Posted on 05/16/2015 4:53:17 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
TRUE CHURCH and BIBLE
Catholic Church History Facts
When did the Church established by Jesus Christ get the name Catholic?
Christ left the adoption of a name for His Church to those whom he commissioned to teach all nations. Christ called the spiritual society He established, "My Church" (Mt. xvi, 18), "the Church" (Mt. xviii, 17).
In order to have a distinction between the Church and the Synagogue and to have a distinguishing name from those embracing Judaic and Gnostic errors we find St. Ignatius (50-107 AD) using the Greek word "Katholicos" (universal) to describe the universality of the Church established by Christ. St. Ignatius was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome. It is in his writings that we find the word Catholic used for the first time. St. Augustine, when speaking about the Church of Christ, calls it the Catholic Church 240 times in his writings.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of the Apostle John, concerning the heretics of his day wrote: "They have abstained from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ."
St. Justin Martyr, another Church Father of the second century wrote: "This food is known among us as the Eucharist... We do not receive these things as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior, being made flesh by the Word of God."
(Excerpt) Read more at marianland.com ...
Read my tagline.
Just to make a record of issues related to the questionable books of Ignatius for the sake of a record and resource link on FR.
At the following link, anyone interested will see an analysis of more than any human might want to know about the issues surrounding the supposed letters of ignatius:
http://vridar.org/other-authors/roger-parvus-letters-supposedly-written-by-ignatius/
As a [very, very] short summary, here are just a few issues that remain unresolved about these writings...
Existence of a number of false letters
Existence of multiple versions of most letters
The original date before alteration is uncertain
Clearly the letters were modified, but we do not know by who or when or how many times
Lack of a Second Century witness to an Ignatius of Antioch
The historical likelihood that there was no actual Ignatius.
I will stop there. As I mentioned, the link has a twelve part series exploring deeply the problems, the author, the unusual beliefs, etc.
cc: daniel1212 - this link seems up your alley...
“Your version of events hangs on the thin reed of the papal claims,”
The story of Rome...
“You don’t know; but are NOT above judging his work.”
I have read much of Schaff’s work. I know that he often is very careful in his scholarship, but he also made serious mistakes. It’s just that simple. I bet I have read much more of his work than you have.
“Yes, but there is a difference between “help” and authoritatively.”
Again, you never did any manuscript studies of any sort did you? Paleography? Philology? Anything at all?
Ignatius - as scholars agree - existed and wrote the letters previously mentioned. You’ll just have to deal with that.
I should like to know a little more about the eastern Orthodox way of life and it’s doctrines. I get the impression that Eastern Orthodox beliefs are closer to what was being taught say at 500AD after the split vs the changes that western Catholicism made thru the years. There isn’t a lot of “Orthodox” bashing (or gnashing of teeth depending on the point of view) on FR the way Catholics and Protestants go at it. The Orthodox seem to be treated like everyone’s dotty old aunt;everyone agrees she is sweet and quiet, just a little off but she does not do any real harm, being “Meek and Lowly”(I read about a man who said that once, Jesus I think it was) and all that...(it’s “being above the fray” that makes me most curious about the orthodox way)
APU, a wonderful find. I had been looking for something similar a few weeks ago. Thanks so much for posting. I had never doubted the validity of the seven supposedly authenticated Ignatian epistles, but recently ran across the Schaff quote, and it struck me with some force how well it explained some of the more lonesome and anachronistic positions of those letters.
But again, thanks for these articles. I look forward to reading them.
Peace,
SR
Vlad, I commend the link to you. If you are not interested, it is there for others.
Best
SR
I should’ve pinged you, knowing your interest and keen mind. My only excuse is that I was hurrying to get out the door. Glad you spotted the post!
The author concludes there was no Ignatius, but that the evidence indicates a different person, which ties up many of the troubling aspects concerning the letters supposedly written by “Ignatius.”
It is well done and worth reading for any seeker of truth.
“Ignatius - as scholars agree - existed and wrote the letters previously mentioned. You’ll just have to deal with that.”
Enough contradictory evidence exists that your claim is the equivalent to the “settled science of man-made global warming.”
The link takes a very deep dive into those issues. I’m dealing with it.
**Any historical documentation that shows the Catholic Church to be the one true church is immediately discredited and slammed by the usual Catholic bashers on FR. Same story, different day.**
The only historical documentation is the Bible that your organization claims to have preserved. All other documentation cannot add, delete, or change the doctine, or it is proven false.
Peter didn’t preach the ‘eucharist’ in Acts 2:38,39. He didn’t preach it in Samaria in Acts 8. He didn’t preach it in Acts 10. He didn’t preach it in his epistles.
If the ‘eucharist’ is literal and is eaten for eternal life, then Peter’s words in Acts 2:38,39 are total vanity.
But no, trot out the ‘church fathers’.
**Same story, different day.**
**as scholars agree**
Well that settles it.
Just like all the experts on global warming.
“Enough contradictory evidence exists that your claim is the equivalent to the “settled science of man-made global warming.””
No.
“The link takes a very deep dive into those issues. I’m dealing with it.”
The material you’re linking to is written by a man who seriously thinks Paul’s letters are actually the work of Simon of Samaria and then were reworked by a cabal of “proto-orthodox” Christians. I can’t take Roger Parvus’ work seriously - and neither should you.
Why accept it??? It's not true...
Many of his disciples left him because they believed he was speaking literal even though he told them the flesh profited nothing.
It's been pointed out numerous times why they left...And it wasn't because of the flesh and blood scriptures...
I also can see the Catholic`s view point on some other issues.
They are not the church Jesus founded...Their religion is built on human philosopy, not the scriptures...I don't see how any one can see their point of view on anything Christian wise...
You sit down Jim Jones, Joel Osteen and your pope and stick a bible in front of them, it's easy to see that Jim and Joel are far closer to what the scriptures teach than your pope...We can even throw Jimmy Swaggart in the mix for fun...
“The righteous life of Christ has been credited to my account, the record of debt standing against me having been nailed to the cross.
Salvation is by faith in Christ, and even if we are judged by our deeds, since I have Christ’s righteous credited to my account, that’s what God sees, so I don’t need to have my own, which are not really righteous in the first place.”
This.
So when Schaff disagrees with your religion, it's a serious mistake...
One Church, One Truth, One Faith for ALL times. The rest is heresy. Shallow Protestantism does rains down quotes of scripture with no clue to their coherent meaning.
From Dr. A. David Anders, who was born, raised and educated, as an Evangelical Protestant and studied Wheaton College. He set out deliberately to show why Catholicism was wrong. He ended up a Catholic convert. Here’s a summary for the shallow followers of this heresy.
PROTESTANTISM: A CONFUSED MASS OF INCONSISTENCIES
AND TORTURED LOGIC
“By the time I finished my Ph.D., I had completely revised my understanding of the Catholic Church. I saw that her sacramental doctrine, her view of salvation, her veneration of Mary and the saints, and her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture, in the oldest traditions, and in the plain teaching of Christ and the apostles.
I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged.
The more I studied, the more I realized that my evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.”
I would attribute the evils of the world to Satan and man's ignorance of God's Word.
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.