tell me...where is Mary in all this? If Mary was that much an important person, surely Igantius would have stretched out her importance to the churches in his farewell letter...wouldn't you thing?

I'm going to stay on the facts and the topic and avoid useless speculation in this thread.  I'm not trying to prove that the "Catholic Church" that Ignatius refers to is the "Roman Catholic Church".  We are just trying to understand what Ignatius meant when he said the words "the Catholic Church".

[mclees8]

I am more than willing to discuss your points but you still have not told me the meaning of the word catholic without attachingthe  word Roman to it just as when Ignatius first used it. Did it not speak to the whole body of believers, and the body of Christ did not speak specificlly of anything Roman at that time. Am I right?

Let's try to discern what Ignatius meant when he said the words "Catholic Church".  For that I have provided my analysis which I won't restate.  As has already been noted, there were a group of people who called themselves Christians at that time whom Ignatius deemed as "heretics".  Thus I believe that we can derive that Ignatius did NOT apply the words "Catholic Church" to a squishy "whole body of believers".  In fact it seemed quite important to Ignatius as to what people believed, and that people who did not believe that he did not deem as part of what he referred to as the "Catholic Church".  If we want to see what it was that Ignatius believed were orthodox beliefs to be held by said "Catholic Church", we can continue to look through the rightly attributed epistles.

As to whether the body of Christ "did not speak specifically of anything Roman at that time", you can be assured that Ignatius was well aware that this one Church, this "Catholic Church", was in fact established in Rome as well as other places, as one of Ignatius' other epistles (the set widely accepted as authentic) is addressed to the Romans.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

Greeting

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

We can see in this writing that Ignatius sees the Church as united in one.  Also we see that though Ignatius sees the Church in many places, he also sees them as people who he could rightly instruct.  This highly suggests centralized authority and unified doctrine.  And it is well known that Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch and a direct disciple of the apostle John, thus uniting him to the one Church established by the Apostles and by extension, founded by Jesus.

In the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans which I quoted before, he denounced divisions, and made distinctions between who is in the Church and who is not based on both who they should submit to (the established bishops, presbytery and deacons) as well as what the so-called "heretics" did not believe (and by implication, what was orthodox belief). His emphasis in the letter to the Smyrnaeans was belief that the Eucharist was the flesh of Jesus Christ, the necessity to observe a valid Eucharist in union with the bishop, to avoid divisions, and to honor the hierarchy of the Church.  Why would Ignatius bring up the Eucharist being the "flesh" of Jesus?  One because that was a belief of the "Catholic Church" and two because the (so-called by Ignatius) "heretics" denied it, as they also denied the resurrection of Jesus being of the body, rather purporting that he was a spirit only.

I'm looking forward to finally reading your analysis which you have not yet provided though you promised you would.  This is not about me, and it is not about you, this is about Ignatius and what he meant when he used his phrase "Catholic Church".  So far I think we can put to rest the idea of a "universal faith in Christ", a phrase too squishy to have any meaning at all, a phrase which doesn't even define what this faith in Christ contains for aspects of belief or church structure.  That phrase would have included the people that Ignatius is clearly saying are not part of the Catholic Church even though they attribute their beliefs to Christ.  Historically we know these people to be the Gnostics.  The Gnostics probably would have said that they have faith in Christ as well, but they clearly are not considered part of the "Catholic Church" to Ignatius.

First I want to thank AVZ for his excellent  insight to all this. He speaks well and I am not able to answer as eloquently as he did. How ever I am going to answer to you but I want to give much thought to my answer. However AVZ has already coverd much and i can only give my perspective. I will answer directly.

[mclees8]

answering Catholica and catholics

You say it is not about you or me but Ignatius. I say it is about truth and what that truth was when Ignatius was a bishop during his time. We must see truth as it really is and what was being expressed, and not by the ideals of some future church that did not exist when he wrote his epistles.
You speak of divisions and those who did not truly represent the church under the authority of the bishops who followed after the apostles. They were to be considered heretics. You would liken them to Protestants. Protestants do not deny the Lords supper but  reverence it just as much as any Catholic. Whether Protestants believe it is transformed or symbolic will carry no wait in the judgment but the spirit of the believer will.  I do not know much about Gnostics but if they did not reverence the celebrating of the last Supper I would most assuredly agree that they were heretics. I do not believe this in any way justifies that Ignatius spoke of anything Roman Catholic.  If the epistle of Ignatius was addressed to the Roman Church does not mean that the whole body of Christ and the other Bishops of the empire looked to the church of Rome and it bishops as popes. They were brother churches in Christ. Not one letter I have read addresses the bishops of Rome as anything more than bishops of Rome. One letter does suggest  or appeal that the other churches look to the church at Rome as having more wisdom because of Peter and Paul but nothing that states that they were established as over any other church at that time That was not established until after Constantine and even then after much controversy and deception.  It is not clear yet exactly how they got temporal power to rule religiously and politically the Empire however they did lie about it once in a well known document that is in the catholic encyclopedia.

Your opinion on the word Catholic to narrow down its meaning is your opinion. Does it not mean universal church. It changes nothing to say " one universal faith in Christ" Not squishy at all yet it emphasizes that the church is all believers and not narrowed down to ones who just identify with church of Rome. Protestants are not Gnostics or deny a true and living faith in Christ. However not all in Protestantism exemplifies Christ just as not all in Catholicism glorifies the Lord.

