M
Montalban
Guest
He’s saying that the church headed by a bishop is complete. It’s as plain as that.
- Status
G
Ghosty
Guest
I honestly don’t see it as plainly as you do, as he seems to be making an analogy. If you have more resources about this I’d be very happy to read them; I’m not saying your interpretation is necessarily wrong, only that I don’t see it from the text, nor from the historical usage of the word Catholic and its linguistic relatives like Catholicos.
Peace and God bless!
J
jco2004
Guest
While it would be incorrect to say that St. Augustine was original in his view of the Trinity and particulalrly the double procession of the Spirit, he certainly lent his great influence to these ideas in the West. Joe
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
then why did Jesus select 12 apostles?? i think he intended to start a church with a magesterium primarily responsible for transmitting the faith.
by the way, is thier an eastern version of augustine? i mean is there any one eastern church father who influenced the east as much yet may have had some erroneous interpretations?
G
Ghosty
Guest
Just about all the Fathers who wrote extensively have a few things that are considered a bit “off”. That is why no single Father is understood as the ultimate keeper of the Faith.
Sure, but so did every other Western Father, going back at least to St. Hilary of Poitiers, before Augustine’s time
Peace and God bless!
M
Montalban
Guest
And yet one He did not choose became an Apostle, when they wanted a replacement for Judas.
One who was a witness from the very beginning.
Paul too, became an Apostle and was not amongst the 12.
But the role of the Apostles was for only a period, or we’d only have 12 bishops, would we not?
M
Montalban
Guest
Given that he also said…
“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”
Ignatius -
“The Epistle to the Trallians”, Chapter III
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-18.htm#P1604_276864
And I note you’ve already seen this when I’ve quoted it a million times
P
Padre_Ambrogio
Guest
Saint Gregory of Nyssa comes immediately to the mind for his approval of Origen’s teachings on apocatastasis. Yet, we cannot say that he “influenced the East as much” as Augustine, for in the East there was a plurality of great Fathers, and what’s more, they were much more connected to each other, even in theological debate. So, no single figure could easily monopolyze the field.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I don’t see how this quote supports your claim either. I agree that without Deacons, Priests, and Bishops there is no Church; that doesn’t mean that each individual Bishopric is the Church unto itself.
Peace and God bless!
M
Montalban
Guest
Simple. He designates the limits of the church structure. And he says it’s ‘complete’ when headed by a bishop. They compliment each other.
When he spells out the clerical offices and doesn’t include “Pope” (aka ‘bishop of bishops’) this should be a clue
G
Ghosty
Guest
He doesn’t say that under a single Bishop the Church is complete, however. Even using your definition of the term catholic, he says it about Christ and not a bishop.Simple. He designates the limits of the church structure. And he says it’s ‘complete’ when headed by a bishop. They compliment each other.
When he spells out the clerical offices and doesn’t include “Pope” (aka ‘bishop of bishops’) this should be a clue
That he doesn’t mention the Papacy as an office means nothing to me as a Catholic; Pope is simply a term of endearment towards the Bishop of Rome, just as it is towards the Bishop of Alexandria. We don’t believe that the “office of Pope” is unique Sacramentally, only jurisdictionally, and this was understood long before St. Augustine’s time
Peace and God bless!
M
Montalban
Guest
Actually, he does, each church headed by a bishop, under Christ is THE Catholic church.
Nice try but we’ve gone over the ‘bishop of bishops’ idea before.That he doesn’t mention the Papacy as an office means nothing to me as a Catholic; Pope is simply a term of endearment towards the Bishop of Rome, just as it is towards the Bishop of Alexandria. We don’t believe that the “office of Pope” is unique Sacramentally, only jurisdictionally, and this was understood long before St. Augustine’s time
Peace and God bless!
The fact he does not have a bishop of bishops is the very point. For him, such an uber-bishop role didn’t exist. He says that there is no church apart from deacon, priest and bishop.
G
Ghosty
Guest
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.
I’m sorry, I just don’t see how he’s saying that the Bishop with his flock is the whole Church. In order to make this idea work, you would seem to have to say that the Bishop is Christ Himself. If you insist on this interpretation then we’ll just have to disagree, as I don’t find your repeated assertions convincing in the least.
Even assuming that you’re correct that he doesn’t view any kind of primacy among Bishops (which is not at all evident from this text), it does not follow that an individual Bishop, with a priest and deacon under him, represents the complete Church.
