Mary the Queen of Heaven

[erowe1]

He [Ignatius] expressed the teachings which were already spread far and wide, all over Christendom.

This is clearly not true. His views on the bishops did not yet exist in Rome at the time that he wrote his epistles, as you can see just by comparing his epistle to the Romans with his others.

His views were clearly not shared by the authors and editors of the Didache, which I think was probably written around the same time as his letters.

Even after he wrote those letters, it took a long time for his views to gain popularity throughout major parts of Christendom. And it would continue to be the case for centuries that genuine churches would exist throughout the world that didn't share his views.

The ministry of Patrick of Ireland, who is considered a saint in the Roman Catholic Church (I don't know if he is in the EOC or not), in the 5th century AD, was entirely outside of the hierarchy of bishops who were visibly unified with the bishop of Rome. The same is true of many other Christians who spread the faith around the world, far outside the boundaries of the five patriarchates (which even in Patrick of Ireland's day, still had not yet come into existence).

 

[erowe1]

Neither was his teachings disparaged (until 1500 years later)

What's your source for this? For that matter, how could you possibly know it?

His not being excommunicated is not a proof of anything. What would he be excommunicated for? And who would excommunicate him for it? Many of the other bishops he was in fellowship with apparently came to adopt his views (and understandably so, since his views increased their own power).

Ignatius had a great deal of influence on Christians who came after him. That is undeniable. But it also has nothing to do with whether or not the source of all of his ideas was the apostles. He himself never claimed to have gotten all of his ideas from them.

 

[TER]

That is the question I had asked prior to that, which you were supposedly answering.

Even now, after this additional response, I still don't know your answer.

Do you really believe that prior to Acts 15 the apostles themselves taught that a man was required to be circumcised in order to be saved, as your words imply?

If not, then what change of tradition are you talking about?

By the way, the fact that I ask a question doesn't mean I'm hung up on it. And the fact that I ask it a second, and then a third time, after you had avoided giving a clear and direct answer after my first and second times asking, has more to do with your avoidance of the question than it does my being hung up on it.

It wasn't clear what the apostolic teaching was as it had not been an issue until it became one in the life of the Church. For this reason St. Paul and St. Barnabas went to Jerusalem to address this question. When they got there, they found that some of the believers insisted that the Gentiles must be circumcised. That is the tradition they wished to establish, or better yet, continue.

Then 'the apostles and the elders met to consider the question. After much discussion' Peter and James made the case and the decision which seemed good to them and the Holy Spirit. The answer however did not fall from the sky or was found in a book. It required much discussion amongst the leaders. This is the way the Church has functioned since then, even after the days of the book of Acts.

 

[TER]

I am at work erowe and don't have time to debate this right now. Please post your objections and I will address them later.

 

[erowe1]

It wasn't clear what the apostolic teaching was as it had not been an issue until it became one in the life of the Church.

Then there was no change of tradition.

I agree with your characterization of what happened there. But I see no evidence that the findings of that Council positively contradicted anything the apostles explicitly taught, and insisted that Christians must believe, prior to that time.

 

[lilymc]

There are two laws Kevin and two covenants--Old Testament covenant/Law under Moses-- and the New Testament covenant/Law under Faith/Jesus.

The New Covenant IS the Law of Faith Kevin, and it's most certainly meant to "mix with grace". You still can't understand what Jesus and the NT apostles are telling you when they distinguish between the OT Mosaic Law and the NT Law of faith.

There are *two laws--one that was practiced under the Mosaic Law and now we live under the Law of Faith and just as Paul tells you here the same. In Romans 3:27 below, Paul refers to both the Mosaic Law and the Law of Faith, explaining the difference.

Romans 3:27

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

And here, Paul is referring to the Old Mosaic Law in 3:28 and that we're justified by the Law of faith and not the Mosaic Law of dead works:

Romans 3:28

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Terry, I know your post was to Kevin, but I just want to make a couple points here.

You seem to focused on mere wording.

