Posted on 11/27/2006 6:58:00 PM PST by Ottofire
Exodus 12:11 And thus shall ye eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste....it is the LORD'S passover.
Loins girded does not mean standing up. It means simply to have your robe tucked into your belt to enable you to move quickly. It does say to have your shoes on and your staff in your hand....but standing up?????
Douay-Rheims...."And thus you shall eat it: you shall gird your reins, and you shall have shoes on your feet, holding staves in your hands, and you shall eat in haste: for it is the Phase (that is the Passage) of the Lord."
Hi old friend....how have you been? Haven't I converted you yet? You have not been paying attention! LOL
Only Jewish men were circumcised. What about the women? And let's be clear, circumcision has never gotten any Jew a pass into heaven, and thus neither has baptism. Hell is filled with circumcised and uncircumcised, baptized and unbaptized alike. Paul states clearly in Romans 4:9-11 that the "blessedness of the faith of Abraham" came before he was circumcised. Thus he "believed the word of God" and then was "circumcised" as a "sign" and a "seal" of that which he received before he was circumcised. Abraham "believed and was circumcised". And thus we who believe the "Gospel that was preached before to Abraham" are to follow suit and "believe and be baptized".
But let's look further at those who perished in the wilderness of Sin[ai]. Paul in Corinthians says that all of those circumcised men "were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did eat the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink." [I Corinthians 1-4]. In addition to circumcision, they were baptized and had their holy communion of bread and drink, and yet what happened to them? "With many of them God was not well pleased for they were overthrown in the wilderness".
Their traditions did not get them to where they wanted to go. They had their sacraments of circumcision, baptism, holy communion, and the Scriptures at their disposal in the ark, but they all died without entering the promised land.
Paul goes on to say: "Now these things happened unto them for examples and they are WRITTEN for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages is come."[10:11]
Later in Hebrews Chapter 3 and 4 Paul identifies what kept them from entering into that land which God had promised first in spoken word and affirmed in the permanent written record in the Ark of the Covenant. It was their "evil heart of UNBELIEF" [Hebrews 3:12]. They had all the sacraments that they were doing on a regular basis, but the most important thing was the Word of God in their midst which they refused to believe.
Forty years later a generation of the uncircumcised and without those sacraments in the wilderness entered into the Land of Promise because they believed the Word of God and acted on it.
So I ask you. Which is more important to getting one into the land of God's promise: the sacraments that didn't get the circumcised children of Israel out of the wilderness or the belief in the Word of God that did as "It Is Written"?
Well, now we are discussing something totally different. "Being saved" does not mean one will enter heaven. Thus, some Jews who were circumcised refused to obey God's will, and some Catholics who were baptized refused to obey God's will - and both were cast out of the Kingdom. However, in both cases, entrance into the Kingdom, into the People of God, was by these respective rites. In both cases, they were performed on even infants as parents stood in proxy for the children's faith.
Their traditions did not get them to where they wanted to go. They had their sacraments of circumcision, baptism, holy communion, and the Scriptures at their disposal in the ark, but they all died without entering the promised land.
We were not speaking about the effectiveness of their traditions, but rather, "were they legitimate"? A given tradition or devotion does NOT guarantee heaven. The purpose of a tradition is supposed to be to move the mind of the believer towards Christ. IF that tradition does not have that as an intention, then it is a false one. I have already given you an example - Korban. Jesus does not condemn all traditions, just those like Korban. As in all things, we shouldn't condemn a legitimate tradition because it is not 100% effective in all cases. For some people, the rosary is a truly effective devotional tradition. Do I have to do it to be saved? No. But for some people it works. And that is the proper useage of the word "tradition". In this case, it is moving the person to God, so it is valid and shouldn't be condemned.
Paul goes on to say: "Now these things happened unto them for examples and they are WRITTEN for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages is come."
Yes, and I agree that Hebrews 3,4 say the same thing. That just because one "accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior" didn't guarantee eternal salvation. That is Catholic theology. Certainly, we are saved - healed - through the waters of regeneration. But the verses you posted clearly show that a believer can fall away or can choose to not continue in the Lord. Not sure what your point is here, because on this matter, we agree.
