Mary the Queen of Heaven

[TER]

Not on everything. None of the other Church Fathers agreed with Ignatius on everything either. If you do agree with Ignatius on everything (and thus disagree with every other Church Father on something), then that's not being humble, it's being lazy.

lol. Which Church Fathers did not agree with St. Ignatius about the authority of Bishops, the office of the priests, and the honor of the deacons?

 

[erowe1]

Erowe, since this thread was first about the Virgin Mary, please tell me since I do not yet know, what do you believe about her being Ever-Virgin? Do you believe she is Ever-Virgin? Do you believe she had other children?

No, I do not believe she was ever-virgin. Yes, I do believe she had other children.

 

[erowe1]

lol. Which Church Fathers did not agree with St. Ignatius about the authority of Bishops, the office of the priests, and the honor of the deacons?

Clement of Rome and the authors of the Didache. I'm sure there were others.

Patrick of Ireland probably isn't considered a Church Father. But he's called a saint. He would be another.

 

[TER]

Clement of Rome and the authors of the Didache. I'm sure there were others.

Patrick of Ireland probably isn't considered a Church Father. But he's called a saint. He would be another.

I already explained to you how St. Patrick was indeed under a Bishop as a priest, he later became a Bishop of the Church in France, and when the time arrived for a See to be placed in Ireland, the priests of Ireland then fell under the authority of the new Bishop and no longer under St. Patrick's successor, which is the normal and ancient way. But unfortunately, you refuse to learn.

As for St. Clement and the Didache, these do not contradict St. Ignatius, they were simply reflecting the development of the Church at that infant time. But please, answer me, do you agree with St. Ignatius or not?

 

[TER]

No, I do not believe she was ever-virgin. Yes, I do believe she had other children.

I see, and how many Church Fathers would you agree with and how many disagree with so that you can be right?

 

[TER]

I would also like to see quotes from Church Fathers which disagree with St. Ignatius about the authority of Bishops. Which Christians after St. Ignatius repudiated what he wrote? If what he wrote was so scandalous and so impious and so far out from the established catholic and orthodox faith of the Christians of his time and after, surely somewhere we will find some kind of protest or dissent.

 

[TER]

The truth is erowe that you will find no one repudiate St. Ignatius until the fathers of Protestantism come around who taught a vastly different ecclesiology which has led to more disunity in communion and doctrine in the short span of a few centuries than the entire history of Christianity before it. And the second century Christians who were being persecuted and martyred for the faith? They all believed in the ecclesiology expressed by St. Ignatius. And the third century Christians? The same thing, falling under the authority of their bishops and believers in the sacramental life within one Body, the Church. And the Christians who compiled the Scriptures and by divine inspiration compiled the canon of the Bible, they too professed the same ecclesiology and faith of St. Ignatius. So tell me how they are wrong and you are right. What great knowledge and authority do you have over them that you sit here in the year 2014, using an incomplete collection of writings you call the Scriptures, and judge them and what they wrote. Are you a modern Church Father come to reveal the truths hidden from them and correct their fallen ways? As a logical man, do you not see how illogical and arrogantly proud you sound?

 

[erowe1]

The truth is erowe that you will find no one repudiate St. Ignatius until the fathers of Protestantism

How could you possibly know this?

This reminds me of your arrogant (read: not humble) insistence to someone here recently that not one single person until Muhammed ever thought of the idea that Jesus was replaced by someone else on the cross. It was obvious to the most casual observer that you had absolutely no business pretending to have the command of early Christian literature that would be required for someone to be warranted to make such a claim. And here you're making an even larger claim covering 15 centuries rather than just 6. How many of the extant Christian writings haven't even yet been translated into English? How many other languages are they in? How's your Latin? Your Coptic? Your Syriac? Your Georgian? Your Armenian? And then there are all the writings that are now lost. And then there are all the believers who never wrote anything. And then there's the problem of who to count of the people whose views we do know about. If I find someone, will you just dismiss them as a heretic on account of the very view I show them to have had? And if so, wouldn't that just mean you'd be practicing circular argument?

