Fathers vs. the Evangelicals

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/god.htm ^ | vanit

[tgdunbar]

“Ignatius’ writings are known forgeries”

What is popularly ‘known’ is often inaccurate. A good, serious reference is at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0800660161

Ignatius of Antioch Hermeneia (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible) [Hardcover]
William Schoedel, Augsburg Fortress Publishers (January 1985)

[Theo]

Jesus knew people like you would misunderstand what He was saying, and so He immediately clarified, to ensure that people wouldn’t believe they’d literally be eating his skin and blood.

In John 6, He says, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” Whoa! What can that mean?

Just a couple of verses later, in the very same chapter, He clarifies for those who think He’s speaking of literal skin and blood:

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

Jesus is clearly speaking of Spiritual relationship, not of literally consuming flesh. That “flesh,” after all, “is no help at all.”

Yes, in a metaphorical sense, we partake in Jesus. We clothe ourselves in Him. He abides within us. We taste Him, and see that He is good. But we don’t munch on his skin; chewing skin “is no help at all.” It is the Spirit who gives life.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I personally know many traditional Catholics who reject the lunacy of evolution. If anyone says that evolution has become a teaching of the Church, they are certainly in error.

You had best keep your eyes peeled. Your co-religionists on this forum are almost 100% solidly in favor of both evolution and higher criticism. And their loud proclamation of their loyalty to these two concepts never seems to be challenged by creationist Catholics.

Unfortunately, the fact is that since Humani Generis in 1950, the Magisterium now concedes the possibility of evolution, which means (as I understand it) that all Catholics much admit to this possibility in order to be loyal to the Magisterium. Even Paula Haigh considers this concession in Humani Generis to be a disaster.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I personally know many traditional Catholics who reject the lunacy of evolution. If anyone says that evolution has become a teaching of the Church, they are certainly in error.

You had best keep your eyes peeled. Your co-religionists on this forum are almost 100% solidly in favor of both evolution and higher criticism. And their loud proclamation of their loyalty to these two concepts never seems to be challenged by creationist Catholics.

Unfortunately, the fact is that since Humani Generis in 1950, the Magisterium now concedes the possibility of evolution, which means (as I understand it) that all Catholics much admit to this possibility in order to be loyal to the Magisterium. Even Paula Haigh considers this concession in Humani Generis to be a disaster.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Arrg! I hate it when that happens!

[RnMomof7]

And you can curse "Rome" all you want at its not going to have any effect either.

I curse false doctrine..not a church or its people..

Canon 3.If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.

[mas cerveza por favor]

Your co-religionists on this forum are almost 100% solidly in favor of both evolution and higher criticism.

There are many pseudo-conservative, modernist Catholics here on FR (modernist to varying degrees). Modernism is condemned heresy but it is so diabolically confusing, that it fools many well-intentioned Catholics. Read the 1907 St. Pius X encyclical Pascendi Dominici to understand what I mean. Warning: you had better drink a can of smart juice or be otherwise prepared for an incredibly intellectual and devastating condemnation of the underlying assumptions held by most Christians (including Catholics) today.

And their loud proclamation of their loyalty to these two concepts never seems to be challenged by creationist Catholics.

Catholics on FR are habituated to defend the Church against non-Catholics. That is commendable but unfortunately these Catholics are sometimes so confused by Modernism that they mistakenly consider criticism of Modernism to be an attack upon the Church.

Unfortunately, the fact is that since Humani Generis in 1950, the Magisterium now concedes the possibility of evolution, which means (as I understand it) that all Catholics much admit to this possibility in order to be loyal to the Magisterium.

Whoa...you jump to conclusions. The Catholic Church binds human conscience by direct, clear, and authoritative pronouncements usually involving the word "anathema." For example, the encyclical above states, "If anyone says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made, let him be anathema." This follows the formula set down by St. Paul, "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Gal 1:8)

Let us examine the text of Humani Generis:

"[T]he Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. [...] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question."

This so-called concession toward evolution is very tepid and provisional. Non-evolution of the soul is reaffirmed and "rash" claims to the factual certainty of physical evolution are condemned. Nobody is bound by Humani Generis to accept evolution or the possibility of it. On the contrary, we are instructed to exercise extreme caution.

Even Paula Haigh considers this concession in Humani Generis to be a disaster.

Pope Pius XII was fooled into giving the Modernists an inch which they then took for many miles. However, this pope did try to clean up his mess by canonically silencing the theological proponents of evolution, such as the Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. It was not until the Vatican II popes that these heretics were fully let loose.

