A challenge to Anglicans who believe this.

[Isa_Almisry]

You’re straining the bolded passage way beyond a reasonable interpretation. Ignatius is talking about the need to submit to the authority of the bishop. He is not saying that all you need to have the Catholic Church is a bishop, whether or not that bishop is in communion with other valid bishops. He isn’t addressing that issue at all. No one here is disputing that a valid particular church exists wherever there is a bishop in apostolic succession. The question is whether the Catholic Church is fully and completely present wherever there is a bishop, no matter what that bishop’s relationship to other bishops may be. And I repeat: this is not what Ignatius is addressing.

Just some skimmed bits just from the Letter to the Smyrneans:
4 I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with
5 Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth…I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to [a true belief in] Christ’s passion, which is our resurrection.
6 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…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
7 They abstain from the Eucharist and from the prayers, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the self same 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.
8 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.
9 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.
10 Your prayer has reached to the Church which is at Antioch in Syria…that through your prayers I may attain to God. In order, therefore, that your work may be complete both on earth and in heaven, it is fitting that, for the honour of God, your Church should elect some worthy delegate; so that he, journeying into Syria, may congratulate them that they are [now] at peace, and are restored to their proper greatness, and that their proper constitution has been re-established among them. It seems then to me a becoming thing, that you should send some one of your number with an epistle, so that, in company with them, he may rejoice over the tranquility which, according to the will of God, they have obtained, and because that, through your prayers, they have now reached the harbour. As persons who are perfect, you should also aim at those things which are perfect.
12 I salute your most worthy bishop, and your very venerable presbytery, and your deacons, my fellow-servants, and all of you individually, as well as generally, in the name of Jesus Christ, and in His flesh and blood, in His passion and resurrection, both corporeal and spiritual, in union with God and you.

No, I mean one particular theological school within Orthodoxy, originating in the 19th century (or at least revived in the 19th century–obviously you think the Fathers taught this) and more popular among the Russians than the Greeks (see Zizioulas’s criticisms of Eucharistic ecclesiology in Being as Communion).

Zizioulas thinks that being in communion with the EP is the definition of Orthodox. Not only is such an idea alien to Orthodoxy, it has no historical roots. Except to replicate in New Rome what happened in Old Rome.
And the age old practice of the diptychs bears eloquent testimony to the Apostolic teaching of eucharistic ecclessiology.

The entire argument in *On the Unity of the Catholic Church. *Cyprian is arguing that there is one worldwide Church and that there can be no salvation apart from this Church. He is not arguing, as you seem to be, that all it takes to have the Church is one bishop in one place, no matter how isolated from other orthodox bishops that bishop may be. The unity of the episcopate is central to his argument, though chaps. 4-5 and 7 are particularly clear.

And in his argument with Pope Stephen he isists on the bishop being in communion with the Truth, and isolated from heresy. Part of the qualifications of being the local bishop is Orthodoxy, and hence in communion with all Orthodox bishops, past or present, or future.

 

[nonjuror]

Isa Almisry.

**In, I think my last post, I said that in my opinion,“Rome is based on heresy”.
**
Your reply was ,“No,S.Peter was quite Orthodox.”

For myself I have no doubt that S.Peter was Orthodox. I was talking about the See of Rome at the present time. Your reply interested me. Might I ask, do you see the present Roman Churchas a Church based on heresy and if you do why?

NonJuror!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry.

**In, I think my last post, I said that in my opinion,“Rome is based on heresy”.
**
Your reply was ,“No,S.Peter was quite Orthodox.”

For myself I have no doubt that S.Peter was Orthodox. I was talking about the See of Rome at the present time. Your reply interested me. Might I ask, do you see the present Roman Churchas a Church based on heresy and if you do why?

NonJuror!

Is the Vatican based on heresy? No. It has Orthodox foundations, an Orthodox core.

Has it erected a superstructure that threatens the structural integrity of that ediface, and unnecessary additons that marr its original beauty ? Yes, indeed.