 

[erowe1]

I see, and how many Church Fathers would you agree with and how many disagree with so that you can be right?

Why do you add the line "so that you can be right" to the end of this?

And how could you possibly expect me to answer the question about how many? Do the numbers matter somehow?

Are you going to pretend that you agree with all of them, even when they disagree with one another?

 

[Kevin007]

Erowe, as much as you despise me, I am trying to help you. You are a bright person, but you putting yourself above the Church Fathers and the Saints is concerning. Humble yourself, admit that they are much smarter and spiritually illuminated than you, conform your mind to the mind of the Church and through such humility and obedience even greater faith and joy will be given to you. Relying on your critical mind as the ultimate authority is detrimental to your spiritual well being, and for this reason Christ established elders (bishops), priests, deacons, and great saints so that we might learn from them. This begins with stopping relying so much on our three pound brains, as humility would have it no other way.

But don't take my word on it, I am a miserable sinner with no such authority. Instead, go sit down with a local Orthodox priest, read the Church Fathers and above all pray.

no mention of the Holy Spirit here...to help you interpret Scripture. Jesus said He would send a helper...the Holy Spirit to help you understand all things. Are you relying on Him? Or the words of men?


John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
This promise was made in the first instance to the Apostles, but the Apostles themselves applied it to all believers.


1 John 2:20, 27 [20] But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. [27] As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit -- just as it has taught you, remain in him.

 

[Kevin007]

Kevin--please understand this--whenever we take Holy Communion with the Lord and the Eucharist--we are not simply "reoffering Christ as sacrifice" as you say--What Holy Communion is----is literally taking Jesus into ourselves as Jesus Himself said to do. What we are then doing is remembering not only what Jesus did on that cross, but His entire ministry and resurrection from that cross. So we are communing with Him--we are partaking of that blood and body along with His resurrection as well--in communion.

Communion means this--the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level. We are partaking of the mind and body of Christ into ourselves as well. This is not hanging Him on the cross again as you believe--this is communing in the Spirit with our Lord--

This is why we are told not to do this unworthily because we can bring damnation to ourselves not discerning the blood and body of Christ. This isn't something we take lightly or should do if we do not understand what the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ means. This is something very sacred as we are told in the word of God.

I know that even in some of the Protestant churches--they do not allow small children to take communion--because they are not old enough to discern the body and the blood. So this isn't something that's just *Catholic* either--but the EOC takes far more care keeping this Holy tradition sacred than the Protestants do--which is the way it was done by the very Apostles of Christ.

Also, you made the statement that the OT Jews kept "reoffering Christ as a sacrifice"--this was not possible because Jesus had not even been born, crucified or resurrected yet in the OT.

Your lack of knowledge and scriptural understanding is a blatant testimony to why the ancient church is needed on this earth. Many of us need the guidance of the church to understand what the saints before us understood and to know how we are supposed to live, believe, love, forgive and to be what we are called to be in Christ.

this is not Biblical. As A BELIEVER; the Holy Spirit already indwells you. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not in you. Jesus is fully God, but fully MAN. Jesus is not in thousands of places at once- but the Holy Spirit is. Jesus is in Heaven. He has not returned to earth since Pentecost and will not be here again until the end of the 7 year Tribulation.

 

[Kevin007]

So you say Kevin, but that is not what the early Church believed, what the Apostles taught, or what Christ said. If you are comfortable relying on your interpretation over all these saints and the Lord Himself, then do as you will. But you are in the minority in your opinion and definitely not in accordance with the apostolic teachings.

Many Scholars believe it was figurative, including many Church Fathers. Even the RCC Catechism states that it was not talking literally.. (I will have to dig up the section/verse). Jesus is in Heaven Ter.. where do you think He is right now? The Holy Spirit indwells Believer's and guides us in all truth... not mere sinful men.

Eusebius and Augustine were just 2 who took Jesus' words the words spiritually.
It was only in the Lateran Council (1215) that the literal interpretation was declared as official dogma in the RCC.

