Why do Catholics…

[BreadOfLife]

This quote would be equally apt not only for Rome, but for other episcopates in the early second century. The Alexandrian See envied no one, and taught others. The Antiochian See envied no one, and taught others.. Where in this quote are you distilling Roman primacy?

This letter isn't written to the Church in Antioch or the in Alexanfdtria.
Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch - and he wrote this letter to the Church in ROME.

 

[Brakelite]

Because the early church 'fathers' were spiritual idiots.

Not all. The Catholic Church just happens to quote the ones they agree with. They destroyed as much as they could of the writings of those they disagreed with.

 

[Illuminator]

The Pope didn't convene Nicaea. He didn't even make the trip. He sent three emissaries. Does that make Nicaea illegitimate?

The Pope was too sick to make the trip so he sent his emissaries with his full authority to preside at the Council of Nicae. Pope's have the authority to do that. It's similar to what we have today, an Apostolic Nuncio for each country. The Jesuits are working on a transporter device like they have on Star Trek so the Pope can be beamed anywhere instantly.
The ecclesial structure of the Council of Nicae follows the same pattern as the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 16. The Apostles and elders (Magisterium), reached an infallible decision (because the Holy Spirit was there). The Magisterium at the Council of Nicae reached an infallible decision resolving the Arian crisis by clearly defining the identity of Christ. Most of the bishops were Arians so obviously the Holy Spirit guided the Church.

Canon 6 reads:

"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."​

Are we to understand from this that the bishop of Rome is no greater in authority than the bishop of Alexandria? Indeed, our Baptist apologist writes, "This canon is significant because it demonstrates that at this time there was no concept of a single universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else." Is this true? Not at all. The first thing one must do is note the context. What is the nature of the "jurisdiction" mentioned here? It is, primarily, the authority to ordain bishops. Notice that after laying out the territory for each of the metropolitans, the canon explains what is to take place within those limits: the selection and ordination of bishops. This point also fits the context of the preceding canons, paraphrased here:

Canon 4: Bishops are to be chosen by bishops of their province, and their choice is then to be ratified by the metropolitan having jurisdiction over that area.​

Canon 5: Those excommunicated by one bishop are not to be re-instituted by a bishop of a different territory. Every province should have regular synods to decide these issues.​

Canon 6: The metropolitans have jurisdiction over their respective territories. No one is to be made a bishop without their final approval.​

Notice the function of canon 6 in context with the preceding two canons: It sets out territorial boundaries for more efficient administration. Recall that the pope is also the bishop of the city of Rome. He has a special administrative jurisdiction over Rome, whereas the bishop of New York has the same jurisdiction over New York, the bishop of Alexandria over Alexandria, etc. But this is not to say the Roman bishop has no authority over the Church; these are two different kinds of jurisdiction. So a plain reading of canon 6 in context shows it is hardly a blow against Roman primacy.

In the end, there is no way to avoid the inescapable fact that the Council of Nicea was Catholic in every sense of the term. ...no amount of cut-and-paste patristic work, no feats of "scholarly" gymnastics, no grotesque historical contortions can change that.

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/other-religions/protestanism/baptists-at-nicea-by-fr-hugh-barbour-o-praem/

 

[Brakelite]

Most of the bishops were Arians so obviously the Holy Spirit guided the Church.

Haha. Constantine's help with a little butt kicking I suppose was Spirit inspired too?

 

[RedFan]

This letter isn't written to the Church in Antioch or the in Alexanfdtria.
Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch - and he wrote this letter to the Church in ROME.

And Paul wrote to the Church at Rome that their faith was proclaimed throughout the whole world, Romans 1:8. By your reasoning, that means Paul would not have thought any other church's faith was equally proclaimed.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Since WHEN does "Spiritual" mean "Figurative"??
The Holy Spirit is more real that YOU are.

Eating his flesh and blood is figurative of taking the life of Jesus into yourself. That happens via the Holy Spirit, not by literally consuming his body. He is speaking figuratively of deriving spiritual life from his body when he speaks of eating his body.

If we ate his literal flesh it would simply go in one end and out the other and would only give natural biological life, and only for a while. But the Spirit endures in us and gives us eternal life and the promise of the resurrection body to come.