[D-fendr]

It certainly seems to me that many on this thread consider Catholics to be heretics (according to Protestant doctrine), and vice versa. If there were in use in Protestantism the terms excommunicated, not in communion, or anathema, cut off from the church, I believe several on here would apply them to Catholics.

If it bothered someone here to be cut off from the Church or heretical in the eyes of the Church or excommunicated in the eyes of the Church, they can rectify that. But it seems quite clear this is not what they would wish.

From the statements and tone towards each other, it seems clear to me that each sees the other and his/her doctrines equivalent to heretical, not in communion with, cut off from, excommunicated, anathema - and worse if that exists and can be thought of and posted.

In my opinion based on these posts, those in these sets would not have it any other way; therefore being so declared must be a “good thing.”

And, again, if someone does not consider it a good thing, it can be remedied.

[Natural Law]

"I curse false doctrine..not a church or its people.."

You have no authority to declare anything false. Contrary to your curse, the Church has accepted Christ's declaration that "This is my body" and his command to "do this in memory of me". We BELIEVE that the Eucharist is the ONE SACRIFICE MADE PRESENT. Whether you accept, reject, curse, gnash your teeth or wear ashes and sackcloth is completely irrelevant.

[D-fendr]

I have concluded the near universal embrace of evolution…

I would consider that a small disagreement compared with your disagreement with the Church, and most all Christians, on this much clearer embrace:

"We believe… in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate."

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

one of the clearest of all Christian doctrines found in the Scriptures is the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. the verses that support are too numerous to mention, i will just name Acts 2:38. Christians have taught and believed this for 2,000 years.
your post seemed very sincere, so i will ask you in all seriousness to name one verse in the Scriptures where:

1. anyone was ever asked to say a sinners prayer?
2. where anyone ever asked Jesus into their heart and accepted Him as their personal Saviour?
3. where baptism is ever desribed as an outward ceremony picturing what has happened already?
4. where baptism is ever described as a first act of obedience?
5. where baptism is said to not be for the remission of sins?
6. where it says it is not the Holy Spirit who baptizes us?
7. where it says that there are two baptisms?

i am struck by how many people who claim to be Christian, don’t understand the role baptism plays in salvation and have no clue what the Church has taught for 2,000 years.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

funny, the author of John taught St Ignatius. Ignatius wrote in the early second century on his way to being martyred in Rome, that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus.
the Universal Church has believed and taught this for 2,000 years, having received the doctrine from the Apostles.
excuse me if i put more weight on someone who personally learned the Faith from John, as opposed to someone who believes no one understood Jesus until the 16th century.
remember it’s not me saying “This is My Body”, those words were spoken by Jesus.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

every scholar ( Catholic, Protestant, athiest )who has studied all available evidence, has come to the same conclusion, 7 epistles were written by Ignatius.
i understand why some cling to the fiction that they were forged, because it they are true, their belief system is FALSE.

[rzman21]

The Church doesn’t have a defined teaching on evolution, so Catholics are free to be pro or con as long as they don’t question the theological meaning of Genesis.

The 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission’s ruling should be enlightening:
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p100.htm

The same goes with Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Genesis isn’t science, but neither is science theology.

[D-fendr]

thanks for your post.

concisely and well put.

[rzman21]

So you are declaring that you are infallible and that you know better than all Christians who came before the 16th century?

Are you infallible?

[rzman21]