Forty years later a generation of the uncircumcised and without those sacraments in the wilderness entered into the Land of Promise because they believed the Word of God and acted on it.
Oh, but they DID have the SAME sacraments! God punished those who refused to believe. But the same rituals were practiced by those leaving Egypt as by those born in the desert and survived the trek through the desert to the Promised Land. The difference was that the former Jews did not choose to trust in God, despite the aid they received from these sacraments, while the others DID trust in God.
Which is more important to getting one into the land of God's promise: the sacraments that didn't get the circumcised children of Israel out of the wilderness or the belief in the Word of God that did as "It Is Written"?
Neither. It is man's response to God that is important. The tools, whether sacraments or the scriptures, are merely tools to aid man to come into communion with God. You are worshiping the tools, rather than God Himself.
Regards
I remember reading the "standing up" part somewhere, but I can't remember where. For the time being, I will accept your answer until I have time to look this one up!
Hi old friend....how have you been? Haven't I converted you yet? You have not been paying attention! LOL
How are you? Hope all is well with you. I admit I haven't been here much lately - been spreading the Gospel at other sites lately.
Take care, Joe
Loins girded does not mean standing up. It means simply to have your robe tucked into your belt to enable you to move quickly. It does say to have your shoes on and your staff in your hand....but standing up?????
"Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Eph 6:14-15
Whether speaking metaphorically or literally, as preparing for a journey, Ex 12:11 gives the impression that one is standing, not sitting and reclining at table. That is not the posture one takes when eating in haste and ready to go out the door.
I'll see if I can find more later.
Regards
Let's use Paul's terminology: they refused to believe God's Word and obey it.
and both were cast out of the Kingdom.
No, they never entered into it because of their unbelief and subsequent disobedience to God's Word.
However, in both cases, entrance into the Kingdom, into the People of God, was by these respective rites.
No read Paul again: "Belief aka Faith" followed by circumcision, baptism, obedience, whatever, and then continuing to believe and obey the Word of God. It wasn't just a one time event, but a continuity of belief in God's Word that started at that one time event.
In both cases, they were performed on even infants as parents stood in proxy for the children's faith.
The first circumcision was on Abraham after he believed God's Word. While infants were circumcised, any grown non-Israelite or sojourner who wanted to be part of the commonwealth of Israel could do so by choosing to be circumcised. In those cases circumcision followed a decision to be part of the faith of the God of Israel.
We were not speaking about the effectiveness of their traditions, but rather, "were they legitimate"? A given tradition or devotion does NOT guarantee heaven. The purpose of a tradition is supposed to be to move the mind of the believer towards Christ. IF that tradition does not have that as an intention, then it is a false one.
But that is not what the RCC teaches. It says that the "grace necessary for eternal life" is imparted through the sacraments, right?
I have already given you an example - Korban. Jesus does not condemn all traditions, just those like Korban.
Jesus is perfectly clear. The tradition of Korban, like many of your sacramental traditions, made the Word of God of no effect.
As in all things, we shouldn't condemn a legitimate tradition because it is not 100% effective in all cases.
The traditions that reinforce the meaning of the Word of God are definitely good, like standing while reading the Scriptures in our churches, but sitting while they are preached about. But any tradition that replaces or mocks the truth of Scripture, like the teaching that infant baptism remits original or any other kind of sin, should be set aside.
For some people, the rosary is a truly effective devotional tradition. Do I have to do it to be saved? No. But for some people it works. And that is the proper useage of the word "tradition".
Sure it is for Buddhists and Muslims from whom that tradition came, but not for Christians who take their faith seriously.
In this case, it is moving the person to God, so it is valid and shouldn't be condemned.
Sure, closer to Buddha and to Allah and others honored by such pagan repetitions, but not the God of the Holy Scriptures.
Yes, and I agree that Hebrews 3,4 say the same thing. That just because one "accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior" didn't guarantee eternal salvation. That is Catholic theology. Certainly, we are saved - healed - through the waters of regeneration.
You mean "born again by the incorruptible Word of God"
But the verses you posted clearly show that a believer can fall away or can choose to not continue in the Lord. Not sure what your point is here, because on this matter, we agree.