 

[RedFan]

The Pope was too sick to make the trip so he sent his emissaries with his full authority to preside at the Council of Nicae. Pope's have the authority to do that.

All bishops (and all those with temporal authority) have power to send emissaries, not just the Pope. And his emissaries didn't "preside." The Council was convened by Constantine and the presider would have been Hosius, Constantine's emissary.

Most of the bishops were Arians so obviously the Holy Spirit guided the Church.

I don't know where you are getting this notion that the majority of attending bishops were Arians. Can you share some support here?

So a plain reading of canon 6 in context shows it is hardly a blow against Roman primacy.

I guess two people can read it in context and see two different things. There is no limitation of Alexandrian or Antiochene authority to just the appointment of bishops. It would have been a simple matter to express that limitation, or to insert the caveat that in other matters Rome calls the shots - but these 300-odd bishops didn't see fit to do so. And of course, nobody proposed adding another canon acknowledging Roman primacy. You believe this is because it was tacitly understood by all these bishops, so there was no need to address it. I believe this is because it was an utterly foreign concept to these bishops.

In the end, there is no way to avoid the inescapable fact that the Council of Nicea was Catholic in every sense of the term

I completely agree. Because I do not include cowtowing to the Roman Pontiff by eastern bishops (almost all of those in attendance were) as an element of being "Catholic" in 325 C.E.

Let me put it this way. In 1896, Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Satis Cognitum (1896) acknowledged apostolic authority separate from Rome, but denounced that authority as invalid if it is in conflict with Rome:

“For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also ‘chose, twelve, whom He called apostles’ (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.

“But since the successor of Peter is one, and those of the Apostles are many, it is necessary to examine into the relations which exist between him and them according to the divine constitution of the Church. Above all things the need of union between the bishops and the successors of Peter is clear and undeniable. This bond once broken, Christians would be separated and scattered, and would in no wise form one body and one flock. ‘The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chief priest, to whom if an extraordinary and supreme power is not given, there are as many schisms to be expected in the Church as there are priests’ (S. Hieronymus, Dialog, contra Luciferianos, n. 9). It is necessary, therefore, to bear this in mind, viz., that nothing was conferred on the apostles apart from Peter, but that several things were conferred upon Peter apart from the Apostles. St. John Chrysostom in explaining the words of Christ asks: ‘Why, passing over the others, does He speak to Peter about these things?’ And he replies unhesitatingly and at once, ‘Because he was pre-eminent among the Apostles, the mouthpiece of the Disciples, and the head of the college’ (Hom. lxxxviii. in Joan., n. I). He alone was designated as the foundation of the Church. To him He gave the power of binding and loosing; to him alone was given the power of feeding. On the other hand, whatever authority and office the Apostles received, they received in conjunction with Peter.”

If Pope Sylvester had issued an identical edict in 325, I think the Eastern schism would have occurred seven centuries sooner than it did!

 

[theefaith]

No, Abraham was made righteous by faith all by itself BEFORE and WITHOUT circumcision. The circumcision he received was the SIGN of the righteousness that he received BEFORE he was circumcised. Paul explains how we, too, like Abraham are made righteous before and without the aid of work but by faith all by itself. It's all right there in Romans 4. This is why the Catholic religion was rejected. It's a works justification religion.

Can you stay on subject
I did not say how to be declared righteous but how to enter the mosaic covenant

not works religion

We are members of Christ in his grace and filled with his spirit!

All our actions are meritorious baptized into Christ and his church! 1 cor 12:13 put on Christ! Gal 3:27

Jn 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

1 Corinthians 12:26
And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

1 Peter 4:13
But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

Religion is what man owes to God for having created him in His image and likeness!

To Christ for having redeemed him in His own blood!

to the Holy Spirit for sanctifying him in the sacraments of holy mother church!

it only Christ by His grace (merits of His blood passion and death) that we are enabled and empowered to actually be holy and righteous and all our actions

if we live by the spirit we put to death the deeds of the flesh

my grace is sufficient for you

Phil 4:13 I can do all things in Christ who strengthens me.

