Why do Catholics…

[Ferris Bueller]

Baptist Successionism is an embarrassment to Baptists

There is nothing here to examine.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Because it is NO LONGER bread. It is only the appearance of bread and wine – also known as the accidents of bread and wine.

Friend, it is still bread.
There is no need for it to become actual flesh.
God's people are redeemed by the blood and body of Christ's sacrifice because it is accepted on our behalf on the altar in heaven for the forgiveness of sin, not because we ate it and it went into our stomachs. Spiritual life does not come from human flesh. It comes from the Holy Spirit when he enters into us when we receive the gospel by faith. That is how we have Jesus within us. We don't have him in us by literally eating his body, but by having his Spirit in us.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία is used by Ignatius as a reference to the doctrinally unadulterated Church – preserving what he and others viewed as the true apostolic traditions against all manner of heresies that were regularly cropping up. He was at pains to distinguish universal truth from factional deviations by reference to teachings of the apostles, and the disciples of those apostles, and the disciples of those disciples -- in short, the bishops of apostolic succession.

But in none of these three quotes from Ignatius do we see a reference to the Roman See’s dominance, whether based on Peter’s bishopric there or anything else, over other episcopates throughout the Mediterranean world, as opposed to in Italy ("the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans").

Wrong again.

Ignatius wrote SEVEN Letters on hois way to Martyrdom in Rome.
You only saw an excerpt from the Letter to the Smyrnaeans.

Here is an excerpt from His Letter to the Romans . . .
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 107]).

 

[theefaith]

So the joy of the Lord and the peace of God have no meaning in your life? That is very, very tragic.

Paul clearly did know much, much more than Jesus' crucifixion. Try reading the epistles!

Galatians 5:22-23a, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." No mention of suffering here (or anything close to it!)

Romans 14:17, "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit"

Romans 15:13, "May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit."

2 Corinthians 2:3b, "I had confidence in all of you, that you would all share my joy."

Philippians 1:25, "Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith"

Colossians 1:12, "and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light.

1 Thessalonians 3:9, "How can we thank God enough for you in return for all the joy we have in the presence of our God because of you?"

Hebrews 1:9, "You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” (This clearly refers to the resurrected Christ!)

Hebrews 12:22, "But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly"

James 1:2, "Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds"

1 Peter 1:8, "Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy"

Jude 1:24, "To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy"

Clearly, your Catholic doctrine of suffering is a gross distortion of the New Covenant. The joy of believers is expressed over and over in the New Testament.

Saying that "We live in the power of the resurrection but conform to His passion and death till He returns in glory, we share in His suffering" is tragic!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, you still haven't answered my question: why do you depict Jesus as dead on the cross, when He has been resurrected and is now at the right hand of God? That is spiritual blasphemy!

Hebrews 12:2b, "For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

the cross and passion of Christ gives the fruit of repentance!

we have the Holy Spirit and the fruits but only in the one true church, there is no holy spirit outside the church except to draw all men to Christ and his church

 

[Illuminator]

Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία is used by Ignatius as a reference to the doctrinally unadulterated Church – preserving what he and others viewed as the true apostolic traditions against all manner of heresies that were regularly cropping up. He was at pains to distinguish universal truth from factional deviations by reference to teachings of the apostles, and the disciples of those apostles, and the disciples of those disciples -- in short, the bishops of apostolic succession.

But in none of these three quotes from Ignatius do we see a reference to the Roman See’s dominance, whether based on Peter’s bishopric there or anything else, over other episcopates throughout the Mediterranean world, as opposed to in Italy ("the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans"). These quotes show a concern to preserve allegiance to each bishop within that bishop's jurisdiction, not to establish Rome's preeminent authority over them.

That's a far fetched conclusion, Ignatius is quite clear on the bishop of Rome's preeminence. DeNial ain't just a river in Egypt.