Looking at the letter from Ignatius to the church at Rome I note how the letter is addressed. Several   things I see. First it is addressed to the church that resides in the country of the Romans. Not to a Bishop or anyone as being of higher office and respect. The church there is those who reside in Rome as believers of the Lord Jesus Christ under a bishop who resides there. It is not to a bishop of any greater wisdom and respect of person. If you wright to the Vatican to a certain official there you would address that person for his office and most certainly respect to the pope as His Holyness, or Holy Father, You eminence, yet nothing like that from Ignatius to Rome. Its respect comes from what was established by the most respected apostles Peter and Paul as we see in another letter.

God bless

[Catholica]

answering Catholica and catholics

You say it is not about you or me but Ignatius. I say it is about truth and what that truth was when Ignatius was a bishop during his time. We must see truth as it really is and what was being expressed, and not by the ideals of some future church that did not exist when he wrote his epistles.

I have explicitly tried to limit the discussion to what exactly Ignatius meant and not talk about any so-called "future" church may or may not believed.  People keep trying to say that I am.  I hardly wonder why that is, but I'm not going to go there because I want to focus only on what Ignatius is saying.

You speak of divisions and those who did not truly represent the church under the authority of the bishops who followed after the apostles. They were to be considered heretics. You would liken them to Protestants. Protestants do not deny the Lords supper but  reverence it just as much as any Catholic. Whether Protestants believe it is transformed or symbolic will carry no wait in the judgment but the spirit of the believer will.  I do not know much about Gnostics but if they did not reverence the celebrating of the last Supper I would most assuredly agree that they were heretics. I do not believe this in any way justifies that Ignatius spoke of anything Roman Catholic.

Ignatius spoke of divisions, but the divisions he condemned were among the people in the "Catholic Church".  BTW when I put "Catholic Church" in quotes I am referring to what Ignatius meant by "Catholic Church".  He wasn't referring to a division between the "Catholic Church" and the "heretics" in question, something he absolutely approved of.

Please don't accuse me of likening the Gnostics to Protestants.  This thread is not about the Roman Catholic Church and it is not about Protestantism.  This is about what Ignatius said.  Whether or not someone would liken one to the other is not on topic.

The fact is that one of the doctrines that Ignatius attributed to the "heretics" was that they "confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ".  Ignatius said it, I am just repeating it.  Ignatius says that this is the reason they abstained from the "Eucharist".  So I am drawing a distinction here that Ignatius was making a separation based on particular beliefs.  Thus this "Catholic Church" had a distinctive belief that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ".

If the epistle of Ignatius was addressed to the Roman Church does not mean that the whole body of Christ and the other Bishops of the empire looked to the church of Rome and it bishops as popes. They were brother churches in Christ. Not one letter I have read addresses the bishops of Rome as anything more than bishops of Rome. One letter does suggest  or appeal that the other churches look to the church at Rome as having more wisdom because of Peter and Paul but nothing that states that they were established as over any other church at that time That was not established until after Constantine and even then after much controversy and deception.  It is not clear yet exactly how they got temporal power to rule religiously and politically the Empire however they did lie about it once in a well known document that is in the catholic encyclopedia.

I am not making any argument that Ignatius is talking about popes or the Roman Church.  This seems like it is hard for you to understand.  I'm not trying to prove that Ignatius was talking about the Roman Catholic Church.  I'm leading us in a discussion on what exactly Ignatius meant when he referred to a "Catholic Church", his words.

That being said, if you pay close attention to the letter to the Romans, he also says:

Greeting

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

Ignatius says that the Church of the Romans "presides over love".  He twice refers to this Church in Rome as "presiding".  One could easily infer that the Church in Rome presides among all the Churches, that there is something primary about the Church in Rome.  His words, mind you, not mine.

Your opinion on the word Catholic to narrow down its meaning is your opinion. Does it not mean universal church. It changes nothing to say " one universal faith in Christ" Not squishy at all yet it emphasizes that the church is all believers and not narrowed down to ones who just identify with church of Rome. Protestants are not Gnostics or deny a true and living faith in Christ. However not all in Protestantism exemplifies Christ just as not all in Catholicism glorifies the Lord.

I'm not talking about Protestantism, nor Catholicism.  I am outlining what Ignatius meant by "the Catholic Church".  So far it is a "Church" which resides in many places, is unified in belief, has a distinct belief that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who reverences the bishops as God the father, and presbyters as Jesus and deacons as the institution of God.  His words, not mine.

And "universal faith in Christ" IS squishy if you don't define what that faith entails.  Ignatius is particular what it entails.  Faith involves beliefs, is not limited to beliefs, but is definitely bound to belief, and particular belief which Ignatius outlines. 

Looking at the letter from Ignatius to the church at Rome I note how the letter is addressed. Several   things I see. First it is addressed to the church that resides in the country of the Romans. Not to a Bishop or anyone as being of higher office and respect. The church there is those who reside in Rome as believers of the Lord Jesus Christ under a bishop who resides there. It is not to a bishop of any greater wisdom and respect of person. If you wright to the Vatican to a certain official there you would address that person for his office and most certainly respect to the pope as His Holyness, or Holy Father, You eminence, yet nothing like that from Ignatius to Rome. Its respect comes from what was established by the most respected apostles Peter and Paul as we see in another letter.