There are different ways of describing the Old and New Covenants. Some people sum it up to: "Law vs Grace." Yes, there is more to it than that, but Kevin was just simplifying it, getting it down to the heart of the matter, for the purpose of this discussion. That is not incorrect, it's just one way of describing what you are referring to as the "Law of Faith."

I just did a quick search, and as far as I can see, the phrase "Law of Faith" is used only once in the bible, in Romans 3:27.

The word "Grace", in reference to salvation is used countless times, either directly or indirectly.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." Romans 11:6

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" 2 Timothy 1:9

For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John 1:17

"For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." Romans 6:14

"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" Romans 3:20-24


"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people" Titus 2:11


"For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." Galatians 2:19-21


"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, made us alive with the Messiah even though we were dead in trespasses. You are saved by grace!" Ephesians 2:4-5​

So instead of focusing on wording (for example, your point that we are still under "law" but it's called the "law of faith") we need to get to the true meaning, and look at what the New Covenant is, at its core. The New Covenant is about JESUS. It's not about doing works, it's about putting our FAITH in Him, in what HE did for us. We are saved by God's grace, through faith, not works!

Again, works are the inevitable fruit of a living, genuine faith. But works do not save us. All works-based religions (non-Christian or Christian) are teaching a lie, we cannot ever earn our way to heaven or attain salvation by going through a series of rituals or ceremonies.

 

[JohnWeeks613]

heavenlyboy34, Aparently you only want to except as true a tradition derived at by people that identify themselves as Christian, but when a Christian is doing those practices of biforcation and amalgamation it is a holy enterprise and truth reaveald by "God". My comment was compiled information I came across and read a number of times, and from what I remember of most, if not all, the post sources were Christian attributed citations what most of all Christianity accepts, and are the rullings that came out of the Counsel of Nicea. One of the points that may have been elusive to my post is that from what I understand and what is custom is that when a group of Christions come together and decide on any matter the outcome is considered the will of "god". No "attempted troling" was intended and nothing derogotory was said. I simply presented facts about the ruling of Constitine at Nicea in response to the posting of the centuries old battles of which group is the origional or true Christian discused in several posts thus far. The Adolf Hitler quote was to emphasize what porpaganda, PSYOP, does-it creats a version of truth and to each group it is truth not necessarily reality. There is about six thousand denominations of Christianity and each may believe they are the "true" or "origional" Christian Church and invariably they do not all agree on what truth is. Not off topic in my opinion at all. You chose to attack the facts I presented and made an opinion the matter as you have with other posts in relation thereto, as I have not made an opinion on the matter that I recall. I am a man that is trying to seek truth, and from time to time I'll investigate and compare statements people make when they say, more or less, "the bible says so", and have been doing that for about a little over seven years. Yours truly, comrad in phenomonology ,John M. Weeks Jr.

 

[TER]

This is clearly not true. His views on the bishops did not yet exist in Rome at the time that he wrote his epistles, as you can see just by comparing his epistle to the Romans with his others.

His views were clearly not shared by the authors and editors of the Didache, which I think was probably written around the same time as his letters.

Most scholars believe the Didache was written sometime between the middle and later first century, from dates as early as 40 AD. So it is very possible that the Didache was written over a half a century before what St. Ignatius wrote his epistle. That leaves plenty of time for developments with regards to organization within the life of the Church in those important formative and elastic years.

Even after he wrote those letters, it took a long time for his views to gain popularity throughout major parts of Christendom. And it would continue to be the case for centuries that genuine churches would exist throughout the world that didn't share his views.

Source?

The ministry of Patrick of Ireland, who is considered a saint in the Roman Catholic Church (I don't know if he is in the EOC or not), in the 5th century AD, was entirely outside of the hierarchy of bishops who were visibly unified with the bishop of Rome. The same is true of many other Christians who spread the faith around the world, far outside the boundaries of the five patriarchates (which even in Patrick of Ireland's day, still had not yet come into existence).

