- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pope (emeritus) Benedict has died
Posted on 12/31/22 at 2:32 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 12/31/22 at 2:32 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The question I have for you is this: when Ignatius wrote to honor the bishop as God, was he talking about the bishop of Rome, or the bishop of Smyrna (Polycarp)? Rome, today, teaches that only the bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ and has preeminence. Would you support that claim from Ignatius' writings?
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force"
But I'm sure that has to be interpreted in some other way since interpreting it in the most obvious way doesn't support your position.
This post was edited on 12/31/22 at 2:33 pm
1
Posted on 12/31/22 at 2:36 pm to Stitches
quote:Got an example? Are you talking about "flesh" that I mentioned? Because I could link to you other writings of Ignatius where the word is translated as "flesh" and he's talking merely about a body, as we would use the word.
I'll give you one thing, you sure know how to read your beliefs into writings that were not interpreted the way you interpret them for over 1500 years.
Essentially, when an early church father uses a phrase to support the Catholic position, the writing must have a different meaning than the obvious. When the phrase supports the Protestant position, it means exactly what it says.
I think it's the Roman Catholics who read into those writings your own, later-developed understanding of the words.
Like I said, Protestants use "flesh and blood" or "body and blood" because the scriptures say as much. In this example, Ignatius did the same thing. The question isn't about the language but what was meant by the language, and I don't see anything Ignatius wrote that expressed a miraculous changing of the elements into the physical and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. Lutherans have a closer view to Catholics than other Protestants and they can say along with other Protestants that the words of Ignatius are true without saying that transubstantiation is true.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 2:43 pm to Stitches
quote:As I said, the view of church government evolved over time and it wasn't until a few hundred years after Christ that it looked remotely like what it does today regarding the Pope. One element of that evolution was the presidency of the bishop of Rome, yet that wasn't the same concept that Rome teaches today of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. The presidency was a "first among equals"-type of view due to Rome being the center of the empire and where Paul and others taught heavily.
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force"
But I'm sure that has to be interpreted in some other way since interpreting it in the most obvious way doesn't support your position.
My question was whether or not Ignatitus' specific words, "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father", was written to the church of Rome or the church of Smyrna? (it was to Smyrna, whose bishop was Polycarp). This statement alone should tell you that what Rome teaches today wasn't believed exactly the same way back then.
This post was edited on 12/31/22 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 12/31/22 at 2:45 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I don't see anything Ignatius wrote that expressed a miraculous changing of the elements into the physical and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ
"I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life."
Writing to the Christians of Smyrna in the same year, he warned them to "stand aloof from such heretics", because, among other reasons, "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."
The same exact flesh that suffered for our sins and was raised from the dead....
Doesn't get much plainer than that.
This post was edited on 12/31/22 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 12/31/22 at 2:47 pm to Godfather1
False prophet dead?
Good.
Good.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:02 pm to CoachDon
Who said popes were prophets, and how can a Christian delight in the death of another Christian?
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:19 pm to Stitches
quote:Did you read my previous post where I covered that? He was talking about the Gnostic heretics that denied that Jesus had a physical body and that He didn't actually suffer and die on the cross. His argument was that if Jesus didn't have a physical body (as the heretics maintained), then the Eucharist would be emptied of it's significance since the elements symbolize Jesus' physical body and blood that the Gnostics denied He had.
"I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life."
Writing to the Christians of Smyrna in the same year, he warned them to "stand aloof from such heretics", because, among other reasons, "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."
The same exact flesh that suffered for our sins and was raised from the dead....
Doesn't get much plainer than that.
Take some time to read the context. Here's a link to the letter so you can read it yourself. It's a short one.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:41 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:He never said to do it weekly. He never said to take it literally. It was never set up as a ritual by Jesus. It was never a communion. It was a reminder.
Volcanic Tiger knows better than him.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:44 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
He never said to do it weekly. He never said to take it literally. It was never set up as a ritual by Jesus. It was never a communion. It was a reminder.
The fact is that you are wrong. Historical fact proves you wrong.
LINK
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:45 pm to FooManChoo
Foo:
Historical fact proves you wrong. AGAIN! Doggone it, you are wrong a lot around here.
LINK
Historical fact proves you wrong. AGAIN! Doggone it, you are wrong a lot around here.
LINK
This post was edited on 12/31/22 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:45 pm to VolcanicTiger
He never said it was a snack either.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:46 pm to Champagne
quote:
The fact is that you are wrong. Historical fact proves you wrong.
lol catholic.com?!?!? I stand corrected!!
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:47 pm to Stitches
quote:
Doesn't get much plainer than that.
Foo ignores inconvenient facts.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:48 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:He barely referred to "it" at all. He said "whenever you drink of this cup or eat of this bread, remember me." Besides the OBVIOUS symbolism, what part of this makes it a ritual, as opposed to something to do every time you drank wine and ate bread, or any food or drink, for that matter?
He never said it was a snack either.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:49 pm to Champagne
quote:Maybe you haven't posted enough circular logic links to Pope Pedo the Philus's musings that prove he was right because he said he was right and is also right somewhere else because he said he was right.
Foo ignores inconvenient facts.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:52 pm to VolcanicTiger
Wait, is your position really that communion isn’t, and hasn’t historically been, a central tenet of Christian worship?
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:53 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
Maybe you haven't posted enough circular logic links to Pope Pedo the Philus's musings that prove he was right because he said he was right and is also right somewhere else because he said he was right.
Nope, Loudmouth Ignoramus, swing and a miss for you.
The clear historical record of facts proves that you and Foo are dead wrong on the Eucharist. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
But keep on preaching ignorance. You have that right.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:54 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
OBVIOUS symbolism
When a guy uses all caps, he's already lost the argument!
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:55 pm to Champagne
I love the Jesus “barely” said it comment.
Posted on 12/31/22 at 3:55 pm to Champagne
I also find it interesting that the most ancient Christian denominations (Catholicism and Orthodox) acknowledge the Real Presence in the Eucharist, yet it wasn't until the 16th century that people finally figured out that such a belief was unbiblical.
Page 5 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News