In the middle of the third century Pope Stephen’s view regarding the efficacy of baptism by heretics was rejected by 87 bishops at a Council of Carthage, at which Cyprian stated: “For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.” CHURCH FATHERS: On the Baptism of Heretics (Council of Carthage)

That means bishops cannot be contradicted by a bishop outside his own jurisdiction regarding baptism, papal authority is not mentioned, and it doesn't mean the bishop of Rome has no preeminence. You are taking Cyprian out of context. He also said:

“’…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”
Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).
​

Cyprian's was the prevailing view at the time. Even as late as the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.) we see autonomy of arch-episcopates within their own spheres.

What's wrong with that? Their autonomy doesn't disprove Rome's preeminence.

Aside form its famous Creed, that Council produced about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the equal standing of the sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (and elsewhere) within their particular hegemonies, whose archbishops or “Metropolitans” had authority over other bishops in those jurisdictions. www.fourthcentury.com/nicaea-325-canons/

Who do you think had the authority to convene a council in the first place??? It is impossible to convene a legitimate council without the pope.

It thus appears that in mid- Fourth Century and earlier, Rome had no recognized authority over eastern bishoprics. Afterwards the notion started to gain traction.

Nonsense. The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome. Therefore it is an open question who was the first ‘pope’ as such.

The critics of the Catholic Church aren’t really worried about when the term ‘pope’ was first used. What they mean when they say that Leo the Great (440-461) was the first pope is that this is when the papacy began to assume worldly power. This is, therefore, simply a problem in definition of terms. By ‘pope’ the Evangelical means what I thought of as ‘pope’ after my Evangelical childhood. By ‘pope’ they mean ‘corrupt earthly ruler’. In that respect Leo the Great might be termed the ‘first pope’ because he was the one, (in the face of the disintegrating Roman Empire) who stepped up and got involved in temporal power without apology.

However, seeing the pope as merely a temporal ruler and disapproving is to be too simplistic. Catholics understand the pope’s power to be spiritual. While certain popes did assume temporal power, they often did so reluctantly, and did not always wield that power in a corrupt way. Whether popes should have assumed worldly wealth and power is arguable, but at the heart of their ministry, like the Lord they served, they should have known that their kingdom was not of this world. Their rule was to be hierarchical and monarchical in the sense that they were serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It was not first and foremost to be hierarchical and monarchical in the worldly sense.

The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fourth or fifth century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. After the establishment of the church at Constantine’s conversion the church hierarchy did indeed become more influential in the kingdoms of this world, but that is not the essence of the papacy.

The essence of the papacy lies in Jesus’ ordination of Peter as his royal steward, and his commission to assume the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s absence. The idea, therefore, that Leo the Great was the first ‘pope’ is a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role.

The schism that eventually split Eastern Orthodoxy and the Western Church proves that Papal authority never gained complete support.

A standard anti-Catholic fallacy on the matter papal authority.
Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

• The Arian schisms (343-398)
• The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
• The Acacian schism (484-519)
• Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
• Concerning Iconoclasm (726-787 and 815-843)

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

But my point is that the primacy of the Bishops of Rome over other Sees outside of the Italian peninsula cannot be traced back to the traditions of the early Church.

So you have to deny what Ignatius said on the matter, and wrote on his own without receiving any input from the Apostles. That's absurd.

And that should give Catholics serious pause, since it disproves many Catholic theories about the nature of the early Church.

More nonsense. It's all the same one Church. You're pitting a first century document (that you deny) against cherry picked 3rd century Nicene canons, quoting Cyprian out of context, and throwing in the east-west split to add color.

sources:
The Early Papacy - 2 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...as-historic-standard-bearer-of-orthodoxy.html
The Biblical Church - Scripture Catholic
Fourth Century Christianity » Canons of the Council of Nicaea

 

[theefaith]

So, do you count Episcopalians (or any Anglican sects) as part of what you call the "Catholic" Church?

Nope
Christ alone has authority to found a church one church Jn 10:16

 

[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.

The initiation into the mosaic covenant was circumcision as an absolute requirement so is faith and baptism the initiation into the new covenant!

CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that these said sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacramnets of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that these seven sacraments are in such wise equal to each other, as that one is not in any way more worthy than another; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that, in the three sacrments, Baptism, to wit, Confirmation, and Order, there is not imprinted in the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible Sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that all Christians have power to administer the word, and all the sacraments; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that a minister, being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,-neither effects, nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

 

[theefaith]

Catholic church I think

seat of the local
Bishop

hierarchical jurisdictional authority
Christ
Peter
The apostles And their successors the bishops until Christ returns
Matt 28:19-20 acts 1:8
Apostolic succession
Acts 1:15-26

 

[Ferris Bueller]

The initiation into the mosaic covenant was circumcision as an absolute requirement so is faith and baptism the initiation into the new covenant!

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.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Friend, it is still bread.
There is no need for it to become actual flesh.
God's people are redeemed by the blood and body of Christ's sacrifice because it is accepted on our behalf on the altar in heaven for the forgiveness of sin, not because we ate it and it went into our stomachs. Spiritual life does not come from human flesh. It comes from the Holy Spirit when he enters into us when we receive the gospel by faith. That is how we have Jesus within us. We don't have him in us by literally eating his body, but by having his Spirit in us.

Then, there is nothing I can do for you.
Once again – your simply don’t have the faith in the words of Christ to take that leap.
Why did the Jews have to eat the Passover Lamb?
Was the act of sacrificing it NOT enough?

When the disciples of Jesus left Him in John 6:66 because of what they thought, like YOU – was a “bizarre” teaching – why didn’t Jesus explain that He was only speaking “symbolically”?
In the past, wherever one of His parables or lessons was questioned – He ALWAYS explained it.
But, this time, He just turned to the Twelve and said, “Do you ALSO want to leave?” (John 6:67)

Why did He follow this up at the Last Supper with “This “IS my body” and “This IS my blood”, instead of, “This is a symbol of my body”, or “This represents my blood”
WHY do you suppose that is?

Finally – why does EVERY SINGLE Early Church Father UNANIMOUSLY agree with this position?
WHY are the NO dissenters in the Early Church?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Then, there is nothing I can do for you.
Once again – your simply don’t have the faith in the words of Christ to take that leap.

I have complete faith in the words of Christ FOR WHAT THEY ACTUALLY MEAN. And he did not mean we get eternal life by literally eating his blood and body. Not only is that not how you gain eternal life, it is not necessary to do that to have eternal life. Eternal life comes from the Holy Spirit. The essence of eternal life is the Holy Spirit. That's how we have the life of Christ in us. We do not have the biological life of his flesh in us. We have his spiritual life in us via the Holy Spirit.

Why did the Jews have to eat the Passover Lamb?
Was the act of sacrificing it NOT enough?

They ate the sacrificial lamb just like they did all the other sacrifices. It was a type and shadow of how we have the life of the sacrifice in us by the Holy Spirit. Remember, the old system is a picture, NOT THE REALITY ITSELF. But you are making the picture (actually eating the flesh of the sacrifice) the reality. Catholics are terribly, terribly wrong about this matter. You can not get eternal life from eating a piece of flesh. Eternal life is a quality of the Spirit.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have complete faith in the words of Christ FOR WHAT THEY ACTUALLY MEAN. And he did not mean we get eternal life by literally eating his blood and body. Not only is that not how you gain eternal life, it is not necessary to do that to have eternal life. Eternal life comes from the Holy Spirit. The essence of eternal life is the Holy Spirit. That's how we have the life of Christ in us. We do not have the biological life of his flesh in us. We have his spiritual life in us via the Holy Spirit.


They ate the sacrificial lamb just like they did all the other sacrifices. It was a type and shadow of how we have the life of the sacrifice in us by the Holy Spirit. Remember, the old system is a picture, NOT THE REALITY ITSELF. But you are making the picture (actually eating the flesh of the sacrifice) the reality. Catholics are terribly, terribly wrong about this matter. You can not get eternal life from eating a piece of flesh. Eternal life is a quality of the Spirit.