 

[Kevin007]

Jesus' work on the Cross is eternal, meaning it is outside of time and perpetual. Although it occurred within the appointed time in our history, it's plan and consequences are eternal. Christ offered Himself once on the cross to destroy the power of eternal death, but His sacrifice is eternal.

When the faithful celebrate the Holy Eucharist, they do so in true remembrance, meaning they declare the eternal works of Christ done on the Cross and share in the witness of His life-giving resurrection. Not simply as a past time event and apart from our being and lives but in real re-membrance, that is, to become a member of this witness and event.

Christ died once in history for the love of the world, but we celebrate His resurrection every Lord's day, partaking of His very Body and Blood which He offers for the life of the world. This is what Christ directed, what the Apostles taught, and what the Church has continuously done since the very beginning. You calling it a mere symbol puts you outside this communion of faith.

yes, of course.. that is why He said it is FINISHED.

NIV- JOHN 19:30-

When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

 

[TER]

Originally Posted by TER View Post
The truth is erowe that you will find no one repudiate St. Ignatius until the fathers of Protestantism

How could you possibly know this?

This reminds me of your arrogant (read: not humble) insistence to someone here recently that not one single person until Muhammed ever thought of the idea that Jesus was replaced by someone else on the cross. It was obvious to the most casual observer that you had absolutely no business pretending to have the command of early Christian literature that would be required for someone to be warranted to make such a claim. And here you're making an even larger claim covering 15 centuries rather than just 6.

I am a lazy arrogant liar because I did not know the esoteric teachings of the Basilidians, a Gnostic Docetic heretical sect which doubted the real resurrection of the Lord and which were excommunicated from the Church from receiving the Holy Eucharist? There may be some sects which believe in the Easter Bunny, am I a lazy arrogant liar because I did not know that? But I refuse to fill my mind with garbage when there are plenty of writings by the Fathers of the Church which I have yet begin to read. When I said to Muhawid that no single person until Muhammed ever thought Jesus was replaced by someone else on the cross, that is what I knew, for nowhere did I ever read such a thing from the writings of the Church Fathers or the early Church. It was pointed out to me then that there existed an apocryphal book which could be twisted to allude such a thing. But then when examining it I found that it actually didn't, in fact, the Muslims have no ground to stand on in making such a claim because the Apocalypse of Peter DOES NOT say that another took Christ's place. Please review here for more explanation.

As for the Basilidians, apparently there was such a heretical group which taught such a thing. And the rich money this elitist heretic gave to the Church and his membership within it was justly returned and rescinded which is exactly how the Church has dealt with arch heretics distorting the faith of the Apostles.

I am not lazy because I did not read the teachings and beliefs of a heretical small sect by Basilides, rather, I spend my time trying to get through the teachings of the Church Fathers which the Church has declared to be beneficial and orthodox. You instead, go pick and choose here and there, whatever feels good in your mind, whatever justifies your positions and the church you have created (where you are the only church father) and deny the teachings of the Christian Saints. Which you do, repeatedly, including with St. Ignatius. Because you don't want to accept what St. Ignatius taught, you simply cast it away as 'innovative' and against the will of God. That is the lazy approach my friend, that is the arrogant and prideful approach to boot. The much more difficult way is to be obedient, to be humble, to accept that the Church has by the cumulative efforts of multitudes of Saints handed down the orthodox faith. Cafeteria Christianity is the lazy way, no matter how many books one has read. Filling the mind with information only to cater it to what YOUR mind thinks and seems logically right is the lazy way. The way of self-denial and of the cross is the much more difficult way. But blessed are those who walk in it, and in humility submit to the wisdom of the glorified saints above one's one vain thoughts.

How many of the extant Christian writings haven't even yet been translated into English?

Many, but by the grace of God every year more and more are getting translated, rich patristic writings from the Fathers of the Church, which proclaim the orthodox faith of the Church! The Orthodox Christian monasteries in America have been quite busy! Let us see how many more get translated which teach justification by faith alone, the Calvinistic heretical distortion of predestination, and the other beliefs you have put on your lunch tray.