God bless

I suppose it wouldn't help to wonder about who exactly the messenger of this letter was to deliver the letter to.  Do you think that it was to any random believer in Christ, or do you suppose that it was the bishop of Rome, under which all the people in the area of the Romans were united?  It would make the most sense to deliver it to the bishop so that he could spread it around, since he was clearly in authority there.

And my argument is not about a bishop in Rome having a higher authority.  But see the statement that Ignatius made about Rome: this church in the area of the Romans "presides in charity".

[mclees8]

answering Catholica and catholics

You say it is not about you or me but Ignatius. I say it is about truth and what that truth was when Ignatius was a bishop during his time. We must see truth as it really is and what was being expressed, and not by the ideals of some future church that did not exist when he wrote his epistles.

I have explicitly tried to limit the discussion to what exactly Ignatius meant and not talk about any so-called "future" church may or may not believed.  People keep trying to say that I am.  I hardly wonder why that is, but I'm not going to go there because I want to focus only on what Ignatius is saying.

You speak of divisions and those who did not truly represent the church under the authority of the bishops who followed after the apostles. They were to be considered heretics. You would liken them to Protestants. Protestants do not deny the Lords supper but  reverence it just as much as any Catholic. Whether Protestants believe it is transformed or symbolic will carry no wait in the judgment but the spirit of the believer will.  I do not know much about Gnostics but if they did not reverence the celebrating of the last Supper I would most assuredly agree that they were heretics. I do not believe this in any way justifies that Ignatius spoke of anything Roman Catholic.

Ignatius spoke of divisions, but the divisions he condemned were among the people in the "Catholic Church".  BTW when I put "Catholic Church" in quotes I am referring to what Ignatius meant by "Catholic Church".  He wasn't referring to a division between the "Catholic Church" and the "heretics" in question, something he absolutely approved of.

Please don't accuse me of likening the Gnostics to Protestants.  This thread is not about the Roman Catholic Church and it is not about Protestantism.  This is about what Ignatius said.  Whether or not someone would liken one to the other is not on topic.

The fact is that one of the doctrines that Ignatius attributed to the "heretics" was that they "confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ".  Ignatius said it, I am just repeating it.  Ignatius says that this is the reason they abstained from the "Eucharist".  So I am drawing a distinction here that Ignatius was making a separation based on particular beliefs.  Thus this "Catholic Church" had a distinctive belief that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ".

If the epistle of Ignatius was addressed to the Roman Church does not mean that the whole body of Christ and the other Bishops of the empire looked to the church of Rome and it bishops as popes. They were brother churches in Christ. Not one letter I have read addresses the bishops of Rome as anything more than bishops of Rome. One letter does suggest  or appeal that the other churches look to the church at Rome as having more wisdom because of Peter and Paul but nothing that states that they were established as over any other church at that time That was not established until after Constantine and even then after much controversy and deception.  It is not clear yet exactly how they got temporal power to rule religiously and politically the Empire however they did lie about it once in a well known document that is in the catholic encyclopedia.

I am not making any argument that Ignatius is talking about popes or the Roman Church.  This seems like it is hard for you to understand.  I'm not trying to prove that Ignatius was talking about the Roman Catholic Church.  I'm leading us in a discussion on what exactly Ignatius meant when he referred to a "Catholic Church", his words.

That being said, if you pay close attention to the letter to the Romans, he also says:

Greeting

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

Ignatius says that the Church of the Romans "presides over love".  He twice refers to this Church in Rome as "presiding".  One could easily infer that the Church in Rome presides among all the Churches, that there is something primary about the Church in Rome.  His words, mind you, not mine.

Your opinion on the word Catholic to narrow down its meaning is your opinion. Does it not mean universal church. It changes nothing to say " one universal faith in Christ" Not squishy at all yet it emphasizes that the church is all believers and not narrowed down to ones who just identify with church of Rome. Protestants are not Gnostics or deny a true and living faith in Christ. However not all in Protestantism exemplifies Christ just as not all in Catholicism glorifies the Lord.

I'm not talking about Protestantism, nor Catholicism.  I am outlining what Ignatius meant by "the Catholic Church".  So far it is a "Church" which resides in many places, is unified in belief, has a distinct belief that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who reverences the bishops as God the father, and presbyters as Jesus and deacons as the institution of God.  His words, not mine.

And "universal faith in Christ" IS squishy if you don't define what that faith entails.  Ignatius is particular what it entails.  Faith involves beliefs, is not limited to beliefs, but is definitely bound to belief, and particular belief which Ignatius outlines. 

Looking at the letter from Ignatius to the church at Rome I note how the letter is addressed. Several   things I see. First it is addressed to the church that resides in the country of the Romans. Not to a Bishop or anyone as being of higher office and respect. The church there is those who reside in Rome as believers of the Lord Jesus Christ under a bishop who resides there. It is not to a bishop of any greater wisdom and respect of person. If you wright to the Vatican to a certain official there you would address that person for his office and most certainly respect to the pope as His Holyness, or Holy Father, You eminence, yet nothing like that from Ignatius to Rome. Its respect comes from what was established by the most respected apostles Peter and Paul as we see in another letter.