There was one catholic Church at that the time of St. Patrick, and he is indeed a common saint to both the RCC and the EOC. I do not understand what you mean that he was 'entirely outside of the hierarchy of bishops who were visibly unified with the bishop of Rome'.

St. Patrick's grandfather was a priest in Rome. His parents who were wealthy were Romans who moved to Britain. St. Patrick's father was a deacon of the Church. After St. Patrick was captured by raiders and taken to Ireland and then returned to Britian, he became a priest. He was ordained a priest by St. Germanus who was Bishop of Auxerre (Gaul). St. Germanus was sent by Pope Celestine to go to Britain to fight the Pelagian controversy which started spreading there and infecting the Church.

Eventually, St. Patrick became Bishop of Armagh after living and studying under St. Germanus and St. Martin, then moved to Ireland and the rest is history (he is called by the Orthodox Church St. Patrick the Apostle of Ireland).

The Bishop of Auxerre St. Germanus, the Bishop of Rome St. Celestine and the Bishop of Armagh St. Patrick were all in one communion, unified in faith, mind, and spirit around the Holy Eucharist and in faith with all the rest of the catholic Bishops of the Christian world spread over Europe, Africa, and Asia. So I am not sure where you are getting it that he was 'entirely outside of the heirarchy of bishops who were visibly unified with the bishop of Rome'.

What's your source for this? For that matter, how could you possibly know it?

His not being excommunicated is not a proof of anything. What would he be excommunicated for? And who would excommunicate him for it? Many of the other bishops he was in fellowship with apparently came to adopt his views (and understandably so, since his views increased their own power).

Ignatius had a great deal of influence on Christians who came after him. That is undeniable. But it also has nothing to do with whether or not the source of all of his ideas was the apostles. He himself never claimed to have gotten all of his ideas from them.

It has everything to do with the fact that he was appointed and ordained in their line of succession by the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. We do not have the written records you need to placate your mind, but the history of the Church confirms his orthodoxy and apostolic authority through the affirmation of the Church through the ages, beginning from the days this saint walked the earth. You are trying t to discredit him because you do not have the material evidence to link him in your mind with the original Apostles. Apparently the fact that he was their student and appointed by them was not enough! But the proof of the authority and truthfulness of his teachings is in the 'Amen' of the laity spread far and wide in addition to his grace of ordination and apostolic succession. He was a student of St. John the Apostle, yet you believe you have a better grasp of what Christ wanted and what was needed to protect the flock he was entrusted with then he did. I am sorry you do not see the arrogance of this position and the pride in it. It blinds you from appreciating this Saint who was fed to the lions in martyrdom for Christ.

Then there was no change of tradition.

I agree with your characterization of what happened there. But I see no evidence that the findings of that Council positively contradicted anything the apostles explicitly taught, and insisted that Christians must believe, prior to that time.

There was at least two traditions which were being contended, the one being that one must be circumcised and the other that it was not necessary. Apparently, it was such a big threat to the unity of the Church (for indeed the controversy started to spread to distant churches), that St. Paul and St. Barnabas traveled from Antioch to Jerusalem to discuss the matter with the apostles and elders. It was not a quick decision, indeed it involved 'much discussion'.

When the decision was made that there is no requirement for circumcision, then that itself was the new tradition. There was no more discussion. The case had been closed. This is one example of how the Church through the ages has confronted and dealt with issues within the Church. These things did not end in the days of Acts. And not everything was decided in the days of Acts.

Erowe, I wish there were more material evidence to show you to believe that the words of St. Ignatius are worthy and apostolic, but there simply is not. Unfortunately the book of Acts ended too soon. What it required is faith. Faith in the Apostolic Fathers who were taught and given authority to lead the Church by those before them, and faith in the Holy Spirit working in the Church through the grace of ordination and the Holy Eucharist. You have chosen to put your knowledge over these early saints, using the short time frame of the book of Acts as your reference and then stopping at the end of it. But the Church did not stop at the end of Acts. You do the same with many of their doctrinal interpretations, taking bits here and there to fit your theology and ignoring everything else from the Church Fathers which goes against it. If you feel comfortable doing that, then whatever. My mind and my heart does not allow me to do this.

