Posted on 06/07/2006 8:12:05 PM PDT by Petrosius
" Why is his Eucharistic theology more powerful than SCRIPTURE?"
As has been discussed ad nauseam on other threads, the canon of the NT was not fixed until the late 4th century and it was fixed by The Church. In other words, the NT is a product of The Church and not the other way round. The Eucharistic theology of +Ignatius of Antioch expresses the belief of The Church in the earliest days and its belief today as to the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession and in fact its ecclesiology. It expresses the faith of The Church at the time The Church determined what was "in" and what wasn't in the canon. The canon of the NT which you use, with some deletions of works which Luther found "inconvenient" to his rebellion, is a product of The Church (interestingly, the OT you use, the so called Hebrew canon, didn't even exist when Christ preached. The "scriptures" refered to in the NT are the LXX). It never ceases to amaze me how so many Protestants have what appears to be a thoroughly heretical, Mohammaden view of scripture, namely that God in some fashion dictated the NT or the OT word for word and that they, rather than The Church, were given the power to correctly interpret it without reference to what The Church always and everywhere believed. No wonder the likes of that heresiarch Griswold, the "Presiding Bishop" of ECUSA talks about "pluriform truths".
"BTW, that's a pretty neat story that he was the child on JESUS'S lap. Is there any real evidence of this, or is it another story that has been passed on orally."
I doubt there is any evidence as such. So far as I know its a story which has been repeated throughout the centuries. Maybe its true, maybe it isn't. It is a neat story though.
The New Testament is a product of the Holy Spirit. All the Catholic church did was compile the writings that had been used by the churches for almost 300 years.
"BTW, that's a pretty neat story that he was the child on JESUS'S lap. Is there any real evidence of this, or is it another story that has been passed on orally."
I doubt there is any evidence as such. So far as I know its a story which has been repeated throughout the centuries. Maybe its true, maybe it isn't. It is a neat story though.
_____________________________________
Tenn 2005 posted the time lines a little bit earlier, but I do appreciate your integrity to so quickly state that you didn't know if it was accurate or not. As to the rest of the post I'll have to get back to you. My son wants to use the computer.
"The New Testament is a product of the Holy Spirit. All the Catholic church did was compile the writings that had been used by the churches for almost 300 years."
T, there were a lot of those writings. I don't doubt that the HS inspired the selection. Do you think the HS hadn't been keeping The Church in line theologically for the previous 300+ years? Had he gone off to China, or Utah? Of course not. The Holy Tradition, what The Church always and everywhere believed had been safeguarded by the HS and thus became an accurate measuring stick for the canon. Its really pretty clear, T. The theology you espouse, even the canons you read, were products of the men of the Reformation, 1500 years after Pentecost.
How can you be sure that it I whom the Holy Spirit is failing and not you? And why would the Holy Spirit abandon me, the entire Church for 1500 years and the billion+ Catholics in the Church today?
And who said that St. Ignatius' Eucharistic theology is more powerful than Scripture? Kolokotronis and I hold the St. Ignatius is in complete harmony with Scripture. You are assuming a contradiction without proving it.
And we are to assume that an obscure monk in the backwaters of Germany in the Middle Ages 1500 years after the fact had a better understanding of the true gospel than the entire Church why?
I have shown you that our Lord only gave the command to the apostles and not to all his disciples. I am still waiting for you to provide Scripture that says any Christian believer can celebrate the Lord's Supper or are you unable to do so?
And how do you know that they did change rather than what St. Ignatius wrote being a true reflection of the what the Church believed from the beginning?
During the period the Apostles lived decisions were made as a group after praying for guidance.
If you look at Acts you will see that the dispute over circumcism was not settle by the congregation at Antioch but rather that they sent a delegation to see the apostle and priests in Jerusalem for a decision.
1 And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved.Thus we clearly see that it was assembled hierarchy, and not the general congregation, that settled the matter.
2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question.4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and priests, declaring how great things God had done with them.
6 And the apostles and priests assembled to consider the matter.
I suppose it is a typical human failing to want to "control" everything including outcomes.
It is, which is why some would seek to deny the proper authority granted by God to apostle and the bishops as their successors and seek gain power for themselves.
