Catholics Visiting The Baptist Forum Part 2

[37818]

St. Justin Martyr preached it in the 2nd century. So we see that the ECF's from the 4th century I quoted kept the belief intact.

St. Justin Martyr wrote:

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

So here in the 2nd century we see St. Justin Martyr confirming the continuing teaching of this truth by the words "so we also have been taught...….is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus".

I mean come on folks, the evidence of this teaching from the earliest days is unimpeachable.

Second century.

In the first century there were alread false teachings. 2 Corinthians 11, Galatians 1, 2 Peter 2, 1 John 4.

 

[robycop3]

I still say that the RCC is a mix of the commands of God with the traditions & ordinances of man, & is therefore disobeying Jesus' admonition to obey God's ordinances only, & also the laws of the government of man, long as they don't clash with GOD'S law.

 

[37818]

I still say that the RCC is a mix of the commands of God with the traditions & ordinances of man, & is therefore disobeying Jesus' admonition to obey God's ordinances only, & also the laws of the government of man, long as they don't clash with GOD'S law.

One's understanding of what you said, may vary.

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

 

[MarysSon]

To your second point. The church has always been established on Christ alone. This is why the scriptures are our guide, not the teachings of a State Controlled Church.
The Church at Rome, having slept with the harlot of the Roman Empire quickly became apostate and illegitimate as a light for Christ and His body. Like Corinth, it is a catastrophe. When a Catholic studies God's word and questions the Church as the Bereans questioned Paul, that person leaves the Roman Catholic Church. We have many former Catholics at my church who weep over their lost loved ones who call themselves Catholics, but know nothing of God's mercy and grace.
So, yes, the early church was much, much, closer to Baptists than to Rome.

That's funny.

When I read the Early Church Fathers - nothing could be further from the truth. The following was written by a student of the Apostle John - while John was still presumably ALIVE.

Tell me - does this sound like the Baptist church - or the Catholic Church??

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

 

[MarysSon]

The major error is that Roman Catholics are taught that the sacraments (of which communion and baptism are two) impart grace upon the recipient.
Of course there is no such teaching in the Bible. In order for grace to be grace, meritorious works cannot be the cause that effects God to action. Grace must be unmerited favor.

This is just ignorant nonsense.

You would have to completely ignore Scripture to make this kind of Scripturally-bankrupt statement.
Time for a Bible lesson . . .

In The Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 - Jesus tells His followers that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. He goes on to tell them WHY:
John 6:53-58
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”


As for Baptism . . .

Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

Col 2:12-13
You were buried with him in BAPTISM, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And even when you were dead in transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.

This is the very ESSENCE of God's grace - yet YOU claim it imparts nothing.
Stop ignorantly quoting the Bible until you LEARN what it means . . .

 

[robycop3]

One's understanding of what you said, may vary.

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

Mo was God's intermediary to pass His law from Himself to Israel.

 

[37818]

That's funny.

When I read the Early Church Fathers - nothing could be further from the truth. The following was written by a student of the Apostle John - while John was still presumably ALIVE.

Tell me - does this sound like the Baptist church - or the Catholic Church??

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Well, what is the evidence that letter ascribed to Ignatius of Antioch was actually written by him?

 

[Particular]

That's funny.

When I read the Early Church Fathers - nothing could be further from the truth. The following was written by a student of the Apostle John - while John was still presumably ALIVE.

Tell me - does this sound like the Baptist church - or the Catholic Church??

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

We possess no pure manuscript of the original corpus, for in the fourth century the letters were interpolated and six additional ones added (Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius; Ignatius to Mary, to the Tarsians, Philippians, Antiochenes, and to Hero, deacon of Antioch). The aim of these forgeries was to gain for a diluted form of Arianism the authority of a primitive martyr. Finally, in the Middle Ages—perhaps around the twelfth century, which saw a new development of the cult of the Virgin—a correspondence between Ignatius and Mary, as well as two letters of Ignatius to John, was fabricated in the West.

The greater part of the extant manuscripts contains the seven interpolated letters along with five or six of the spurious ones, 82some of the Latin versions adding the medieval forgeries. The first edition of the Latin was by J. Faber Stapulensis (Lefèvre d’Étaples), Paris, 1498, and of the Greek by Valentinus Paceas, Dillingae, 1557.
Cyril C. Richardson: Early Christian Fathers - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Particular]

This is just ignorant nonsense.

You would have to completely ignore Scripture to make this kind of Scripturally-bankrupt statement.
Time for a Bible lesson . . .

In The Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 - Jesus tells His followers that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. He goes on to tell them WHY:
John 6:53-58
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”


As for Baptism . . .

Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

Col 2:12-13
You were buried with him in BAPTISM, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And even when you were dead in transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.

This is the very ESSENCE of God's grace - yet YOU claim it imparts nothing.
Stop ignorantly quoting the Bible until you LEARN what it means . . .

No person, including Jesus, thought Jesus was speaking literally. If Jesus were being literal he would be advocating for cannibalism, which is anathema to God and his law.

 

[MarysSon]

No person, including Jesus, thought Jesus was speaking literally. If Jesus were being literal he would be advocating for cannibalism, which is anathema to God and his law.

More nonsense.

Jesus was speaking to them sacramentally. They, in their limited human thinking, thought that He was telling them that they needed to start eating Him – skin, muscle and bones. That is NOT what He was trying to convey to them but their hearts and minds were closed just as YOURS are.

This is why He said, "It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63).