What’s more, Early Church history seems to contradict your assertion, because very early on the special authority and jurisdiction of certain Sees over other Bishops was affirmed and defined in Ecumenical Councils. If anyone ever held to your understanding, it was very short lived and was contrary to the definitions of the Councils.
Peace and God bless!
M
Montalban
Guest
That doesn’t make sense. He says each church headed by a Bishop (and Christ) is the complete church. He doesn’t say they’re the same. Neither do I. I don’t say that he says they’re the same either.
As far as heirarchy it does, because he lists them. Deacon, priest, bishop, then says there is no other.
He can’t be more specific than saying “THERE IS NO OTHER” when he says this you keep repeating that you just can’t see him saying it.
Thus this is going around in circles. At least this time you’re not pretending you’ve not seen this evidence.
What’s more, Early Church history seems to contradict your assertion, because very early on the special authority and jurisdiction of certain Sees over other Bishops was affirmed and defined in Ecumenical Councils. If anyone ever held to your understanding, it was very short lived and was contrary to the definitions of the Councils.
Peace and God bless!
M
Magicsilence
Guest
Montalban, I think you are reading into the text what is not there. Ignatius is not giving an official description of Church hierachy and offices, but reminding the faithful of the three offices which are to be obeyed. I think a further examination of the historical circumstances would prove that, far from ignoring the pope, it was simply not part of his message to the Trallians.
Besides, the pope is still a bishop, right?
God Bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
I really just don’t see it, and it does seem that you are playing a bit fast and loose with the reading to me. I’d be happy to consider this less skeptically if you can provide any other citations from the Early Church on this matter, and if you can give a reasonable answer for why the pre-Augustinian Councils would have ratified appeals to Apostolic Sees such as Rome and Alexandria. I’m open to hearing this, I just haven’t seen it.
Peace and God bless!
M
Montalban
Guest
He says after listing them that there is no others.
That’s why the Papacy isn’t there, because he’s excluded them from that list. That’s the very point I’m trying to make.
IF he just said “the Church consists of deacons, priests and bishops” this would not be necessarily exclusive to other ranks, but one would wonder why he didn’t *include *others. However, he’s done more than this, he’s listed the three and then said “APART FROM THESE THERE ARE NO OTHERS”, that makes an absolute. It’s final to his list. There are no more apart from these.
The Pope is a bishop of bishops.
Still a bishop, yes. If he were just a bishop I’d have absolutely no problem, and I don’t think Ignatius would. He’d be looking at the Pope as just a badge of respect given to the bishop of Rome. However the Pope is more than that. He is above the bishops. He is a different rank of authority, and is thus excluded by Ignatius.
The best you should be arguing is that Ignatius is wrong, or that the Papacy was a legitimate development over time after Ignatius, and thus explaining why that role is foreign to Ignatius’ mind.
I feel though that this will go on in circles for ever whilst you and Ghosty ‘just don’t see it’.
M
marlo
Guest
i request to go back to the OP, i would like to learn if St. Augustine influenced the latins or the doctrine held by the West is there all along.
thanks
marlo
thanks
marlo
He says after listing them that there is no others.
That’s why the Papacy isn’t there, because he’s excluded them from that list. That’s the very point I’m trying to make.
IF he just said “the Church consists of deacons, priests and bishops” this would not be necessarily exclusive to other ranks, but one would wonder why he didn’t *include *others. However, he’s done more than this, he’s listed the three and then said “APART FROM THESE THERE ARE NO OTHERS”, that makes an absolute. It’s final to his list. There are no more apart from these.
The Pope is a bishop of bishops.
Still a bishop, yes. If he were just a bishop I’d have absolutely no problem, and I don’t think Ignatius would. He’d be looking at the Pope as just a badge of respect given to the bishop of Rome. However the Pope is more than that. He is above the bishops. He is a different rank of authority, and is thus excluded by Ignatius.
The best you should be arguing is that Ignatius is wrong, or that the Papacy was a legitimate development over time after Ignatius, and thus explaining why that role is foreign to Ignatius’ mind.
I feel though that this will go on in circles for ever whilst you and Ghosty ‘just don’t see it’.