 

[TER]

Again, works are the inevitable fruit of a living, genuine faith. But works do not save us. All works-based religions (non-Christian or Christian) are teaching a lie, we cannot ever earn our way to heaven or attain salvation by going through a series of rituals or ceremonies.

Our salvation from death has been accomplished through Christ's work, and nothing anyone could do could have accomplished this. For this reason God became man and put on our nature and united it with His perfect and sinless divine nature, thereby conquering death for us. For this reason, everyone (sinner and saint) will be resurrected again. In this, Christ has saved all people.

But salvation from death is different from entering the Kingdom of Heaven. While it will still be by the grace of God alone that we will enter into the Kingdom after being raised from the dead, only those who Christ has judged worthy will enter therein. To those who are judged unworthy, their resurrection will be to everlasting judgment and condemnation.

How will we be worthy? By following Christ's commandments. By our faith and our works, He in His great wisdom will judge whether we will enter into the Kingdom.

So there is salvation from death, and there is salvation into the Kingdom. The first by grace as a free gift to all people, and the second by grace to those whom Christ has judged worthy according to their faith and their works.

 

[erowe1]

Most scholars believe the Didache was written sometime between the middle and later first century, from dates as early as 40 AD.

That's not true. If you read that somewhere, it was most likely not from a scholar. Parts of it may be from the first century. But in its complete form it can't be from any earlier than very late in the first century, and is probably from the early second. Most scholars either date it to the early second century, or give it a range from late first (meaning post AD 70, not 40) to early second. And when most allow for a first century date, they mean something like the 90s, not earlier.

Source?

My very next sentence.

There was one catholic Church at that the time of St. Patrick,

There still is. There always has been. But what we know as the RCC and the EOC had not come into existence yet.

I do not understand what you mean that he was 'entirely outside of the hierarchy of bishops who were visibly unified with the bishop of Rome'.

St. Patrick's grandfather was a priest in Rome.

He was a priest, but not in Rome. In those days, there existed many churches and priests who, like Patrick, were not under the umbrella of the bishops whose authority you would define as the Catholic Church.

Subsequent to the time of Patrick, the bishop of Rome sent Palladius to found the Church in Ireland as its first bishop. He did not recognize the existence of any church in Ireland then existing, even though Patrick had brought Christianity there a century earlier. It wasn't until much later that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox came to adopt Patrick as one of their own.

He was ordained a priest by St. Germanus who was Bishop of Auxerre (Gaul).

No he wasn't. This is a later embellishment meant to make it look like Patrick was acting under the auspices of what you are calling the Catholic Church. He himself apionted presbyters in Ireland, and he did so without any authorization from any bishops connected with the bishop of Rome, as proven by the later comissioning of Palladius to bring the church to Ireland.

Eventually, St. Patrick became Bishop of Armagh

That also is a later embellishment of the same type.

It has everything to do with the fact that he was appointed and ordained in their line of succession

I know of absolutely no evidence for this claim. Ignatius himself never says it. Nor is it likely that he even had a concept of the apostolic succession of bishops, since that would have been such an important thing for him to mention given the agenda he had to buttress their authority. Scholars of Ignatius agree with me on this point. See, for example the comments on Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians 3:2 in William Schoedel's commentary.

 

[TER]

That's not true. If you read that somewhere, it was most likely not from a scholar. Parts of it may be from the first century. But in its complete form it can't be from any earlier than very late in the first century, and is probably from the early second. Most scholars either date it to the early second century, or give it a range from late first (meaning post AD 70, not 40) to early second. And when most allow for a first century date, they mean something like the 90s, not earlier.

I guess we can pick and choose which scholars we want to listen to.

My very next sentence.

You have not proved anything with your claim here.

There still is. There always has been. But what we know as the RCC and the EOC had not come into existence yet.