40 posts and we finally find something to agree upon?
Forty years later a generation of the uncircumcised and without those sacraments in the wilderness entered into the Land of Promise because they believed the Word of God and acted on it.
Oh, but they DID have the SAME sacraments! God punished those who refused to believe. But the same rituals were practiced by those leaving Egypt as by those born in the desert and survived the trek through the desert to the Promised Land. The difference was that the former Jews did not choose to trust in God, despite the aid they received from these sacraments, while the others DID trust in God.
No. Read what the Scriptures teach. The generation that followed Joshua into the Promised Land had not been circumcised and the sacrament of manna ended in the wilderness before they entered the land.
Which is more important to getting one into the land of God's promise: the sacraments that didn't get the circumcised children of Israel out of the wilderness or the belief in the Word of God that did as "It Is Written"?
Neither. It is man's response to God that is important. The tools, whether sacraments or the scriptures, are merely tools to aid man to come into communion with God. You are worshiping the tools, rather than God Himself.
That's not true. What did Paul say was the reason that they entered not into God's rest?
Well.....I don't think we're talking here about eating the Passover. But, you're right.....it would be easier to gird up your loins standing up. I guess you could then sit down...it might be uncomfortable with all that robe tucked in your belt.
I think a better choice of words for Ephesians may be to "Take a Stand".....make a decision as it were. Ephesians 6:14
There, although, is still no Biblical command (Old Testament) to eat the Passover standing up.....unless you are in a chariot.....going through a "Drive Thru"!
I wrote: We were not speaking about the effectiveness of their traditions, but rather, "were they legitimate"? A given tradition or devotion does NOT guarantee heaven. The purpose of a tradition is supposed to be to move the mind of the believer towards Christ. IF that tradition does not have that as an intention, then it is a false one.
You responded: But that is not what the RCC teaches. It says that the "grace necessary for eternal life" is imparted through the sacraments, right?
Yes, but it is not limited to the sacraments alone. First, you must understand that Baptism IS a sacrament, one by which we are healed of original sin. Thus, in one sense, even infants are saved from this - entirely a gift from God through the Church's ministry. NORMALLY, one must be baptized to enter the Church. However, the Church also states that one is considered part of the Church IF that person WOULD have become baptized had they known about it. The Spirit blows where He will and God is not bound by the sacraments - says St. Augustine vs. the Donatists. NORMALLY, one receives the sacraments - but it is not the only way that God can act.
Jesus is perfectly clear. The tradition of Korban, like many of your sacramental traditions, made the Word of God of no effect.
Which sacramental tradition makes the Word of God no effect? Quite obviously, you misunderstand the sacraments, because if you knew what they did and how they act, you wouldn't say such things. ALL sacramental action is done with the intent of moving the recipient's mind to God. We don't have any such actions that CIRCUMVENT the Commandments, like Korban. Which Catholic practice makes adultery OK? Which Catholic practice makes murder OK? Korban made ignoring your parents OK...
The traditions that reinforce the meaning of the Word of God are definitely good, like standing while reading the Scriptures in our churches, but sitting while they are preached about. But any tradition that replaces or mocks the truth of Scripture, like the teaching that infant baptism remits original or any other kind of sin, should be set aside.
It remains your opinion that infant baptism "mocks" the Word of God. Fortunately, we don't need to reinvent the wheel and throw away the understanding of God's teachings because YOU PERSONALLY don't get it... What is Irenaeus' take on such matters? When reading Scriptures, WHICH paradigm do we read it under??? I clearly addressed this on my first response to you. YOUR personal opinion is not what is at stake. What is important is how the CHURCH, the community of believers, sees the matter - this community that has a tradition, a history of viewing Scriptures a particular way.
I see Baptism as a natural replacement for the sacrament of the Old Covenant, circumcision. Are you saying one must EARN being baptized by having "x" amount of faith? Where did that faith come from??? God, correct? So why cannot God heal someone based on the request of another, as He did with the Roman Centurion's servant? Or the Paralytic who was brought down through the roof?