God bless

I suppose it wouldn't help to wonder about who exactly the messenger of this letter was to deliver the letter to.  Do you think that it was to any random believer in Christ, or do you suppose that it was the bishop of Rome, under which all the people in the area of the Romans were united?  It would make the most sense to deliver it to the bishop so that he could spread it around, since he was clearly in authority there.

And my argument is not about a bishop in Rome having a higher authority.  But see the statement that Ignatius made about Rome: this church in the area of the Romans "presides in charity".

Yes catholica but not even a mention of a name let alone any recognizing or high regard for position. Think about that. Would this letter then be sent to one who is respected as the pope over all bishops. Com on.
I know that the Roman church had been looked to by some as having special significance becuse of peter and Paul but a fancy was all it was. No leter of that time has given any bishop of Rome the glorius title pope. The letter to the church at Corinth states to the one who sojourns at Rome to the one who sojourns at Corinth.  They addrssed each other as equals. The bishop of Corinth looked to the Roman church for greater wisdom simply because Peter and Paul were there. If Peter was seen for the position that you want to believe then when he layed hands on Clement or someone before him would he not have wrote letters to be taken to the other churches that he just blessed the next pope. Yet no letter recognizes that anything like that was ever there.

[LightHammer]

Mclees you are changng the topic. The title of this thread and the OP clearly states that the topic is not about Rome or her bishop. The topic is about what St. Ignatius of Antioch (of ANTIOCH) meant when he said "Catholic Church". You're moving away from the point of the thread consistently.

Please try to remain on topic.

[mclees8]

Catholica you seem be be mysterous about all this. You keep cliaming that nothing you were pointing out is about Rome or any future church  justifying itself, just only what is being stated. I can see what the letters state. So what is your drive here? I am saying like I see it. These are not Holy Scripture here. Just letter to brother churches by the bishops of that day. I don't pick out a couple of verses and draw conclusions from them As the church has done to justify Catholisism or that the word catholic then is anything that is Roman in any way. If you are not trying to justify your church then what are you wantng to really say . Catholic speaks to all beleivers and is just a term he used. aside from some so called divisions that exsited the church is the church. No Protestant no RCC just the body of Christ who and Christ alone will determan His bride on that day. So if you are making hiiden point please point it out.

[mclees8]

Mclees you are changng the topic. The title of this thread and the OP clearly states that the topic is not about Rome or her bishop. The topic is about what St. Ignatius of Antioch (of ANTIOCH) meant when he said "Catholic Church". You're moving away from the point of the thread consistently.

Please try to remain on topic.

Please with due repect LH I do not understant the point to all this then.
Analizing what Inatius was saying has to have some purpose. Could someone please then enlighten me. Just what do you think he was saying and what is that suposed to mean for us here where catholics and Protestents always debate. As far as i can remember catholics have always leaned on these letters to say that there was a petrine successiion of Roman bishops from Peter to your pope today. So if this has some other purpose I am sorry, but what is it then?

[Catholica]

Catholica you seem be be mysterous about all this. You keep cliaming that nothing you were pointing out is about Rome or any future church  justifying itself, just only what is being stated. I can see what the letters state. So what is your drive here? I am saying like I see it. These are not Holy Scripture here. Just letter to brother churches by the bishops of that day. I don't pick out a couple of verses and draw conclusions from them As the church has done to justify Catholisism or that the word catholic then is anything that is Roman in any way. If you are not trying to justify your church then what are you wantng to really say . Catholic speaks to all beleivers and is just a term he used. aside from some so called divisions that exsited the church is the church. No Protestant no RCC just the body of Christ who and Christ alone will determan His bride on that day. So if you are making hiiden point please point it out.

I am only going to state what Ignatius says in this thread.  If anyone sees a connection between the Catholic Church today and "the Catholic Church" that Ignatius is talking about, and they are not Catholic, I would expect that that might be convicting of them.  If anyone sees a connection between the Protestant Churches of today and "the Catholic Church" that Ignatius was talking about, and they are not Protestant, then that might be convicting of them.  I think everyone desires to believe as the early Church believed and if there really is a true Church that was founded by Christ, we all should want to be part of it, no matter who we are, Catholic or Protestant.  Also if what we believe and practice is important so much that not believing those things or practicing those things could classify us as a "heretic" according to the early Church, then we would want to repent of those things as well and find a way to adhere to or discover what we are to do about that.

My hope is that we can have a discussion about the tenets of what we can see from this early Church which Ignatius called "the Catholic Church", and from that come to a better understanding of what being a Christian of that Church means, an understanding that might help those who find themselves in conflict with the belief of the early Church decide to repent and believe the truth, whatever that is, and in so doing bring about salvation where there may have been deception before.

So with that goal in mind, we can continue to analyze what Ignatius has written, and help us to understand exactly what it meant in the early Church to be a part of this "Church of God" which Ignatius also called "the Catholic Church".  In saying so I am trying to not imply that what he called "the Catholic Church" is the same as what we call the Catholic Church today simply because the two share the same name.  If what Ignatius writes leads us to believe that, then let it convict us.  If what Ignatius writes leads us to believe otherwise, then let that convict us as well.