Jn 15:5 apart from me you can do nothing!

our participation is required

Eph 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, (his grace and virtues work in us healing our defective nature and enabling us to be righteous and holy accomplishing his holy will!
Ez 36:25-27



Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together

2 Corinthians 12:9
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Phil 1:29
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Colossians 1:24
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind (lacking) of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

Titus 2:14
Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, (redemption) and purify unto himself a peculiar people, (justification / baptism notice purify / wash) zealous of good works. (Sanctification)

“Faith alone”?

Charity

Deut. 6:5
5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

1 Corinthians 16:22
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema.

Matthew 5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

1 cor 13:2 all faith without charity avails nothing.

1 cor 13:12 now abide faith, hope, and charity, and the greatest of these is charity.

If salvation was by “faith alone” then faith would be the greatest!!!

If we are saved by faith alone then when we first believed we would be saved?

Romans 13:11
…our salvation nearer than when we believed.

1 Corinthians 16:22
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Matt 5 the merciful obtain mercy!

1 Peter 4:8
And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

 

[theefaith]

You keep confusing James' 'faith alone' argument with Paul's 'righteousness apart from works' argument as if they were one and the same argument, which they are not:

"It is one thing that faith justifies without works (Paul's argument); it is another thing that faith exists without works (James' argument)." - Martin Luther (parentheticals and emboldening mine)​

Faith all by itself makes one born again. Saying you have to perform a ceremony in order to be born again is the same as saying you have to be circumcised in order to be born again. That's what makes Catholicism a works salvation religion.

jn 3:5 what’s the water for?

 

[BreadOfLife]

And Paul wrote to the Church at Rome that their faith was proclaimed throughout the whole world, Romans 1:8. By your reasoning, that means Paul would not have thought any other church's faith was equally proclaimed.

And Paul wrote to the Church at Rome that their faith was proclaimed throughout the whole world, Romans 1:8. By your reasoning, that means Paul would not have thought any other church's faith was equally proclaimed.

HUH??
What are you talking about??

There weren’t different CHURCHES. They were ALL the SAME Church - in different locations.
That’s why Ignatius refers to the “See” – which is the Bishopric of Rome as the Primary See.

Irenaeus, student of Ignatius’s contemporary, Polycarp wrote the following:

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we sIrenaeushall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, ALL THE CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Eating his flesh and blood is figurative of taking the life of Jesus into yourself. That happens via the Holy Spirit, not by literally consuming his body. He is speaking figuratively of deriving spiritual life from his body when he speaks of eating his body.

If we ate his literal flesh it would simply go in one end and out the other and would only give natural biological life, and only for a while. But the Spirit endures in us and gives us eternal life and the promise of the resurrection body to come.

That’s NOT what I was arguing against – you’re dodging the question again.
I stated that the Eucharist was SPIRITUALL nourishment – not physical nourishment.
YOU responded by saying:
“So it’s figurative.
Just like we non-Catholics believe.”

So, again – since WHEN does “Spiritual” mean “Figurative”??

 

[Ferris Bueller]

jn 3:5 what’s the water for?

"the pledge off a clear conscience toward God" 1 Peter 3:21
​

It isn't to make you born again.

 

[EloyCraft]

You describe flesh that is temporal and earthly. I would recommend a study of Christ's resurrected flesh. It's eternal. It's omnipresent. It's human and Jesus didn't teach to eat His flesh figuratively. That would've been easy to teach, easy to believe. But that wouldn't describe the teaching the bible describes. The bible describes a teaching that's 'hard to accept. A teaching that was rejected by most of Jesus 'disciples.
If Jesus was speaking figuratively about consuming His flesh, the entire narrative describing the reaction of those who heard it makes no sense. It's no longer difficult to accept as it clearly was when Jesus taught it and it's not a hard teaching to accept as it clearly is today.

 

[Illuminator]

All bishops (and all those with temporal authority) have power to send emissaries, not just the Pope. And his emissaries didn't "preside." The Council was convened by Constantine and the presider would have been Hosius, Constantine's emissary.

