Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
There is nothing here to examine.Baptist Successionism is an embarrassment to Baptists
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
There is nothing here to examine.Baptist Successionism is an embarrassment to Baptists
Friend, it is still bread.Because it is NO LONGER bread. It is only the appearance of bread and wine – also known as the accidents of bread and wine.
Wrong again.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").
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."
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.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 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: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)
What's wrong with that? Their autonomy doesn't disprove Rome's preeminence.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.
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.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/
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.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.
A standard anti-Catholic fallacy on the matter papal authority.The schism that eventually split Eastern Orthodoxy and the Western Church proves that Papal authority never gained complete support.
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.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.
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.And that should give Catholics serious pause, since it disproves many Catholic theories about the nature of the early Church.
NopeSo, do you count Episcopalians (or any Anglican sects) as part of what you call the "Catholic" Church?
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.
Catholic church I think
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.The initiation into the mosaic covenant was circumcision as an absolute requirement so is faith and baptism the initiation into the new covenant!
Then, there is nothing I can do for you.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.
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.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.
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.Why did the Jews have to eat the Passover Lamb?
Was the act of sacrificing it NOT enough?
It is supernatural food because it is the flesh and blood of Christ.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”?
If you’re NOT going to actually answer the questions and are simply going to dance AROUND them – don’t bother responding.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.
So it's figurative.t is not physical nourishment – but SPIRITUAL nourishment.
Because the early church 'fathers' were spiritual idiots.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?
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]).
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.
Since WHEN does "Spiritual" mean "Figurative"??So it's figurative.
Just like we non-Catholics believe.
And YOU'RE a hypocrite because you adhere to the Canon of Scripture declared by therse "Spiritual idiots" as our "Sole" Authority.Because the early church 'fathers' were spiritual idiots.