You should read these passages in context. St. Jerome also says in Letter 53 that: 7. The art of interpreting the scriptures is the only one of which all men everywhere claim to be masters. To quote Horace again Taught or untaught we all write poetry. The chatty old woman, the doting old man, and the wordy sophist, one and all take in hand the Scriptures, rend them in pieces and teach them before they have learned them. Some with brows knit and bombastic words, balanced one against the other philosophize concerning the sacred writings among weak women. Others— I blush to say it— learn of women what they are to teach men; and as if even this were not enough, they boldly explain to others what they themselves by no means understand. I say nothing of persons who, like myself have been familiar with secular literature before they have come to the study of the holy scriptures. Such men when they charm the popular ear by the finish of their style suppose every word they say to be a law of God. They do not deign to notice what Prophets and apostles have intended but they adapt conflicting passages to suit their own meaning, as if it were a grand way of teaching— and not rather the faultiest of all— to misrepresent a writer's views and to force the scriptures reluctantly to do their will. You also misrepresent St. Irenaeus of Lyon's beliefs about the scriptures by taking the passage in isolation. Irenaeus of Lyon, 3.2.1-3 "1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world. 1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself. 2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. (Doesn't this remind you of the Protestant approach to the Bible?) For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. 3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it." Evangelicals have more in common with those St. Irenaeus fought against than the great father himself. Not to mention St. Augustine taught what amounts to the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory. "If the baptized person fufils the obligations demanded of a Christian,he does well. If he does not--provided he keeps the faith,without which he would perish forever--no matter in what sin or impurity remains,he will be saved,as it were,by fire; as one who has built on the foundation,which is Christ,not Gold,silver, and precious stones,but wood, hay straw,that is, not just and chasted works but wicked and unchaste works." Augustine,Faith and Works,1:1(A.D. 413),in ACW,48:7 "Now on what ground does this person pray that he may not be 'rebuked in indignation, nor chastened in hot displeasure"? (He speaks) as if he would say unto God, 'Since the things which I already suffer are many in number, I pray Thee let them suffice;' and he begins to enumerate them, by way of satisfying God; offering what he suffers now, that he may not have to suffer worse evils hereafter." Augustine,Exposition of the Psalms,38(37):3(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:103 "And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. This cannot, however, be the case of any of those of whom it is said, that they 'shall not inherit the kingdom of God,' unless after suitable repentance their sins be forgiven them. When I say 'suitable,' I mean that they are not to be unfruitful in almsgiving; for Holy Scripture lays so much stress on this virtue, that our Lord tells us beforehand, that He will ascribe no merit to those on His right hand but that they abound in it, and no defect to those on His left hand but their want of it, when He shall say to the former, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom," and to the latter, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.' " Augustine,Enchiridion,69(A.D. 421),in NPNF1,III:260 " During the time, moreover, which intervenes between a man's death and the final resurrection, the soul dwells in a hidden retreat, where it enjoys rest or suffers affliction just in proportion to the merit it has earned by the life which it led on earth." Augustine,Enchiridion,1099(A.D. 421),in NPNF1,III:272 "For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial,--not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. All other punishments, whether temporal or eternal, inflicted as they are on every one by divine providence, are sent either on account of past sins, or of sins presently allowed in the life, or to exercise and reveal a man's graces. They may be inflicted by the instrumentality of bad men and angels as well as of the good. For even if any one suffers some hurt through another's wickedness or mistake, the man indeed sins whose ignorance or injustice does the harm; but God, who by His just though hidden judgment permits it to be done, sins not. But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment.of the world to come." Augustine,City of God,21:13(A.D. 426),in NPNF1,II:464 "But since she has this certainty regarding no man, she prays for all her enemies who yet live in this world; and yet she is not heard in behalf of all. But she is heard in the case of those only who, though they oppose the Church, are yet predestinated to become her sons through her intercession. But if any retain an impenitent heart until death, and are not converted from enemies into sons, does the Church continue to pray for them, for the spirits, i.e., of such persons deceased? And why does she cease to pray for them, unless because the man who was not translated into Christ's kingdom while he was in the body, is now judged to be of Satan's following? It is then, I say, the same reason which prevents the Church at any time from praying for the wicked angels, which prevents her from praying hereafter for those men who are to be punished in eternal fire; and this also is the reason why, though she prays even for the wicked so long as they live, she yet does not even in this world pray for the unbelieving and godless who are dead. For some of the dead, indeed, the prayer of the Church or of pious individuals is heard; but it is for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not spend their life so wickedly that they can be judged unworthy of such compassion, nor so well that they can be considered to have no need of it. As also, after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from the punishment of the eternal fire. For were there not some whose sins, though not remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it could not be truly said, "They shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come.' But when the Judge of quick and dead has said, 'Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,' and to those on the other side, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels,' and 'These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life,' it were excessively presumptuous to say that the punishment of any of those whom God has said shall go away into eternal punishment shall not be eternal, and so bring either despair or doubt upon the corresponding promise of life eternal." Augustine,City of God,21:24(A.D. 426),in NPNF1,II:470 Maybe you are smarter than St. Augustine when it comes to reading the Bible.

[rzman21]

Read the passages in context.

[rzman21]

No Eastern Christian has ever rejected the dogma of the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist over the past 2000 years.

[rzman21]

How do you like your red herrings? Poached or grilled.