You ignore the Holy Eucharist once again as the center of this communion. The catholic Church of St. Patrick's time was the same one which convened in the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea and all the way back to the first Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts. This was united around the same Cup, unbroken in succession and communion. The faithful of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in St. Patrick's time were in Eucharistic communion with St. Ignatius and the Apostles, in an unbroken and direct line through the bishops and the Holy Eucharist. This communion has endured through time and is now called the EOC. You can refuse to believe that, and to do so, you must make holy men liars and fools, and ignore the historical and spiritual communion they had as one Body around the Holy Eucharist.

He was a priest, but not in Rome. In those days, there existed many churches and priests who, like Patrick, were not under the umbrella of the bishops whose authority you would define as the Catholic Church.

That is because there were lands where bishops had not yet been appointed. Had St. Patrick's grandfather journeyed to America, there would have been no bishop there either! This doesn't mean that the structure as found from the first century did not exist, but that it had not yet grown to all places yet. For the great part of Christendom during the days of St. Patrick however, especially in the ancient cities, the hierarchal structure as described by St. Ignatius was the norm. The First Ecumenical Council years before St. Patrick demonstrates this, as do the writings of earlier saints of the early Church.

Subsequent to the time of Patrick, the bishop of Rome sent Palladius to found the Church in Ireland as its first bishop. He did not recognize the existence of any church in Ireland then existing, even though Patrick had brought Christianity there a century earlier. It wasn't until much later that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox came to adopt Patrick as one of their own.

Baloney. St. Patrick (who was Bishop of a region of France) introduced Christianity to Ireland but he was not Ireland's first Bishop, just as it may have not been St. Peter who introduced Christianity to Antioch even though he became its first bishop. You misunderstand the roles Sts. Patrick and Palladius played in converting the island and establishing the Church, both important and both by God's will.

No he wasn't. This is a later embellishment meant to make it look like Patrick was acting under the auspices of what you are calling the Catholic Church. He himself apionted presbyters in Ireland, and he did so without any authorization from any bishops connected with the bishop of Rome, as proven by the later comissioning of Palladius to bring the church to Ireland.

He could appoint priests in Ireland prior to St. Palladius assuming the episcopy of the island simply because ... there was no Bishop there! That was his divine right by virtue of him being an ordained Bishop within the Church and this land not falling under the jurisdiction of any bishop. Those priests which St. Patrick ordained were under his authority and spiritual direction, for he had assumed this region under his guidance until a formal Bishop was appointed there (St. Palladius) when the conditions warranted it (namely, the faithful grew in numbers and it was necessary for pastoral reasons). When St. Palladius was sent as the Bishop, then those priests who were once under St. Patrick then fell under the authority of St. Palladius. This is the way the Church has spread from the first century.

So what you think is an embellishment (with no proof!) stems from your ignorance on how these matters of ecclesiology existed and the canons of the Church.

For example, St. Paul travelled to Cyprus, and converted many there, but it was St. Lazarus who would later become Bishop.

Missionaries who travel to lands where there is no formal Church presence introduce the faith and seek to convert the people to Christ. These missionaries are under the spiritual guidance of the Bishop from whence they came. (In effect, the Bishop has authority to the Christians of those foreign lands by virtue of the missionary work being done under his care through his representative, namely the missionary). When the faithful begin to grow in numbers and more closer and personal supervision of the faithful and the clergy begins to become necessary, then a priest (usually from the original see) is elevated to Bishop through the laying of the hands in holy ordination, communes with the faithful of the Holy Eucharist, and then becomes spiritual leader to the flock in the new land. This is exactly what happened with St. Patrick the Bishop from France, St. Palladius the first Bishop of Ireland, and the Church of Ireland. And this has been the norm since the first century even until today (indeed it is canonical), even though you want to call it all embellishments. You should study more about this, because you seem to lack a lot of knowledge in these topics which you poopoo away as embellishments.

