Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the church

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by brewmama View Post
    St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr's crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.
    We must take the writings of Ignatius with a big grain of salt. Over half of the letters ascribed to him are regarded as flat out forgeries, and the remaining 7 epistles all have two different versions: a short and a long one. The short are generally favored, but their authenticity is not without question.

    Now, as far as the quotes you provided from him, the only one that could potentially be taken to enforce a literal interpretation of the Eucharist is the first one:
    "Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
    "Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

    This is one of those sections that differs quite drastically between the long and short versions of Ignatius' writings. Here is the long version of this same passage:

    They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the ressurection. They are the offspring of that spirit who is the author of all evil, who led Adam, by means of his wife, to transgress the commandment, who slew Abel by the hands of Cain, who fought against Job, who was the accuser of Joshua the son of Josedech, who sought to "sift the faith" of the apostles, who stirred up the multitude of the Jews against the Lord, who also now "worketh in the children of disobedience;" from whom the Lord Jesus Christ will deliver us, who prayed that the faith of the apostles might not fail, not because He was not able of Himself to preserve it, but because He rejoiced in the pre-eminence of the Father. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep public to talk with them; but to give heed to the law, and of the prophets, and to those who have preached to you the words of salvation. But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.

    Quite a bit different, no? There are many such places in the manuscripts of Ignatius' writings with such drastic differences between them - it is evident that people had an agenda. They wanted, as they have tried with so many other important figures, to use their name to push their anachronistic theologies onto others. But, again, the scholastic rule of thumb here is to favor shorter version so I will stick with that one.

    The shorter one says: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

    Let us pick this apart a bit. Who are "they" that abstain from the Eucharist and prayer? In Ignatius' authentic works he does fight against some heresies from his time. In particularly: he fought against the Docetists who maintained that Jesus did not literally die on the cross, nor that he ever had a physical body. The crucifixion was regarded by them as a lie or deception.

    Indeed, this writing makes reference to them directly/indirectly several times. For instance, the second chapter of the same work reads as follows:

    Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.

    When writing this work, from the get-go he has Docetism in mind. As such, when he says that "THEY do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ" he is not making a statement about Real Presence or the like. It is much more straight-forward than that: the Docetists in question don't believe that Christ EVER had flesh, and so they could not even accept the Eucharist to represent that. This runs much deeper than disputes on the matter between Protestants and Catholics and Orthodoxy. This was a dispute concerning who Christ is, what he did, and what is expected of us as his followers.

    To read-in the idea here that he intends us to regard the bread and wine as Christs actual, physical flesh and blood is simply anachronistic - that's not what Ignatius was fighting against here.

    Furthermore, other passages that you quoted from him demonstrate that he himself uses the Eucharist symbolically. Like these ones:

    "Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."
    -"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.
    "

    I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."
    -"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.


    I'll try to make time this weekend to dig up some quotes on the matter of the pagans and such accusing the Christians of cannibalism over the Eucharist, and the response of the Church Fathers.

    Here's more info on Docetism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism
    Last edited by csuguy; March 11th, 2016, 12:00 AM.
    If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by brewmama View Post
      So you believe that even though the disciples spent the entire day with Jesus and discussed Scriptures in depth, they did NOT recognize Him at all until He " took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him" was just a casual meal, and you think I'm grasping at straws?!
      The term 'breaking bread' was a common Jewish term. I does not infer the eucharist.

      Why are you reading something into scripture that just plainly isn't there?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by HisServant View Post
        The term 'breaking bread' was a common Jewish term. I does not infer the eucharist.
        True, breaking bread does not imply anything magical. (Acts 2:46)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by HisServant View Post
          The term 'breaking bread' was a common Jewish term. I does not infer the eucharist.

          Why are you reading something into scripture that just plainly isn't there?

          It most certainly does imply it. It is used several times, including Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17.
          Why do you deny things that are obviously present in Scripture merely to suit your agenda?
          Eastern Orthodox-Western Rite

          I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by csuguy View Post
            We must take the writings of Ignatius with a big grain of salt. Over half of the letters ascribed to him are regarded as flat out forgeries, and the remaining 7 epistles all have two different versions: a short and a long one. The short are generally favored, but their authenticity is not without question.

            ...
            I'll try to make time this weekend to dig up some quotes on the matter of the pagans and such accusing the Christians of cannibalism over the Eucharist, and the response of the Church Fathers.