Back to the matter at hand, either one reads the Bible based on their OWN paradigm and opinions - which means exegisis of Scripture, contorting it to fit your own little theology (as Irenaeus noted about the Gnostics) or we read Scriptures based on the way it was presented by the Apostles and their successors to the people. Not our own opinions. Being Catholic means we place our personal opinions aside and follow the paradigm taught by the Apostles as handed down. The teachings of the Apostles are as a deposit given to us - this deposit is BOTH written and oral - which we can understand as HOW we interpret the written word.
Thus, either YOU interpret the Word of God to the exclusion of anyone else and FOR yourself, OR the Church interprets the Word of God FOR the People of God. Scripture doesn't support the first method, but rather, the second. Regards
Infant baptism is a later tradition that violates not only the Scriptural injunction to "believe first then be baptized", but it also violates the earlier tradition of the apostles in the book of Acts in which no one was baptized unless he or she believed the Gospel first.
At what point is the Gospel believed in your sacraments? If it is after baptism then your church has it backwards and makes the Gospel ineffective. It is both scripturally and traditionally incorrect.
Wasn't it Tertullian who taught that the believer should wait for a significant period of time before being baptized and not be too hasty with it.
When do you fulfill the tradition of the apostles who were all baptized after they believed in Jesus.? When was the last time a Catholic fulfilled that apostolic tradition? of actually choosing as an adult to be baptized after believing the Gospel?
Thus, either YOU interpret the Word of God to the exclusion of anyone else and FOR yourself, OR the Church interprets the Word of God FOR the People of God. Scripture doesn't support the first method, but rather, the second.
Ah there's the rub and the difference between us. The Holy Spirit inhabits individuals not corporate entities like the Roman Church, or Greek Church, or any other Church. He gives those in whom He dwells the power to understand the meaning of the writings that He authored. That is both tradition and Scripture --- two witnesses are better than one.
Your sense of history is lacking again. St. Athanasius was out of favor of the courts of CONSTANTINOPLE, not Rome. The capital of the Roman Empire was NOT in Rome. The Emperor lived in the Eastern half of the Empire. Thus, Athanasius was at the mercy of political infighting in Constantinople. Thus, he APPEALED to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, to aid him. The Pope highly regarded the future saint and backed him up vs. Arianism and those bishops who were Arian.
Regards
Roger. I think in any case, this is merely an example of a tradition that is subject to change. A person's posture is supposed to show various attitudes - we communicate only partially by words. Thus, in our society, kneeling means something - a sign of respect and reverance. In other society's, standing with head bowed is more a sign of respect. I can imagine that the leaders of the Jews/Church would make changes to liturgical actions to signify what an action meant and keep it current to what it meant to the people.
Regards
That remains your unproven opinion. You have absolutely no evidence that infant baptism was a "later tradition". We have written evidence that it was the teachings of the Apostles from Ireneaus and Origen. Also, you have yet to show me anywhere from Scriptures that one MUST first believe before being baptized. Some Christians received the Spirit BEFORE being baptized, for example.
Wasn't it Tertullian who taught that the believer should wait for a significant period of time before being baptized and not be too hasty with it.
Obviously speaking to catechumens. This doesn't rule out infant baptism.
When do you fulfill the tradition of the apostles who were all baptized after they believed in Jesus.? When was the last time a Catholic fulfilled that apostolic tradition? of actually choosing as an adult to be baptized after believing the Gospel?
Oh boy. When? The Scriptures note Catholics being baptized quite often. Historical writings reveal this tradition continued up to this day. I currently am teaching a class of 17 adults who will become baptized or complete the sacraments of initiation during Easter Vigil. The Rites of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) goes back as far as one cares to go in Christian history. You are always welcome to choose to become baptized after you have faith in the Gospel, if your parents didn't plead your case to God when you were an infant.
The Holy Spirit inhabits individuals not corporate entities like the Roman Church, or Greek Church, or any other Church. He gives those in whom He dwells the power to understand the meaning of the writings that He authored. That is both tradition and Scripture --- two witnesses are better than one.
Wrong. It actually is more proper to say that the Spirit inhabits the entire Church as one man. Thus, we are united in Christ, since the Church is the Body of Christ. Sure, the Spirit comes to us individually, but more often than not, Paul refers to the entire community as if it is one body inhabited by the Spirit, such as when he says WE are the Temple of the Holy Spirit (not individually, but as a corporate organization that is visible).