Please cite a source. When the Arian troubles began, Constantine charged Hosius with the delivery of his letter to Arius and Alexander, in which he urged them to reconciliation. We know little of Hosius’s action during this mission (323-324). When the Council of Nicaea met, Hosius presided, together with the two Roman priests Vitus and Vincent. Hosius of Cordova
I see no evidence that Hosius was Constantine's emissary.
Contrary to the psychotic myths by radical revisionists, Constantine had no religious jurisdiction whatsoever. He was present as a temporal ruler.
Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church | Living Bread Radio Network

I don't know where you are getting this notion that the majority of attending bishops were Arians. Can you share some support here?

I retract. But Constantine was an Arian until his death bed. So how could Constantine 'preside by proxy' over a council that refuted his beliefs?

I guess two people can read it in context and see two different things. There is no limitation of Alexandrian or Antiochene authority to just the appointment of bishops. It would have been a simple matter to express that limitation, or to insert the caveat that in other matters Rome calls the shots - but these 300-odd bishops didn't see fit to do so. And of course, nobody proposed adding another canon acknowledging Roman primacy. You believe this is because it was tacitly understood by all these bishops, so there was no need to address it. I believe this is because it was an utterly foreign concept to these bishops.

"And of course, nobody proposed adding another canon acknowledging Roman primacy. You believe this is because it was tacitly understood by all these bishops, so there was no need to address it."
CONTRADICTS
"I believe this is because it was an utterly foreign concept to these bishops."

You are not making sense.

I completely agree. Because I do not include cowtowing to the Roman Pontiff by eastern bishops (almost all of those in attendance were) as an element of being "Catholic" in 325 C.E.

Then why did the eastern bishops bother attending if they were not included according to your criteria?

Let me put it this way. In 1896, Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Satis Cognitum (1896) acknowledged apostolic authority separate from Rome, but denounced that authority as invalid if it is in conflict with Rome:

“For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church..."
If Pope Sylvester had issued an identical edict in 325, I think the Eastern schism would have occurred seven centuries sooner than it did!

You have to jumble time lines because you have little sense of development of doctrine.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I stated that the Eucharist was SPIRITUALL nourishment – not physical nourishment.
YOU responded by saying:
“So it’s figurative.
Just like we non-Catholics believe.”

So, again – since WHEN does “Spiritual” mean “Figurative”??

...when you say the figure (the elements) gives a spiritual benefit.

 

[BreadOfLife]

...when you say the figure (the elements) gives a spiritual benefit.

Why WOULDN'T the risen Christ give us a spiritual benefit?
WHY would you automatically assume that it is just a "figurative" benefit?

You don't really believe in the Holy Spirit - DO you? Is He just "figurative" to you?
He is MORE real than the fingers pon my hand . . .

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Why WOULDN'T the risen Christ give us a spiritual benefit?
WHY would you automatically assume that it is just a "figurative" benefit?

You don't really believe in the Holy Spirit - DO you? Is He just "figurative" to you?
He is MORE real than the fingers pon my hand . . .

Let me set you straight on how this figure vs. reality thing works.
You think bread and wine represent something spiritual (like we non-Catholics believe). That means the bread and the wine are figures of something spiritual.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Why WOULDN'T the risen Christ give us a spiritual benefit?
WHY would you automatically assume that it is just a "figurative" benefit?

The risen Christ gives the spiritual benefit, not the bread and the wine.
This illustrates very well what's so terribly wrong with Catholicism.

 

[theefaith]

"the pledge off a clear conscience toward God" 1 Peter 3:21
​

It isn't to make you born again.

no grace does but without the sacrament of baptism there can be no grace applied to the soul

 

[BreadOfLife]

Let me set you straight on how this figure vs. reality thing works.
You think bread and wine represent something spiritual (like we non-Catholics believe). That means the bread and the wine are figures of something spiritual.

This is almost like talking to a box of rocks because you don’t listen.
ONE more time . . .

We don’t believe as non-Catholics do because we believe the bread and wine NO LONGER exist and have become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
That is the 2000 year-old teaching of the Eucharist that comes from Scripture and was taught by the Apostles and their disciples - like Ignatius of Antioch, who was a lifelong student of the Apostle John:

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

The ONLY thing that is “figurative” is the appearance of bread and wine.
The REALITY is Christ.