[mclees8]

Catholica you seem be be mysterous about all this. You keep cliaming that nothing you were pointing out is about Rome or any future church  justifying itself, just only what is being stated. I can see what the letters state. So what is your drive here? I am saying like I see it. These are not Holy Scripture here. Just letter to brother churches by the bishops of that day. I don't pick out a couple of verses and draw conclusions from them As the church has done to justify Catholisism or that the word catholic then is anything that is Roman in any way. If you are not trying to justify your church then what are you wantng to really say . Catholic speaks to all beleivers and is just a term he used. aside from some so called divisions that exsited the church is the church. No Protestant no RCC just the body of Christ who and Christ alone will determan His bride on that day. So if you are making hiiden point please point it out.

I am only going to state what Ignatius says in this thread.  If anyone sees a connection between the Catholic Church today and "the Catholic Church" that Ignatius is talking about, and they are not Catholic, I would expect that that might be convicting of them.  If anyone sees a connection between the Protestant Churches of today and "the Catholic Church" that Ignatius was talking about, and they are not Protestant, then that might be convicting of them.  I think everyone desires to believe as the early Church believed and if there really is a true Church that was founded by Christ, we all should want to be part of it, no matter who we are, Catholic or Protestant.  Also if what we believe and practice is important so much that not believing those things or practicing those things could classify us as a "heretic" according to the early Church, then we would want to repent of those things as well and find a way to adhere to or discover what we are to do about that.

My hope is that we can have a discussion about the tenets of what we can see from this early Church which Ignatius called "the Catholic Church", and from that come to a better understanding of what being a Christian of that Church means, an understanding that might help those who find themselves in conflict with the belief of the early Church decide to repent and believe the truth, whatever that is, and in so doing bring about salvation where there may have been deception before.

So with that goal in mind, we can continue to analyze what Ignatius has written, and help us to understand exactly what it meant in the early Church to be a part of this "Church of God" which Ignatius also called "the Catholic Church".  In saying so I am trying to not imply that what he called "the Catholic Church" is the same as what we call the Catholic Church today simply because the two share the same name.  If what Ignatius writes leads us to believe that, then let it convict us.  If what Ignatius writes leads us to believe otherwise, then let that convict us as well.

Ok I see now where you are trying to go with this. You are trying to say that there is a paticuler law of practice that must be adered to and if  one deviates from that practice in any way he is not of the true church. You say this is  not about justification of you your church, the RCC, but that is what you are really saying. You want Protestants to believe they do not adhere to true doctrine and practice as Ignatius precribed in his epistle and if they do no come back to the true church as you see it and believe in transubstantiation as you your church prescribes, we are then heritics in your eyes. I have already addressed that we are not as the Gnostics or anyone who does not reverence the Lords Supper. We most certainly do and we also reverence Christ and all the apostles taught in Scripture. Let me say this once more. No matter how you want to believe whether trasubstantiation of Symbolic will carry no wait in the judgemtment but the spirit in which the beleiver has aproached the Lord table. There is no catholic protesatant in Gods kingdom, and God alone knows his own. Catholic is a misused word by the RCC and narrows the church to only those who believe they are the true church by association and affiliation and only prescribes to its teaching as if it were the only law of salvation.

God bless

God bless

God bless

[Catholica]

Catholica you seem be be mysterous about all this. You keep cliaming that nothing you were pointing out is about Rome or any future church  justifying itself, just only what is being stated. I can see what the letters state. So what is your drive here? I am saying like I see it. These are not Holy Scripture here. Just letter to brother churches by the bishops of that day. I don't pick out a couple of verses and draw conclusions from them As the church has done to justify Catholisism or that the word catholic then is anything that is Roman in any way. If you are not trying to justify your church then what are you wantng to really say . Catholic speaks to all beleivers and is just a term he used. aside from some so called divisions that exsited the church is the church. No Protestant no RCC just the body of Christ who and Christ alone will determan His bride on that day. So if you are making hiiden point please point it out.

I am only going to state what Ignatius says in this thread.  If anyone sees a connection between the Catholic Church today and "the Catholic Church" that Ignatius is talking about, and they are not Catholic, I would expect that that might be convicting of them.  If anyone sees a connection between the Protestant Churches of today and "the Catholic Church" that Ignatius was talking about, and they are not Protestant, then that might be convicting of them.  I think everyone desires to believe as the early Church believed and if there really is a true Church that was founded by Christ, we all should want to be part of it, no matter who we are, Catholic or Protestant.  Also if what we believe and practice is important so much that not believing those things or practicing those things could classify us as a "heretic" according to the early Church, then we would want to repent of those things as well and find a way to adhere to or discover what we are to do about that.

My hope is that we can have a discussion about the tenets of what we can see from this early Church which Ignatius called "the Catholic Church", and from that come to a better understanding of what being a Christian of that Church means, an understanding that might help those who find themselves in conflict with the belief of the early Church decide to repent and believe the truth, whatever that is, and in so doing bring about salvation where there may have been deception before.