I know of absolutely no evidence for this claim. Ignatius himself never says it. Nor is it likely that he even had a concept of the apostolic succession of bishops, since that would have been such an important thing for him to mention given the agenda he had to buttress their authority. Scholars of Ignatius agree with me on this point. See, for example the comments on Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians 3:2 in William Schoedel's commentary.

Your scholars may agree with you (the one you consider scholars), but the Church and 2000 years of witnesses disagree.

 

[erowe1]

I guess we can pick and choose which scholars we want to listen to.

Or better yet, reserve the label "scholar" for actual scholars. It was you who made a claim about "scholars." Do you know of real scholars who believe it is within the realm of possibility that the whole Didache was written by AD 40, as you claimed to? If so, please give their names.

The catholic Church of St. Patrick's time was the same one which convened in the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea and all the way back to the first Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts.

I also belong to that very same catholic Church. Apostolic succession of bishops is not what makes one a part of it. Patrick was outside the hierarchy of bishops who claimed apostolic succession, as were millions of other Christians all throughout church history from the days of the apostles up to his day, and this did not in any way make him or them less a part of the true church. Nor does it for me.

That is because there were lands where bishops had not yet been appointed. Had St. Patrick's grandfather journeyed to America, there would have been no bishop there either!

Correct. And this would not have made the Christian converts any less a part of the Church, nor would their Eucharists, absent any bishop or anyone appointed by a bishop be any less legitimate. Apart from the specification of America, this is no mere hypothetical, but the actual situation of most Christians throughout every century of Church history from the apostles until today.

Your scholars may agree with you (the one you consider scholars)

Are there others who don't? Please name them.

but the Church and 2000 years of witnesses disagree.

"The Church" doesn't speak. And there do not exist human beings who speak for her. Every teaching you've ever heard was a teaching from an individual human being. Some of these individual human beings might claim that the things they say are the teachings of "The Church." And they may claim that these teachings originated with the apostles. But just because somebody claims this doesn't make it so. If we want to know if their claims really do come from the apostles, we need to subject those claims to historical inquiry, studying the ancient texts available to us from the apostles themselves and other Christians who came later, to see when such teachings came about, and how they developed.

 

[TER]

I also belong to that very same catholic Church.

Arius would have made the same claim as would all of the heretics. At least these heretics confessed the Holy Spirit in ordination and divine will in the formation of the episcopy and the real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. If you do not confess to these apostolic truths, then your words are merely your wish. That is not to say you will are not definitely within the Church, for only God knows and in the end we will know, but you certainly are not guaranteed with the positions and claims you consistently have made. I often wonder on the day of judgment how you will look at the faces of the earliest Saints who you make to be fools so that you can be right.

Apostolic succession of bishops is not what makes one a part of it.

It does according to the Church which predates you and your scholars by 2000 years.

Patrick was outside the hierarchy of bishops who claimed apostolic succession...

This error of yours has already been explained to you in my previous post, but you refuse to learn.

...as were millions of other Christians all throughout church history from the days of the apostles up to his day, and this did not in any way make him or them less a part of the true church. Nor does it for me.

Yes, I know that makes you feel better. But simply saying it doesn't make it true.

Correct. And this would not have made the Christian converts any less a part of the Church, nor would their Eucharists, absent any bishop or anyone appointed by a bishop be any less legitimate. Apart from the specification of America, this is no mere hypothetical, but the actual situation of most Christians throughout every century of Church history from the apostles until today.

Maybe according to your church, but not according to the Church which wrote and canonized the book you have sorrowfully misused and misinterpreted.

Are there others who don't? Please name them.

You stick to your modern scholars and I will stick to the Church Fathers.

"The Church" doesn't speak. And there do not exist human beings who speak for her. Every teaching you've ever heard was a teaching from an individual human being. Some of these individual human beings might claim that the things they say are the teachings of "The Church." And they may claim that these teachings originated with the apostles. But just because somebody claims this doesn't make it so. If we want to know if their claims really do come from the apostles, we need to subject those claims to historical inquiry, studying the ancient texts available to us from the apostles themselves and other Christians who came later, to see when such teachings came about, and how they developed.