Jesus didn’t say. “What I’m telling you is just symbolic; MY flesh profits nothing.”

HIS flesh profits us everything because He is the perfect sacrifice before the Father.

He was telling those that refused to believe Him, “What I’m telling you IS spirit and life; your fleshly human thinking will get you nowhere.”

At the Last Supper - He showed the Apostles HOW to consume Him sacramentally - not cannibalistically.

 

[MarysSon]

Well, what is the evidence that letter ascribed to Ignatius of Antioch was actually written by him?

We possess no pure manuscript of the original corpus, for in the fourth century the letters were interpolated and six additional ones added (Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius; Ignatius to Mary, to the Tarsians, Philippians, Antiochenes, and to Hero, deacon of Antioch). The aim of these forgeries was to gain for a diluted form of Arianism the authority of a primitive martyr. Finally, in the Middle Ages—perhaps around the twelfth century, which saw a new development of the cult of the Virgin—a correspondence between Ignatius and Mary, as well as two letters of Ignatius to John, was fabricated in the West.

The greater part of the extant manuscripts contains the seven interpolated letters along with five or six of the spurious ones, 82some of the Latin versions adding the medieval forgeries. The first edition of the Latin was by J. Faber Stapulensis (Lefèvre d’Étaples), Paris, 1498, and of the Greek by Valentinus Paceas, Dillingae, 1557.
Cyril C. Richardson: Early Christian Fathers - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Yup - the last refuge of the TRULY desperate.
Simply write off the Letters of Ignatius as "forgeries" when you can't argue their doctrinal content.

The problem here is that you have Early Church Fathers for the next 500 years saying essentially the SAME things Ignatius did - and many other Catholic teachings.
Are they ALL forgeries - or is it simply a case of "I refuse to believe that"??

 

[Particular]

More nonsense.

Jesus was speaking to them sacramentally. They, in their limited human thinking, thought that He was telling them that they needed to start eating Him – skin, muscle and bones. That is NOT what He was trying to convey to them but their hearts and minds were closed just as YOURS are.

This is why He said, "It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63).

Jesus didn’t say. “What I’m telling you is just symbolic; MY flesh profits nothing.”

HIS flesh profits us everything because He is the perfect sacrifice before the Father.

He was telling those that refused to believe Him, “What I’m telling you IS spirit and life; your fleshly human thinking will get you nowhere.”

At the Last Supper - He showed the Apostles HOW to consume Him sacramentally - not cannibalistically.

It seems you think your alchemy interpretation is accurate. I call your view nonsense.

 

[Particular]

Yup - the last refuge of the TRULY desperate.
Simply write off the Letters of Ignatius as "forgeries" when you can't argue their doctrinal content.

The problem here is that you have Early Church Fathers for the next 500 years saying essentially the SAME things Ignatius did - and many other Catholic teachings.
Are they ALL forgeries - or is it simply a case of "I refuse to believe that"??

It's called textual criticism. We do this with all texts of antiquity. You were being disingenuous by implying the extant documents were from the early 2nd century when in fact they are much later. Thus the integrity of your quote is in serious question.

 

[37818]

Yup - the last refuge of the TRULY desperate.
Simply write off the Letters of Ignatius as "forgeries" when you can't argue their doctrinal content.

The problem here is that you have Early Church Fathers for the next 500 years saying essentially the SAME things Ignatius did - and many other Catholic teachings.
Are they ALL forgeries - or is it simply a case of "I refuse to believe that"??

I asked for evidence. None was presented. Either there is reason to believe there is an early 2nd century for something attributed to Ignatius, or there is as is my understanding nothing earlier than the 3rd century.

 

[Walpole]

No person, including Jesus, thought Jesus was speaking literally. If Jesus were being literal he would be advocating for cannibalism, which is anathema to God and his law.

If Jesus was not speaking literally, He would be advocating symbolic cannibalism.

 

[Particular]

More nonsense.

Jesus was speaking to them sacramentally. They, in their limited human thinking, thought that He was telling them that they needed to start eating Him – skin, muscle and bones. That is NOT what He was trying to convey to them but their hearts and minds were closed just as YOURS are.

This is why He said, "It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63).

Jesus didn’t say. “What I’m telling you is just symbolic; MY flesh profits nothing.”

HIS flesh profits us everything because He is the perfect sacrifice before the Father.

He was telling those that refused to believe Him, “What I’m telling you IS spirit and life; your fleshly human thinking will get you nowhere.”

At the Last Supper - He showed the Apostles HOW to consume Him sacramentally - not cannibalistically.

Your mysticism is showing, turning Jesus flesh and blood into some magic elixir.

 

[Particular]

If Jesus was not speaking literally, He would be advocating symbolic cannibalism.

Nope.
He would be using a metaphor and connecting himself as the Passover Lamb in the Seder meal.

 

[MarysSon]

Your mysticism is showing, turning Jesus flesh and blood into some magic elixir.

Nothing "magical" about the power of God.

With God ALL things are possible (Matt. 19:26).

 

[MarysSon]

I asked for evidence. None was presented. Either there is reason to believe there is an early 2nd century for something attributed to Ignatius, or there is as is my understanding nothing earlier than the 3rd century.

I don't need to disprove a negative.
The onus is on YOU to prove that the Letters of Ignatius were false.

This is Debating 101 . . .

 

[MarysSon]

It seems you think your alchemy interpretation is accurate. I call your view nonsense.

Of course you do.
To agree with me would mean leaving your sect and becoming Catholic.