It is supernatural food because it is the flesh and blood of Christ.
t is not physical nourishment – but SPIRITUAL nourishment.

Soooooo – is there any special reason why you DIDN’T answer my questions about the Early Church?
Why did they UNANIMOUSLY believe and teach the doctrine of the Real Presence?
WHAT, exactly, did they have to gain from this - except for being killed by the Romans for “cannibalism”?

 

[Jim B]

It is supernatural food because it is the flesh and blood of Christ.
t is not physical nourishment – but SPIRITUAL nourishment.

Soooooo – is there any special reason why you DIDN’T answer my questions about the Early Church?
Why did they UNANIMOUSLY believe and teach the doctrine of the Real Presence?
WHAT, exactly, did they have to gain from this - except for being killed by the Romans for “cannibalism”?

It's not important what the "early church" believed and taught. What is important is what God taught in His Holy Scriptures.

Jesus, while at the table, gave His disciples bread and wine and told them to eat and drink it to remember Him when He was no longer with Him. They did not eat Him nor drink His blood -- they were not cannibals! We consume the bread and wine to remember Him, but we are not cannibals either.

They are not the flesh and blood of Christ! They are symbolic food to remember Him by. They are both physical nourishment and spiritual nourishment.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It's not important what the "early church" believed and taught. What is important is what God taught in His Holy Scriptures.

Jesus, while at the table, gave His disciples bread and wine and told them to eat and drink it to remember Him when He was no longer with Him. They did not eat Him nor drink His blood -- they were not cannibals! We consume the bread and wine to remember Him, but we are not cannibals either.

They are not the flesh and blood of Christ! They are symbolic food to remember Him by. They are both physical nourishment and spiritual nourishment.

If you’re NOT going to actually answer the questions and are simply going to dance AROUND them – don’t bother responding.
I’ve heard your gobbledygook before – and by smarter people than you.

Simply dismissing what the Early Church taught because YOU disagree with it 500 years after the Protestant Revolt does nothing but show me WHY there are tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering Protestant factions.

Try to actually ADDRESS the questions I asked:
- Why did they UNANIMOUSLY believe and teach the doctrine of the Real Presence?
- WHAT, exactly, did they have to gain from this - except for being killed by the Romans for “cannibalism”?

- When the disciples of Jesus left Him in John 6:66 because of what they thought, like YOU – was a “bizarre” teaching – why didn’t Jesus explain that He was only speaking “symbolically”?
In the past, wherever one of His parables or lessons was questioned – He ALWAYS explained it.
But, this time, He just turned to the Twelve and said, “Do you ALSO want to leave?” (John 6:67)
- Why did He follow this up at the Last Supper with “This “IS my body” and “This IS my blood”, instead of, “This is a symbol of my body”, or “This represents my blood”?
WHY do you suppose that is?

Finally – why does EVERY SINGLE Early Church Father UNANIMOUSLY agree with this position?
- WHY are the NO dissenters in the Early Church?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

t is not physical nourishment – but SPIRITUAL nourishment.

So it's figurative.
Just like we non-Catholics believe.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Soooooo – is there any special reason why you DIDN’T answer my questions about the Early Church?
Why did they UNANIMOUSLY believe and teach the doctrine of the Real Presence?

Because the early church 'fathers' were spiritual idiots.

 

[RedFan]

Wrong again.

Ignatius wrote SEVEN Letters on hois way to Martyrdom in Rome.
You only saw an excerpt from the Letter to the Smyrnaeans.

Here is an excerpt from His Letter to the Romans . . .
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 107]).

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?

 

[RedFan]

Who do you think had the authority to convene a council in the first place??? It is impossible to convene a legitimate council without the pope.

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

 

[BreadOfLife]

So it's figurative.
Just like we non-Catholics believe.

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

 

[BreadOfLife]

Because the early church 'fathers' were spiritual idiots.

And YOU'RE a hypocrite because you adhere to the Canon of Scripture declared by therse "Spiritual idiots" as our "Sole" Authority.