Yes, two witnesses are better than one. Thus, Apostolic Tradition gives us proper understanding of Scriptures. This takes us back to my very first response to you - one that you continue to ignore the implications of. Without a living authority, anyone can bring their own theological constructs to the table and claim that the Scriptures back them up. Thus, 30,000 Protestant denominations all claim to be correct...
Either there are 30,000 Holy Spirits, or there are a lot of people who think they are being guided by the Spirit but are not. The problem is that you can't tell which one is correct, if any! God didn't leave us in such confusion. He left a visible Church that vouched for His Word. You are free to enter into it more fully - or you can continue to reject those whom He sent.
Regards
But Constantine did favor Arius in this dispute, did he not?
Constantine did - and if you recall your history, he moved to Nicea (near Constantinople) very soon after the Edict of Milan (which allowed Catholics to worship without persecution). That is why the Council of Nicea in 325 was AT Nicea... That is where Constantine lived immediately following his move and before the palace was built in Constantinople. I see this as an act of God - that the secular emperor would move away from the bishop of Rome, the center of unity within the Church so as to not influence the nascent free Church and force them into an Arian stance. One only needs to look at the fact that some 18 bishops at Constantinople were declared heretics by the Catholic Church during the 700 years up to the Great Schism. The Emperor had a large influnce on the bishops there. But since Rome and Constantinople were so separated, the Bishop of Rome was largely unaffected by the politics of Constantinople.
Regards
Are you saying that Constantine was not the imperial benefactor of the Church of Rome? that he was not responsible for its ascent in the 3rd century?
Let's get real here. No Catholic that I ever knew who was baptized as an infant was ever rebaptized as an adult by their Catholic Church. As a matter of fact it was simply not even entertained as a point of discussion.
Their certificate of infant baptism was their evidence of having met their requirements of entry into the faith through baptism [though without their willful consent as scripture and the tradition of baptism requires]. Those who were baptized as infants and wanted to be baptized as adults and especially in the traditional way of the apostles had to convert to another Church or denomination.
If you are saying that that the RCC rebaptizes as adults those who had been baptized as infants, then that is a "new" tradition that undermines the old, and is being done by the RCC not willingly but reluctantly because so many in your RCC are doing the unthinkable and reading their Scriptures and seeing the insufficiency of your infant baptism.
It actually is more proper to say that the Spirit inhabits the entire Church as one man. Thus, we are united in Christ, since the Church is the Body of Christ. Sure, the Spirit comes to us individually, but more often than not, Paul refers to the entire community as if it is one body inhabited by the Spirit, such as when he says WE are the Temple of the Holy Spirit (not individually, but as a corporate organization that is visible).
This sounds like Roman Catholic Communism that rules the individuals with its mystical "Collective Mind". And Catholics wonder where Socialism and Communism comes from? We enter the world one at a time, and we leave one at a time, and stand before God one at a time. Your problem is "Group Think". Your Church wants everybody to fall in line and serve "the collective entity" as if it will be eternal, but the Church of Rome will fall taking those in it with it, while the Kingdom of Israel that rises from Jerusalem will stand forever as will those individuals who want to be part of it, as "It Is Written".
The Catholic Church was doing very well before Constantine. Certainly, it grew all the more when people were no longer killed for their faith. But so what? What does that have to do with Arianism? The Pope didn't owe Constantine anything. The Church answers to God, not secular power. If Rome was so beholden to the Emperial Court, we would not today be calling Jesus God. It was the Bishop of Rome, along with men such as Athanasius, that maintained the true faith, not the faith expressed by some people who tried to figure out the Scriptures without Apostolic Tradition.
Regards
That's because we know we were saved at Baptism. We don't need to worry whether it "took", unlike those who rely on their own faith to determine whether they were saved.
Those who were baptized as infants and wanted to be baptized as adults and especially in the traditional way of the apostles had to convert to another Church or denomination.