How many other languages are they in? How's your Latin? Your Coptic? Your Syriac? Your Georgian? Your Armenian?

Those, and Greek as well, and what you will find in all those writings in all those languages the continued and universal affirmation of St. Ignatius' orthodoxy, for all of those are Apostolic Churches which consider him a saint and have Bishops and Priests and Deacons, proclaiming the heirarchy of the episcopy, witnessing to the Presence of the Lord in the Holy Eucharist, and teaching a faith extremely opposed to your religion in myriad ways (of course, you will pick and choose which looks good to your appetite so as to further conform them to your church). I unfortunately don't have time to learn Latin, Coptic, Syrian, Georgian, and Armenian, but I would wager a good sum with you that their beliefs (those of the Coptic, Syrian, etc) regarding ecclesiology and soteriology much more resembles mine than yours. And that is not because I am smarter than you, but because I depend on much smarter people than either of us to proclaim the apostolic faith. That is not lazy, that is acknowledging my unworthiness compared to the saints.

And then there are all the writings that are now lost.

It is quite ironic that the person who requires hard evidence and frequently uses the argument of silence to defend his personal beliefs now offers the notion that there may be some hidden writings somewhere which would prove him right. Don't hold your breath.

And then there are all the believers who never wrote anything. And then there's the problem of who to count of the people whose views we do know about. If I find someone, will you just dismiss them as a heretic on account of the very view I show them to have had? And if so, wouldn't that just mean you'd be practicing circular argument?

I will not dismiss them as a heretic unless the Church has done so. That is the fundamental difference between me and you. You are the Pope of your religion, choosing who is right, who is wrong, who is heretical and who is not. I am but a mere sinner, a member of the laity, who (not by laziness, but by the grace of God) can see how unworthy I am and how much I lack in wisdom and knowledge and the grace of the Holy Spirit compared to the giants of the faith whom you so easily toss aside as fools.

Learning more about the various heretical groups is not my area of interest. I have already too high a pile of books on my book shelf to read. My goal is to become a member of the Church which Christ has established and not to create my own. And that is not the easy way, that is the hard way. The much easier way, which is according to the spirit of these pluralistic and relativistic times, is designer Christianity and becoming the pope of my own church.

 

[Kevin007]

The Priesthood was done away with in the OT. ALL Believer's are priests.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. (1 Peter 2:9)

Believer's do have ONE HIGH Priest; Jesus.

 

[Kevin007]

Jesus (our Priest) intercedes for Believer's before God the Father-

(Hebrews 9:24)

For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.

Keep in mind that in the NT there is no mention of a priesthood separate from the laity
with the purpose of offering sacrifice for sin.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

this is not Biblical. As A BELIEVER; the Holy Spirit already indwells you. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not in you. Jesus is fully God, but fully MAN. Jesus is not in thousands of places at once- but the Holy Spirit is. Jesus is in Heaven. He has not returned to earth since Pentecost and will not be here again until the end of the 7 year Tribulation.

The Priesthood was done away with in the OT. ALL Believer's are priests.

Many Scholars believe it was figurative, including many Church Fathers. Even the RCC Catechism states that it was not talking literally.. (I will have to dig up the section/verse). Jesus is in Heaven Ter.. where do you think He is right now? The Holy Spirit indwells Believer's and guides us in all truth... not mere sinful men.

Eusebius and Augustine were just 2 who took Jesus' words the words spiritually.
It was only in the Lateran Council (1215) that the literal interpretation was declared as official dogma in the RCC.

this is not Biblical. As A BELIEVER; the Holy Spirit already indwells you. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not in you. Jesus is fully God, but fully MAN. Jesus is not in thousands of places at once- but the Holy Spirit is. Jesus is in Heaven. He has not returned to earth since Pentecost and will not be here again until the end of the 7 year Tribulation.

(This one deserves an extra comment-the EOC has always recognized that Jesus is fully God and fully man-and that claims to the contrary are heretical. This comment of yours is irrelevant.)

SMH...