A little renovation, rehab, tuckpointing and refurbishing, and she will be fine.

 

[VARC]

Anglicans are Protestants not Catholics. They are Protestant because they protested against the Head of the Universal and Catholic church who is the Pope in Rome. The Idea that the Catholic Church in Rome was started with the Council of Trent is nonsense. The term Roman Catholic Church is a misnomer invented by Anti Catholic Forces at the time of the so called Reformation.

This is a very feeble definition of “protestantism”. This definition would also include the Orthodox, the monohysites, the nestoriams, the mormons, the moonies etc, etc

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This is a very feeble definition of “protestantism”. This definition would also include the Orthodox, the monohysites, the nestoriams, the mormons, the moonies etc, etc

I think that is the intent.

 

[VARC]

---

The idea that you can have a female bishop here, and a bishop that doesnt’ accept female bishops there, a bishop who is an active homosexual over here, and a bishop who doesn’t accept him over there (with parishes under him over here) is the antithesis of the Catholic idea of the episcopacy. So is the idea that the Anglican church is the Catholic church of England (the reason why only Anglican bishops can be bishops of historic sees). Catholicism knows no branches.

I don’t see how the Anglican Church asserting itself as the catholic church of England is any different from the Russian Church asserting that it is the catholic church in Russia. Please explain

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t see how the Anglican Church asserting itself as the catholic church of England is any different from the Russian Church asserting that it is the catholic church in Russia. Please explain

During the Russian Empire, Warsaw had an Orthodox metropolitan (as it does now). The Vatican continued to name a her bishops in Warsaw.

Moscow has her Orthodox Patriarch. The Vatican has a Latin archdiocese there.

I am not saying that things have always been cordial, they haven’t. But the Metropolitan of Warsaw and the Patriarch of Moscow never pretended he was bishop or patriarch of any but the Orthodox. As far as the Vatican was allowed to practice in Russia, or in the czar’s territories, she was alowed to name hierarchs, including Warsaw, St. Petersburg or Moscow.

 

[nonjuror]

I don’t see how the Anglican Church asserting itself as the catholic church of England is any different from the Russian Church asserting that it is the catholic church in Russia. Please explain

================================================CColleague,

All Isa Almistry is doing is showing that circumstances alter cases. The Councils tell us One Bishop one See. Yet when it suits their purpose duplication is frowned upon by both Rome and orthodoxy & condemned only when it suits them.,

 

[East_Anglican]

I think everyone on the planet would agree that Henry VII had nothing to do with it, but Henry VIII did.

GKC is completely right. St. Augustine was sent to Canterbury to bring the Gospel to the “savages” in the British Isles, but was met by Christians when he got there. It wasn’t until about 100 years after Augustine came to the area that the existing Celtic Christians started being assimilated into the Roman way of doing things at the Synod of Whitby.

Correct.

If the Celts understood Greek they would have never joined.

The Celtic Church was evangelizing the Anglo/Saxons long before Saint Augustine got here.

Interestingly every time there is an awakening in England, the Church goes back to the Celtic way of doing things.

Henry VIII couldn’t care less about Christ’s church and the English people in it. He was a politician who liked his own way.

It is called The Church of England because it was called Ecclesia Anglia to distinguish it from the Church in Spain (Ecclesia Espania) or the church in Rome (Ecclesia Roma)

Neither Henry VIII or Augustine of Canterbury founded it.​

P.S

These threads are boring.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

================================================CColleague,

All Isa Almistry is doing is showing that circumstances alter cases. The Councils tell us One Bishop one See. Yet when it suits their purpose duplication is frowned upon by both Rome and orthodoxy & condemned only when it suits them.,

Yes, when it suits Orthodoxy frowning on heterodoxy and heresy.

The Vatican and we have differences. The inability of the Anglicans to see that they have differences is one reason they streach the meaning of the word communion.