So with that goal in mind, we can continue to analyze what Ignatius has written, and help us to understand exactly what it meant in the early Church to be a part of this "Church of God" which Ignatius also called "the Catholic Church".  In saying so I am trying to not imply that what he called "the Catholic Church" is the same as what we call the Catholic Church today simply because the two share the same name.  If what Ignatius writes leads us to believe that, then let it convict us.  If what Ignatius writes leads us to believe otherwise, then let that convict us as well.

Ok I see now where you are trying to go with this. You are trying to say that there is a paticuler law of practice that must be adered to and if  one deviates from that practice in any way he is not of the true church. You say this is  not about justification of you your church, the RCC, but that is what you are really saying.

Actually, insisting on doctrinal unity and structural unity is what Ignatius is saying.  So far all we have covered is adhering to and reverencing bishops, presbyters and deacons, and confessing that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and a couple other things.  According to Ignatius we are not to operate apart from the Bishop, nor celebrate the Eucharist apart from the bishop, nor be baptized apart from the bishop.  He is concerned that these things be what he says "valid".

You want Protestants to believe they do not adhere to true doctrine and practice as Ignatius precribed in his epistle and if they do no come back to the true church as you see it and believe in transubstantiation as you your church prescribes, we are then heritics in your eyes.

I never said that.  Ignatius has said that there are heretics who reject this doctrine that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus.  I haven't said that anyone is a heretic.  Ignatius, however, describes people who reject that belief as heretics.  If you read it the same way, and you don't subscribe to that belief, it is your own understanding that is convicting you.  I am just expounding Ignatius.

I have already addressed that we are not as the Gnostics or anyone who does not reverence the Lords Supper. We most certainly do and we also reverence Christ and all the apostles taught in Scripture. Let me say this once more. No matter how you want to believe whether trasubstantiation of Symbolic will carry no wait in the judgemtment but the spirit in which the beleiver has aproached the Lord table. There is no catholic protesatant in Gods kingdom, and God alone knows his own. Catholic is a misused word by the RCC and narrows the church to only those who believe they are the true church by association and affiliation and only prescribes to its teaching as if it were the only law of salvation.

Again, this is only about what Ignatius said, and I am not going to get into Catholic-Protestant disputes in this thread.  Yes you have addressed that Protestants observe something they call the Lord's Supper.  Well, some do.  Some do not.  But that is not all that Ignatius is saying either.

But I want to address something you said:

Let me say this once more. No matter how you want to believe whether trasubstantiation of Symbolic will carry no wait in the judgemtment but the spirit in which the beleiver has aproached the Lord table.

That contradicts what Ignatius said:

They 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.

Ignatius did, in fact, teach that believing that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and to not speak against "this gift", is a salvation issue.

[AVZ]

Your claim however that Ignatius used the word "Catholic Church" is incorrect.
The term used is "he katholike ekklesia" in underscore, not capital letters. This simply means "universal church".

The words are literally "catholic church" translated.  We want to analyze what constituted this church.  Yes the word "catholic" could be translated "universal", but we are looking more at what Ignatius meant by this word "catholic" more than what it translates as, because it is clear that this "catholic church" has a set structure and a known set of beliefs.  That would make it a "religion" by the way.

Why is this so complicated to you?

- Ignatius used the word "katholike", in Greek "καθολικη". It means "universal". The word "ekklesia", or in Greek "εκκλησια" means "church".
Together this spells "universal church".

- In Ignatius time there was no such thing as a denomination called "Catholic Church".

Hence Ignatius wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote.

It has become general understanding and practice to claim by Catholics that this word "katholike" means that it refers to the denomination "Catholic".
Although it would fit nicely in the RCC claim to be the one and only original church, this of course is incorrect.

[FireSword]

The word "Euchacrist" is a Catholic term. Maybe the writers inserted that phrase into the writings after the Church gained a monopoly on Church.

Often the bible versions insert different words also. Perhaps Ignatius means communionc. That those who reject the sacifice of Jesus.
Biblically speaking rejecting the euchacrist is not even condemned, even the Catholic church says that members should not take part of the euchacrist if in mortal sin or unconfessed sin, and so as such reject the euchacrist, thus deemed as heretics. But this can't be.

[AVZ]

Catholica you seem be be mysterous about all this. You keep cliaming that nothing you were pointing out is about Rome or any future church  justifying itself, just only what is being stated. I can see what the letters state. So what is your drive here? I am saying like I see it. These are not Holy Scripture here. Just letter to brother churches by the bishops of that day. I don't pick out a couple of verses and draw conclusions from them As the church has done to justify Catholisism or that the word catholic then is anything that is Roman in any way. If you are not trying to justify your church then what are you wantng to really say . Catholic speaks to all beleivers and is just a term he used. aside from some so called divisions that exsited the church is the church. No Protestant no RCC just the body of Christ who and Christ alone will determan His bride on that day. So if you are making hiiden point please point it out.

