Posted on 11/03/2011 2:50:35 AM PDT by markomalley
Catholic with a big C. Again, Ignatius of Antioch was saying so by AD 107-110.
I was being facetious with my “not guilty for The McDonald of Cool”.
I recognize that in the ridiculous interpretation of the 1st Amendment that a teacher handing out a religious tract is equivalent to Congress making a law establishing a religion.
But I also recognize that if there wasn’t that ridiculous interpretation, then we would have an equally ridiculous interpretation of “free speech” that would allow an avalanche of religious pamphlets in classrooms and unending disputes about why-is-my-pamphlet-always-on-the-back-of-the-desk-and-yours-always-up-front.
In a world of whiners and complainers, you need one ridiculous interpretation to keep another one in check, I guess.
As far as this being “child abuse”... that’s simply beyond ridiculous.
You wrote:
“You have taken your own definition of Catholic (Romanism) and imposed it on some church fathers writings ... when its clear he was referring to little ‘c’ catholic.”
Actually you are taking your own definition of “Romanism” and imposing it on Catholicism. I’m Catholic. I’m not “Romanist” - whatever that is supposed to mean. Protestant bigots invented the term “Romanist”, and “Romish”. And you apparently think nothing of using the pejorative so that tells me all I need to know about you.
Protestants can complain all they like, but Ignatius used the phrase Catholic Church like proper noun. He used it like big C Catholic Church and not small c catholic. Those are the facts, but of course, no one should expect a Protestant to know them.
Perhaps you should read the epistle ...
Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.
Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution 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 [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Chapter 9. Honour the bishop
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.
You wrote:
“You cannot read what Ignatius wrote and come to your conclusion ... “
I did read it and I did come to my correct conclusion.
“Perhaps you should read the epistle ...”
Already have. First read it in 1988. By the way, have you ever seen what Cyril Richardson - who was Protestant - wrote about it? In his introduction to Ignatius’ Letter to Smyrneans, he wrote: “Another interesting feature of this letter is the first appearance in Christian literature of the phrase “the Catholic Church” (ch. 8:2). It stands for the universal and transcendent Church in contrast to the
local congregation.”
So, apparently you Protestants can’t even agree on that! No surprise. For fun get some Protestants - an Episcopalian, a Lutheran, a Baptist and a Quaker - and ask them about infant baptism!
For the priests, I’ll bet it was a little like Art Linkletter’s segment called “Kids say the darnest things”!!
Ohhh...that old word “Romanist” - always sent a chill down my spine. Seriously!
Peter is BURIED in Rome, they built St. Peter's right over his gravesite.....maybe that is a clue also.
Paul wasn't even an Apotle.
Since I am not Protestant it holds no weight with me.
For fun get some Protestants - an Episcopalian, a Lutheran, a Baptist and a Quaker - and ask them about infant baptism!
And they would argue over Acts 2:38 ...
Like I said ... I'm not Protestant so it doesn't matter how those 4 would resolve baptismal regeneration.
People really get off track with their observations. I had an Evangelical friend who asked me if Catholics worship the Pope. She had a college roommate who had been to a World Youth Day and put up a poster of John Paul II in her dorm, and really was a big fan of his. My friend thought this must mean that ALL Catholics WORSHIP the Pope. Good thing she raised the issue with me so I could correct her on this.
I guess if people have been in a crowd that is suspicious of all things Catholic, they are more prepared to jump to ridiculous conclusions.
And talks about all those people in Rome but never once mentions Peter being in Rome. Even gives instructions to the church in Rome and doesn’t mention Peter. If Peter was of any importance in Rome it’s sure obvious that nobody knew it at the time.
The early Christians were converted Jews and Gentiles and yes indeed, they were Catholics.
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." 1 Corinthians 1:23-24
By that logic, Paul must still be alive. After all, his martyrdom is not recorded in Acts. An argument from silence is not much of an argument.
Peter almost certainly wasn't in Rome at the time Paul wrote Romans; that happened later. Some people think Paul hadn't yet been to Rome at the time he wrote Romans, although he obviously knew people there.
We know Peter died in Rome because everyone who records his death says so, and because his tomb is beneath the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica, and has on it (from ancient times) the Greek inscription Petros eni.
Which ones??? The officially forged versions or the others, that are in question as well???
In the 1950s Roman Catholic archaeologists discovered a tomb in Jerusalem containing an ossuary—a bone box used in first-century Jewish burials—that bore the engraved name “Simon Bar Jona” a name by which the apostle Peter is known in the Gospels.
While Pope Pius XII in 1953 announced that the true remains of St Peter had been found in Rome, many scholars have remained skeptical about the significance of the discoveries. While many in the RCC want it to be true there is more evidence that it is not then opinion that it is.
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.