 

[TER]

Kevin, the more you tell yourself something doesn't make it true. Your basic understanding of the faith is not according to the early Saints and Fathers of the Christian Church. You can't just separate the Church from history, you have to look at the history of the Church within the world. The Church did not disappear, it was contending in the world down those early centuries so as to hand down the Christian Creed which we today proclaim (and the books which they canonized by the Holy Spirit). Unless you demonstrate that your interpretations of the Holy Scriptures are correct by providing corollary quotes from the Father, then you disregard the lights God has created in the world in His glorified saints, that were not hidden under tables, but proclaimed and celebrated and memoralized even thousands of years later. Without the proofs that your interpretations are the ancient and orthodox interpretations, then your arguments are simply your own which you use for whatever reasons you have. But they do not make them historical or truthful.

Please read the lives and the works of the Saints who defended and passed down the faith through the early centuries of persecutions, and see that though many voices, there are certain dogmas of the faith and teachings of the Apostles which have been unified in witness in one body of believers, namely, the New Testament Church. This Church did not disappear. The Holy Spirit did not hide. The Body was not hidden in the world but spread throughout the world around one Cup the Holy Eucharist, sealed in communion by the very Body and Blood of Christ. You say you were a Catholic. Well, it seems you unfortunately had a bad experience. Do not turn against the Fathers of the Church and the collective witness of the Saints because of it.

 

[Kevin007]

Ter- about 1,000 years after Jesus, the RCC celebrated the Last Supper as a commemorative meal- not as a transubstantiation of bread and wine into flesh and blood.

 

[TER]

Pride comes before every fall. It did with Lucifer as well as Adam. In the desert, Satan came to tempt the Lord, using the demons of pride, avarice, and gluttony. These all together are the source of all sins and constitute the original sins of Adam. For he thought by disobeying the only Father he had, namely God, and eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would become as great as God. This on account of pride. By him ignoring the only Father he had and seeking the wisdom and power on his own terms and his own way, he succumbed to the demon of avarice. By not fasting and instead falling to temptation and eating what was not his to eat instead of having God his Father as his bread and living word, he succumbed to the demon of gluttony. Christ destroys all of Satan's temptations by overcoming those three very sins which are the mother of all sins and the ones which led Adam to fall. Likewise do we when we do battle with these passions which seek to destroy us.

Our commandment therefore is obedience, humility, and self control. Obedience to our Fathers, first with God and then those whom He has chosen, namely the Godbearing Saints. Next humility in recognizing that we are poor before God and that our riches do not come from material gain on our own terms, but by submitting ourselves before our Fathers, first with God and then in those whom He has filled by His Holy Spirit. Lastly, we are commanded to have self control in what we feed into our minds and our souls, staying away from those things that our Fathers have told us to fast from, first according to God and next to those whom He has ordained to feed His sheep.

Obedience, humility and self-control are the virtues which Christ has demonstrated empowers us over all the passions and reverses the power of Satan's temptations upon us. This means not picking and choosing against God what we want and what we think is best for us or what looks appetizing in our tempted minds, but listening to our Fathers who know better, first God our Father in Heaven, and next those Fathers which He has sanctified by His Holy Spirit and who do His will in order to guide us and protect us from corrupting our minds and distancing ourselves from Him. Christ has reversed the curse of Adam who ate what he shouldn't have, and offers now to us through mercy and love the true food of Heaven, the fruits of which are not only the Tree of Knowledge, but also the Tree of Life. But to eat this Holy Food requires obedience otherwise it does not bring life but judgment, and not communion of joy and wisdom, but rather fear and death. For if mishandling and disrespecting the Ark was a cause of judgment and death in the Old Covenant (something those who disrespect the Ark of the New Covenant, namely the Virgin Mary, should think long and hard on), how much more judgment upon those who disrespect and belittle the very Body and Blood of the Son of God? Likewise, while it is the fruit of disobedience which led to Adam's fall, it is the Fruit of Heaven which Christ offers Himself in humility, obedience and love which gives us life and communion with our Fathers, first with God and next to those He dwells in, namely the Church.