I am only going to state what Ignatius says in this thread.  If anyone sees a connection between the Catholic Church today and "the Catholic Church" that Ignatius is talking about, and they are not Catholic, I would expect that that might be convicting of them.  If anyone sees a connection between the Protestant Churches of today and "the Catholic Church" that Ignatius was talking about, and they are not Protestant, then that might be convicting of them.  I think everyone desires to believe as the early Church believed and if there really is a true Church that was founded by Christ, we all should want to be part of it, no matter who we are, Catholic or Protestant.  Also if what we believe and practice is important so much that not believing those things or practicing those things could classify us as a "heretic" according to the early Church, then we would want to repent of those things as well and find a way to adhere to or discover what we are to do about that.

My hope is that we can have a discussion about the tenets of what we can see from this early Church which Ignatius called "the Catholic Church", and from that come to a better understanding of what being a Christian of that Church means, an understanding that might help those who find themselves in conflict with the belief of the early Church decide to repent and believe the truth, whatever that is, and in so doing bring about salvation where there may have been deception before.

So with that goal in mind, we can continue to analyze what Ignatius has written, and help us to understand exactly what it meant in the early Church to be a part of this "Church of God" which Ignatius also called "the Catholic Church".  In saying so I am trying to not imply that what he called "the Catholic Church" is the same as what we call the Catholic Church today simply because the two share the same name.  If what Ignatius writes leads us to believe that, then let it convict us.  If what Ignatius writes leads us to believe otherwise, then let that convict us as well.

Then you should stop saying that Ignatius used the term "Catholic Church" (with capital C's).
We have the general understanding here that the term Catholic Church (with capital C's) refers to the Church in Rome, or the RCC.

Ignatius used the term catholic church, which simply means "universal church".

[Catholica]

Your claim however that Ignatius used the word "Catholic Church" is incorrect.
The term used is "he katholike ekklesia" in underscore, not capital letters. This simply means "universal church".

The words are literally "catholic church" translated.  We want to analyze what constituted this church.  Yes the word "catholic" could be translated "universal", but we are looking more at what Ignatius meant by this word "catholic" more than what it translates as, because it is clear that this "catholic church" has a set structure and a known set of beliefs.  That would make it a "religion" by the way.

Why is this so complicated to you?

- Ignatius used the word "katholike", in Greek "καθολικη". It means "universal". The word "ekklesia", or in Greek "εκκλησια" means "church".
Together this spells "universal church".

- In Ignatius time there was no such thing as a denomination called "Catholic Church".

Hence Ignatius wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote.

It has become general understanding and practice to claim by Catholics that this word "katholike" means that it refers to the denomination "Catholic".
Although it would fit nicely in the RCC claim to be the one and only original church, this of course is incorrect.

Capital or non-capital, there are a few things about Ignatius writings that we should notice:

* The "churches" that Ignatius writes to, each being universal as you say, in concert with Ignatius' insistence on no divisions, seem to lead us to believe that all of the "churches" actually make up one greater "church".

* That this "church" Ignatius writes to has some distinct belief and structure.  So far, we have seen belief that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ is one of those beliefs.  His bodily resurrection is another.  That everyone should reverence the bishop "as" God the Father is another.

* That rejecting the beliefs puts people who even call themselves Christian but have varying opinions about what that entails into the class of heretics, which by its definition means they are outside the church.  Thus this "universal" doesn't mean "every single person who calls themselves Christian".  We may have to search for as to what Ignatius could mean by "universal".  It is probably with the intention that this "catholic church" is meant for all, but some reject it.  It certainly doesn't mean that everyone who calls themselves Christian and claims to follow Jesus is in this "catholic church".

From St. Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians:

Chapter 7. Beware of false teachers

For some are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom you must flee as you would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom you must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible— even Jesus Christ our Lord.

[AVZ]

The word "Euchacrist" is a Catholic term. Maybe the writers inserted that phrase into the writings after the Church gained a monopoly on Church.

Often the bible versions insert different words also. Perhaps Ignatius means communionc. That those who reject the sacifice of Jesus.
Biblically speaking rejecting the euchacrist is not even condemned, even the Catholic church says that members should not take part of the euchacrist if in mortal sin or unconfessed sin, and so as such reject the euchacrist, thus deemed as heretics. But this can't be.

Ignatius uses the term εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), which means "thanksgiving".

[Catholica]

The word "Euchacrist" is a Catholic term. Maybe the writers inserted that phrase into the writings after the Church gained a monopoly on Church.

Often the bible versions insert different words also. Perhaps Ignatius means communionc. That those who reject the sacifice of Jesus.

The word Eucharist is actually a Greek term in the Bible.  It means "giving thanks" and is most significantly present in 1 Cor. 11:24:

And when he had given thanks (Greek: eucharistésas or "eucharisted"), he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me" (1 Cor 11:24).

Conspiracy theories about whether the works of Ignatius have been modified are not worth pursuing unless you have some actual evidence.  But let's say the word Eucharist was added, and Ignatius meant "communion".  He still says that the "Communion" is the "flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ".  That seems pretty significant to me.

Biblically speaking rejecting the euchacrist is not even condemned, even the Catholic church says that members should not take part of the euchacrist if in mortal sin or unconfessed sin, and so as such reject the euchacrist, thus deemed as heretics. But this can't be.