Why be baptized a second time? Once baptized, you are a child of God. It doesn't depend on anything YOU do, but on God Himself. Did the servant of the Roman Centurion look to be healed in PERSON? Because HE didn't ask Christ, did it mean anything less??? He was HEALED! You clearly don't understand the concept of family or community in the bigger picture of Scriptures.
If you are saying that that the RCC rebaptizes as adults those who had been baptized as infants, then that is a "new" tradition that undermines the old, and is being done by the RCC not willingly but reluctantly because so many in your RCC are doing the unthinkable and reading their Scriptures and seeing the insufficiency of your infant baptism
I never said the Church rebaptizes. Perhaps you misunderstood me. RCIA is for those who have NEVER been baptized AND for those who are converting from another Christian denomination. For the former, they receive Baptism, along with Confirmation and the Eucharist (the sacraments of Initiation). For the latter, they do not receive Baptism, they already WERE baptized and ARE members of the Church, but not completely. Thus, they complete their initiation with Confirmation (does what it sounds like) and the Eucharist.
This sounds like Roman Catholic Communism that rules the individuals with its mystical "Collective Mind".
Sorry if you disapprove of Paul's take on the Church, the Body of Christ. Have you read 1 Cor 12 or Rom 12? How about Ephesians? Paul calls the members of the Church as parts of a Body, the Body of Christ that is mystically joined - "when one suffers, everyone suffers; when one is honored, all rejoice". There is a connection between all the members of the Body because we share in the life of Christ. This applies not only to those members walking in this world, but those who have entered into eternal life - nothing can separate us from Christ. If you have problems with the analogy that SCRIPTURES make, what can I say?
Catholics wonder where Socialism and Communism comes from?
Is that the best you can do? Blame the Church for the rise of a revolutionary government that FIRST seeks to destroy its own members? WHO is one of the primary enemies of Communist revolutions? Who are among the first killed? Prominent Catholics and priests are among the first targets and remain so during the existence of Communist regimes. Judging by this answer and your knowledge of Church history, you need to do some seriously reading on history before spouting off such nonsense...
Your Church wants everybody to fall in line and serve "the collective entity" as if it will be eternal
Not only are you not aware of Church history, you don't even know much about God Himself, who ALSO is a "collective entity". Ever hear about the Blessed Trinity??? For someone who claims to live by the Bible, it is amazing how little you know about Him who Is.
Your Church wants everybody to fall in line and serve "the collective entity" as if it will be eternal, but the Church of Rome will fall taking those in it with it, while the Kingdom of Israel that rises from Jerusalem will stand forever as will those individuals who want to be part of it, as "It Is Written".
You sure you read Romans 11? We are joined into the root, we, the wild shoot. There is no separate "kingdom of Israel" and "Church of Rome"....
I'd like to stay and chat, but this conversation has lost its value to me. You already have your mind made up and nothing I write will change it, even pointing out your numerous errors and your inabilitiy to answer my questions. Even Christ didn't convince the Pharisees, so what chance do I have with someone like yourself? Clearly, you need to consider looking at your tagline and following your own advice. Open yourself to truth, not your opinions.
Adios
When the Church became a recognized religious body in the empire, Constantine as emperor had to be recognized as its de facto head. As that head he convened the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and set its agenda, gave the opening speech, and presided over it in a golden chair between the parties.
He was the head of the Church as well as head of the pagan priesthood, the Pontifex Maximus, the title passing on to those who followed in this position. He was honored by the Christian prelates as "Bishop of Bishops", and called himself "Vicarius Christi" [Vicar of Christ], the title later passing on to the Pontiffs of the Roman Catholic Church.
He even gave the Catholic Church its name, calling it the "catholic" [universal] Church in which pagans and Christians would be united ecumenically. The famous "Chi-Rho" insignia that Catholics honor is the cross symbol that his astrologers saw in the stars before his infamous battle.
There is too much historical tradition that cannot be unwritten on the matter of Constantine and the Roman Church, no matter how hard the magisterium tries to deny the connection with its founder.
Wrong!Constantine did not give the Catholic(universal)Church its name. The Church was called Catholic before Constantine was born.
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177). "[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).
Farewell Brother,I,ll pray for you to open your heart to the truth.
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.