Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.:
Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.:
Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.

I'll beat everybody to the punch...

* That isn't the bible.
* It doesn't matter what the early church did.
* Ignatius' letters are frauds (Derrida's response)
* His ideas are obviously "contrary to scripture."

Fun time, one Catholic posts, and another invalidates it.

Why not add symbolic cannibalism hile your at it

Were catechumens allowed to partake?

I believe the catechumens served often for years in the early Catholic church before they were allowed to become fully fledged Christians.

I wonder if you think we should look to early traditional beliefs regarding catechumens and model that today? It was church tradition, right?

Gig 'em,
FTA

p.s. I have no gripe with Catholic views on the Eucharist - even if those views are not my own. I am just pointing out that some early church traditions are no longer observed.

Ignatius knew what he was talking about. He was taught by the Apostle John. He was martyred for the faith in the Flavian Amphitheater

Saint Ignatius of Antioch (also known as Theophorus) (ca. 35-110)[1] was the third Bishop or Patriarch of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John. En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which have been preserved as an example of the theology of the earliest Christians. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the role of bishops.

St. Ignatius' feast day is observed on December 20 in Eastern Christianity. In Western Christianity it is celebrated on October 17, but on February 1 by those who follow the General Roman Calendar of 1962.

Ignatius, along with Clement of Rome and Polycarp of Smyrna, is one of the chief Apostolic Fathers, early Christian authors who reportedly knew the apostles personally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch



[This message has been edited by texasag73 (edited 6/1/2008 8:59p).]

Antieucharisticarianism.

Oh, geeze

Antigeezarianism.

Ignaciana is interesting. And I'd have to see which of the thirteen epistles you quote, as there are only seven recognized as authentic, but one of them is the letter to Philadelphia which some scholars describe as authentic.

Now it is interesting that RCC are all to willing to cite Ignatius or Tertulian when they agree with their views, but abandon them when they dislike them.

For example, Ignatius speaks by way of receiving "revelation" from the Holy Spirit, something the RCC essentially states ended with the apostles. Tertulian fell in love with this notion and became a Montanist.

Derrida - Quotes, please...

More properly titled "A view on the Eucharist-110 AD"
For another view that my Catholic brother strangely did not offer-

quote:

---

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.

---

The Didache, ca. 100 A.D.

Ignatius is that guy from Confederacy of Dunces right?

quote:

---

Confederacy of Dunces

---

GREAT book...

GREAT book...
***************
agree; we should do a post of some of our favorite works of fiction (a little levity).

O'Toole is quite humorous, in a weird way.

Ignatius is fine for Catholics, as is Tertulian, so long as his views are interpreted in an orthodox manner.

The same holds true for the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, Origen or any other, Valentinus? But should he deviate, then that deviation is overlooked or he is branded a terrible heretic.

Tertulian had a brain fart of montanist proportions later on... and Origen has always been a mixed bag of nuts.

Didache 10-

quote:

---

You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant.

---

How did the first Christians not understand that the elements are actual, not spiritual? They sure could have used a pope to set them straight on the actual presence issue.

That's my point, you guys use these when they suit your purposes, but discard them when they disagree. How convenient.

quote:

---

Tertulian had a brain fart of montanist proportions later on... and Origen has always been a mixed bag of nuts.

---

And Marcion was useful until he came to Rome.

What's your excuse on the Shepherd?

Why would I need an excuse with the Shepherd? That's an odd request. You need to lay off the polemical nonsense if you want to be taken very seriously.

Anyhow, it is not matter of arbitrary discarding, rather it is a matter of finding and holding onto revelation and the deposit of priestly authority through means of apostolic succession. Those that get innovative and make up their own views in contradiction to the passed down views are rightly branded as heretics if it is extreme enough to place them in that grouping. That point doesn't change if they were right at one point with their views and then change them up later, or if they were always wrong from the get go.

You and I both know the Shephard is not regarded as being correct on all theological grounds, even though he was believed to be the brother of the bishop in Rome, Pius, I believe.

I actually find his writing quite refreshing and interesting. The early fathers were fascinating until they became heresy hunters. Irenaeus, Eusebiua and others starting witch hunting. It created a hierarchy which made christianity different from Judaism, but tied to ancient roots, something required in those days for acceptance.

quote:

---

How did the first Christians not understand that the elements are actual, not spiritual? They sure could have used a pope to set them straight on the actual presence issue.

---

I do not think that we are reading the same Diadache...or rather we are reading the same one but seeing it differently. The statement that you captioned is prefectly in harmony with Catholic teaching on the sacrament. The earliest Christians did believe it to be both spiritual and literal (so do we to this very day.)

Apparently, Catholics are still confused.
From the Liturgy of The Eucharist, said at every Catholic mass: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.

Derrida,

Sure, and I didn't suggest that everything was absolutely fine and dandy with the Shepherd theologically speaking. The 'brother' theory is one, and I think its hard to say because of conflicting stories. I'm not necessarily tied down to one theory or the other so I don't put too much thought into it. If he is, then it's all cool. If he isn't, then it's still all cool. Being a blood relative in this sense is not a test for truth, and that's the bottom line.

My readings on the early fathers are different (not a very big surprise). What you call witching hunting in your fully blown polematical pose, I would call a nice defense of Christian orthodoxy which developed over time as Christianity started to flex its intellectual muscles for the first time.

A "hierarchy" has always been in place since the priesthood in the OT, so I'm at a loss at what you think is an innovation on that account. The episcopal is a biblical word.

You might even know the Greek word for that.

quote:

---

Luke 24:30-32: And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed [it], and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

---

Apparently, eating Jesus can give you heart burn.

dp

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 6/4/2008 3:05p).]

dp

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 6/4/2008 3:05p).]

Apparently, eating Jesus can give you heart burn.
*************************
That was sick, and funny.

The point of the Acts Scripture is that they recognized Jesus in the Eucharist...

quote:

---

That was sick, and funny.

---

And scriptural.