Ignatius claims that the heretics abstain from the Eucharist "because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,"  This is unlike Catholic practice, where Catholics abstain from the Eucharist because they confess that the Eucharist IS the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, and do so because Paul instructed it, in their view:

1 Cor. 11

23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 31If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32but since we are judged by [the] Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Thus Catholics who abstain from the Eucharist are not heretics according to Ignatius' statements: they confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of their Saviour Jesus Christ, but abstain because they have examined themselves and have determined that if they received it they would bring down judgment on themselves, as it seems Paul instructed.

[AVZ]

Capital or non-capital, there are a few things about Ignatius writings that we should notice:

* The "churches" that Ignatius writes to, each being universal as you say, in concert with Ignatius' insistence on no divisions, seem to lead us to believe that all of the "churches" actually make up one greater "church".

Sure, no issue with that.

* That this "church" Ignatius writes to has some distinct belief and structure.  So far, we have seen belief that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ is one of those beliefs.  His bodily resurrection is another.  That everyone should reverence the bishop "as" God the Father is another.

Eucharist meaning "thanksgiving" as it is the proper Greek translation. Not to be confused with the RCC "Eucharist".
Ignatius does not call to rever the bishop as God the Father. The bishop should be honored with reverence, but nowhere is stated that it should be to the same extend and with the same reverence as we should revere the Father.

* That rejecting the beliefs puts people who even call themselves Christian but have varying opinions about what that entails into the class of heretics, which by its definition means they are outside the church.  Thus this "universal" doesn't mean "every single person who calls themselves Christian".  We may have to search for as to what Ignatius could mean by "universal".  It is probably with the intention that this "catholic church" is meant for all, but some reject it.  It certainly doesn't mean that everyone who calls themselves Christian and claims to follow Jesus is in this "catholic church".

We are not talking about people with a different opinion here. We are talking about people who reject the humanity of Christ and therefore reject Holy Communion, an institute personally set by Christ.
You are correct, this "universal church" does not contain everybody who calls himself a Christian, but it does contain everybody who is a Christian.
As you can agree with me, there are many people claiming to be members of the Catholic Church, but who are not Christians. (Protestants alike of course).

[AVZ]

Ignatius claims that the heretics abstain from the Eucharist "because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,"  This is unlike Catholic practice, where Catholics abstain from the Eucharist because they confess that the Eucharist IS the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, and do so because Paul instructed it, in their view:

Ignatius uses the word "εἶναι" which can mean "be" but also applies to "be" as in having the power or appearance.
It is translated as the English word "is" because the English word "is" does not necessarily implicate posession or fixed state.
For example "Now is my time" does not in any was implicate that time is my posession, or that time is contained in me or that now literally consists of only my time.

Hence, the proper translation "thanksgiving is the flesh of our Saviour" can be taken as "thanksgiving has the power or appearance of our Saviours flesh".

[FireSword]

Thank you for your reply 26 Catholica.

What you said about catholics in sin not participating the euchacirist makes sense

But if what you say is correct, that ignatus is refering to the same eucharist, that modern catholics take part in, then where in scripture can the claims of Ignatius be backed up, that rejecting the eucharist results in herectic.

[neophyte]

AVZto refute your statement of ignatious never mentions Mary,this is what Ignatious wrote about Mary:
""There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 7 (c. A.D. 110).

[mclees8]

AVZto refute your statement of ignatious never mentions Mary,this is what Ignatious wrote about Mary:
""There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 7 (c. A.D. 110).

So this is for what? Jesus was born of flesh throught Mary and of the spirit throught God.

[AVZ]

AVZto refute your statement of ignatious never mentions Mary,this is what Ignatious wrote about Mary:
""There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 7 (c. A.D. 110).

Correct, can you imagine?
Even when facing death, Ignatius does not elevate Mary to the status she has received much later by the RCC.
This points out how far the present thinking of the RCC is separated from the opinions of the early church.

[mclees8]

Catholica stop playing around here. Saying you are not useing this discussion to justify RCC practice and suggesting protestants deviate from Ignatius teaching is a joke. Thats exactly what your drive is in all this discussion.
Your church is quick to lean on what Ignatius said about doing  nothing with out the bishop.Now i know why he was saying this at that time and he was saying it so the church would not be mislead by the heritics. That was good teaching concidering the Gnostics. When the Bishops of Rome got big ideas to rule the Empire religiously and politicaly 300 hundred years latter it was very convenient to use Ignatius comments  to woo the ignorant subjects to their rule.  He may have not known then  How his comments would be used to misuse their authority and institutionalize the church in to an authority system drunk on the idea of power.  This is obvious to me 

       

[Catholica]

Thank you for your reply 26 Catholica.

What you said about catholics in sin not participating the euchacirist makes sense

But if what you say is correct, that ignatus is refering to the same eucharist, that modern catholics take part in, then where in scripture can the claims of Ignatius be backed up, that rejecting the eucharist results in herectic.

I have thought about your question.  It is a good question, and obviously we have debated on this forum (maybe not you and I) whether the Catholic beliefs regarding the Eucharist are correct.  I think that debate is beyond the scope of this thread and it's purpose.

The bottom line is that Ignatius had certain beliefs regarding the Eucharist, and he also believed that those were beliefs to be held by the "catholic church" and were rejected by people he considered "heretics".  Thus this particular belief was at least one of the beliefs that divided those who were members of said "catholic church" from those who were not.