And how do you know this? As Claud has admirably shown:
1) The distinction between Petros and petras did not exist in Koine Greek, which is the language of the New Testament, as opposed to Attic Greek which was already at that time an ancient language;The grammar, despite your desire to the contrary, clearly shows that our Lord was indeed referring to Peter as the rock upon which he would build his Church.2) the presence of taute as a modifyer of petras shows that it refers back to Petros;
3) that in any case John 1:42 shows that Petros is a translation of Kepha, this being the actual name that our Lord used in the passage and which can only mean 'Rock'.
"It is, which is why some would seek to deny the proper authority granted by God to apostle and the bishops as their successors and seek gain power for themselves."
Reminds me of a patristic text, P, from +John Chrysostomos:
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies."
I believe that here we have the case of a difference in the use of terms. In Catholic usage evangelists refers only to the writers of one of the four gospels (in Greek euangelion, and in Latin evangelium). Beyond this misunderstanding however, how, in your mind, would Timothy's and Titus' office of evangelist differ from that of bishop which Paul describes?
It is interesting to notice that you and the Catholic Church, in their own version of the Bible, have changed the word eldership to priesthood
And where do you think the term 'priest' comes from? It is a corruption of the Latin word 'presbyter', in Greek presbuteros, meaning elder. If we were discussing this in either Latin or Greek we could not have this dispute over the name of the office. It was the reformers who changed the translation from the traditional 'priest' to 'elder' to mask the relation to the modern priesthood.
Take a look at Eph. 4:11. This is a listing of the offices in the New Testament church. You will see that an Evangelist is a different office from that of Pastor.
Now look at Acts 12:8 where Philip is expressly referred to as an Evangelist. Philip did not write a Gospel.
Now look at II Tim 4:5 where Paul specifically instructs Timothy do do the work of an Evangelist.
Evangelist is an office in and of itself separate from the other offices in the NT church. Timothy and Titus were Evangelist reporting to the Apostle Paul. Phillip probably reported to Peter but that cannot be proven.
It was the reformers who changed the translation from the traditional 'priest' to 'elder' to mask the relation to the modern priesthood.
That would be incorrect. The NT was written in Koine Greek. The word presbuterios is nowhere in Greek literature translated as Priest. It is always tranlated as Elder. Check it out for yourself in Thayers Greek Lexicon. I agree that the word Priest is a corruption of the Greek, but it is the Catholic church that has currupted it.
I gave you in my last post but just in case you missed it look at Acts 20:7. In addition, the Lord's Supper is part of the Apostles Doctrine, as given to them by Jesus Himself, and the first century church celebrated it before there was any other offices other than that of Apostle (Acts 2:42).
I have now given you two scriptures. Can't you find even one to support your possition.
If you believe what "Claud has admirably shown", then please explain Eph 2:19-20
The Holy Spirit hasn't abandoned anyone. It is the Catholic church an the adhearents to it's false doctrine that have abandoned the Holy Spirit and His teachings.
In any case Paul clearly shows these three offices which were given from above and not generated by the assemblies. Under which bishop do you operated? Remember that his office must be grant by those who held authority before him.
As for the term 'priest', unfortunately in English we have the conjunction of two ideas. Originally, as was stated above, 'priest' meant 'presbyter', i.e. an elder of the Christian Church and was not directly related to a sacrificial office. In Latin such a sacrificial officer, such as at the Temple, would be termed sacerdos. Thus we see the priest in parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:31 being called sacerdos in the Latin Vulgate. The Catholic Church has always used the term presbyter for the ordained priesthood. In England this was corrupted by popular speech, not by the Catholic Church, into 'priest'. When the Bible was translated into English this was naturally the term that was used to translate presbyter. The confusion, and only in English, arises that since the Middle Ages the only familiarity that the people had with a sacrificing official was the Catholic priest/presbyter and the sacrifice of the Mass. This term was then taken in English to be used for all such sacrificing officers. Again, if we were having this discussion in Latin or Greek we would not be having this silly argument.
No. That would be the Apostles and Elders. Why do you insist in currupting the Koine Greek?
Again, Acts 20:7 does not show that any layman can celebrate the Lord's Supper, only that the Christians gathered together on Sunday for its celebration. It does not mention who lead the celebration.
As for the Eucharist being a part of the instruction given to the Apostles, that is what I said. But it was only given to the Apostles, not to all of the disciples. The Apostles could celebrate the Eucharist because of our Lord's command. Show me where anyone else can?
Priest=presbyter=elder. These terms mean one and the same thing but if you wish we can use the term 'presbyter' which applies to the Catholic priest and is the term used in Latin.
BTW, the word is 'corrupting'. Why do you insist on corrupting the English language with 'currupting'? : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.