            Here's more info on Docetism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism
            I'm impressed with your effort on this. However, it was well established in the early church that the Eucharist included the real Presence.

            The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says this: "In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject...That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first, and language was very commonly used which referred to the Eucharistic elements as themselves the Body and Blood. Even where the elements were spoken of as 'symbols' or 'antitypes', there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts...
            The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages. In the 9th century Paschasius Radbertus raised doubts as to the identity of Christ's Eucharistic Body...but won practically no support."
            Eastern Orthodox-Western Rite

            I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by brewmama View Post
              It most certainly does imply it. It is used several times, including Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17.
              Why do you deny things that are obviously present in Scripture merely to suit your agenda?
              Do you think that when Jesus broke the bread to feed the thousands with the loaves and fishes, he was actually doing the Eucharist?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by HisServant View Post
                Do you think that when Jesus broke the bread to feed the thousands with the loaves and fishes, he was actually doing the Eucharist?
                Of course not, since He hadn't sacrificed Himself yet or instituted the Eucharist. But it did prefigure the Eucharist.
                Eastern Orthodox-Western Rite

                I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by brewmama View Post
                  Of course not, since He hadn't sacrificed Himself yet or instituted the Eucharist. But it did prefigure the Eucharist.
                  Its the same words in the verse you quoted... it also doesn't mention a cup at all.

                  So tell me why again you think it was the Eucharist which opened their eyes?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by HisServant View Post
                    Its the same words in the verse you quoted... it also doesn't mention a cup at all.

                    So tell me why again you think it was the Eucharist which opened their eyes?
                    Sigh. Since they said so themselves, in plain language.

                    " And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
                    31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him;
                    And they told what things were done in the way, how he was known of them in breaking of bread."

                    they didn't even say "when He broke the bread", but "in the breaking of the bread"
                    Eastern Orthodox-Western Rite

                    I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by brewmama View Post
                      Sigh. Since they said so themselves, in plain language.

                      " And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
                      31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him;
                      And they told what things were done in the way, how he was known of them in breaking of bread."

                      they didn't even say "when He broke the bread", but "in the breaking of the bread"
                      Sigh... so the Eucharist is till valid without the cup?

                      You are reading something into it that just isn't there... this CANNOT be a Eucharist.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by HisServant View Post
                        Sigh... so the Eucharist is till valid without the cup?

                        You are reading something into it that just isn't there... this CANNOT be a Eucharist.
                        The perfect example of what Jesus was talking about:He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

                        You have no proof that there was no cup- you think they really didn't have one?
                        Eastern Orthodox-Western Rite

                        I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by brewmama View Post
                          The perfect example of what Jesus was talking about:He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

                          You have no proof that there was no cup- you think they really didn't have one?
                          And this is the typical convoluted thinking that Catholics have... they think that anything is permissible in the absense of scripture.

                          If it was the Eucharist, don't you think the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD would have included such an important detail.

                          All you are doing is wishing something to be there that isn't.

                          Which is why Romanism never passes the stink test... the vast majority of its dogmas and doctrines are developed out of the silence of scripture.... thereby making the Holy Spirit an idiot.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by HisServant View Post
                            And this is the typical convoluted thinking that Catholics have... they think that anything is permissible in the absense of scripture.

                            If it was the Eucharist, don't you think the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD would have included such an important detail.

                            All you are doing is wishing something to be there that isn't.

                            Which is why Romanism never passes the stink test... the vast majority of its dogmas and doctrines are developed out of the silence of scripture.... thereby making the Holy Spirit an idiot.

                            How DO you explain that they did not recognize Him until He broke the bread, which according to you is just some common ordinary meal?
                            And you think MY explanation doesn't make sense??
                            Eastern Orthodox-Western Rite

                            I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by brewmama View Post
                              How DO you explain that they did not recognize Him until He broke the bread, which according to you is just some common ordinary meal?
                              And you think MY explanation doesn't make sense??
                              All you have to do is look into the Old Testament... such a thing has happened before.

                              Seriously, your opinion on this is borne out of ignorance of scripture.

                              The answer is that Jesus DID NOT WANT THEM TO KNOW it was him...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by brewmama View Post
                                You have no proof that there was no cup- you think they really didn't have one?
                                Well, we know there was a cup when Jesus ate the symbolic bread and drank the symbolic wine with his friends.

                                Human flesh is not acceptable for food according to Mosaic law and Jesus never ate it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X