You rely on your three pound brain a little too much to be the decider of what is true or not. Your brain simply is not impressive enough for me to put it over the saints. I have listed historical and ancient texts such as St. Ignatius' writing, and you deny them as authoritative, so what is the point? You take the snippet of time in the book of Acts and discredit the rest of the history of the Holy Spirit in the world and through the saints. You think you are greater then St. Ignatius and the Church Fathers because of your complete arrogance and pride! At least I acknowledge how much less of a man I am compared to these holy saints of God. You have even made a comment once about your belief that miracles ended after the time frame recorded in the NT. What a blind and ignorant fool you must be! And to deny the Holy Spirit on top of it! And then posit the claim to be a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church! A Church you seem to know nothing about!

We do not even believe in the same things with regards to the writings of the New Testament, why would I expect you to believe in the writings of the Godbearing saints who lived after the NT was written? When I say the Church speaks, I say it in the same vein as St. James said about the issue over circumcision or the way the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council spoke about the Creed. I do not have one person to speak for the Church, but the Holy Spirit in the communion and consensus around the Holy Eucharist, for that is what the Church is. You instead, a self chosen orphan, do not seem to understand this, and so you pick and choose an individual verse here or there and stop at the end of the middle of the first century because you lack the humility to repent and acknowledge that what you have convinced yourself in your mind was wrong all along. You choosing your brain and it's interpretations against men much greater and holier then either of us is not analytical or logical, it is sinful and on account of a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit and from unadulterated pride.

So for you to be right,

• the Church fell into large grand scale apostasy in the first century through Bishops taught and ordained by the Apostles,
• the Holy Spirit failed miserably in guarding the apostolic teachings of the fundamentals of the faith,
• the first 1600 years of apostolic teachings regarding the Holy Eucharist was a lie and Christ is divided
• The Church Fathers in those early centuries were ignorant fools teaching heresy and had been duped all their lives

That either makes you an arrogant fool or the next great prophet come to restore the apostolic truths like Joseph Smith.

It is a shame that someone like yourself with such high intelligence cannot even see this. But pride blinds a man and while thinking they can count all the stars in the sky makes him fall into a ditch.

You think you are part of the Church, then believe what you will. May it be the case before you leave this world because after death, there is no repentance.

 

[erowe1]

Arius would have made the same claim as would all of the heretics.

And God will judge if they were right about that.

 

[erowe1]

So for you to be right,

• the Church fell into large grand scale apostasy in the first century through Bishops taught and ordained by the Apostles,
• the Holy Spirit failed miserably in guarding the apostolic teachings of the fundamentals of the faith,
• the first 1600 years of apostolic teachings regarding the Holy Eucharist was a lie and Christ is divided
• The Church Fathers in those early centuries were ignorant fools teaching heresy and had been duped all their lives

You have this habit of telling me that I have to believe things that you couldn't possibly get from anything I've ever said, and that even explicitly contradict what I have said, just so you can knock down your own straw man.

 

[erowe1]

You stick to your modern scholars and I will stick to the Church Fathers.

It was you who first played the "scholar" card. All I did was call your bluff.

I'm still waiting on those names.

And, by the way, you won't find any Church Fathers saying the Didache was from the first century either.

 

[TER]

You have this habit of telling me that I have to believe things that you couldn't possibly get from anything I've ever said, just so you can knock down your own straw man.

And this is your straw man, to say that I have put words in your mouth. I have read enough of your posts to know how far they are from the Patristic teachings, and the teachings of St. Ignatius is but one small example.

 

[erowe1]

you lack the humility to repent and acknowledge that what you have convinced yourself in your mind was wrong all along.

Please back that up with a quote from me.

 

[erowe1]

And this is your straw man, to say that I have put words in your mouth. I have read enough of your posts to know how far they are from the Patristic teachings, and the teachings of St. Ignatius is but one small example.

Please back this up with a quote from me.

 

[TER]

Please back that up with a quote from me.

Are you right and St. Ignatius wrong?