S
st_bernard
Guest
Gratia et pax vobiscum,
I take issue with this hypothesis that St. Augustine was an ‘original thinker’ or ‘cocooned off from the wealth of Mediterranean theology’. ~ corrected original post due to the keen sighted Opus118…
** For example:** The correlation between the practice of infant baptism and the doctrine of original sin was first made visible in the works of St. Cyprian not St. Augustine. It had apparently been a custom for some parts of the church to baptize infants on the eighth day after their birth, but St. Cyprian insisted that this was too long to wait:
“If, when they subsequently come to believe, forgiveness of sins is granted even to the worst transgressors and to those who have sinned much against God, and if no one is denied access to baptism and to grace; how much less right do we have to deny it to an infant, who, having been born recently, has not personally sinned, except in that , being born physically according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death by his first birth! [The infant] approaches that much more easily to the reception of the forgiveness of sins because the sins remitted to him are not his own, but those of another.”
St. Cyprian did not in fact elaborate these sentiments into a full-scale theory about the origin and the propagation of “the contagion of the ancient death.” But he did invoke a doctrine of original sin to account for a practice about whose apostolic credentials and sacramental validity he had no question whatever.
St. Augustine, who learned from St. Ambrose to draw the anthropological implications of the doctrine of the virgin birth, learned from St. Cyprian and specifically from the epistle just quoted, which he called St. Cyprian’s “book on the baptism of infants” to argue that infant baptism proved the presence in infants of a sin that was inevitable, but a sin for which they were nevertheless held responsible. “The uniqueness of the remedy” in baptism, it could be argued, proved “the very depth of evil” into which mankind had sunk through Adam’s fall, and the practice of exorcism associated with the rite of baptism was liturgical evidence for the doctrine that children were in the clutches of the devil. St. Cyprian’s teaching showed that this view of sin not an innovation, but “the ancient, implanted opinion of the church.” On the basis of St. Cyprian’s discussion of infant baptism and of St. Ambrose’s interpretation of the virgin birth, St. Augustine could claim that:
“what we hold is the true, the truly Christian, and the Catholic Faith, as it was handed down of old through the Sacred Scriptures, and so retained and preserved by our faithers and to this very time, in which these men have attempted to overthrow it.”
I take grave issue with any attempts to isolate St. Augustine from ‘the wealth of Mediterranean theology’ in an attempt to discredit him and the Western Church. He was not only aware of St. Ambrose’s works, he used those same works to establish his own ideas in conjunction with what had been past on to him by the earlier fathers.
Gratias
I take issue with this hypothesis that St. Augustine was an ‘original thinker’ or ‘cocooned off from the wealth of Mediterranean theology’. ~ corrected original post due to the keen sighted Opus118…
** For example:** The correlation between the practice of infant baptism and the doctrine of original sin was first made visible in the works of St. Cyprian not St. Augustine. It had apparently been a custom for some parts of the church to baptize infants on the eighth day after their birth, but St. Cyprian insisted that this was too long to wait:
“If, when they subsequently come to believe, forgiveness of sins is granted even to the worst transgressors and to those who have sinned much against God, and if no one is denied access to baptism and to grace; how much less right do we have to deny it to an infant, who, having been born recently, has not personally sinned, except in that , being born physically according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death by his first birth! [The infant] approaches that much more easily to the reception of the forgiveness of sins because the sins remitted to him are not his own, but those of another.”
St. Cyprian did not in fact elaborate these sentiments into a full-scale theory about the origin and the propagation of “the contagion of the ancient death.” But he did invoke a doctrine of original sin to account for a practice about whose apostolic credentials and sacramental validity he had no question whatever.
St. Augustine, who learned from St. Ambrose to draw the anthropological implications of the doctrine of the virgin birth, learned from St. Cyprian and specifically from the epistle just quoted, which he called St. Cyprian’s “book on the baptism of infants” to argue that infant baptism proved the presence in infants of a sin that was inevitable, but a sin for which they were nevertheless held responsible. “The uniqueness of the remedy” in baptism, it could be argued, proved “the very depth of evil” into which mankind had sunk through Adam’s fall, and the practice of exorcism associated with the rite of baptism was liturgical evidence for the doctrine that children were in the clutches of the devil. St. Cyprian’s teaching showed that this view of sin not an innovation, but “the ancient, implanted opinion of the church.” On the basis of St. Cyprian’s discussion of infant baptism and of St. Ambrose’s interpretation of the virgin birth, St. Augustine could claim that:
“what we hold is the true, the truly Christian, and the Catholic Faith, as it was handed down of old through the Sacred Scriptures, and so retained and preserved by our faithers and to this very time, in which these men have attempted to overthrow it.”
I take grave issue with any attempts to isolate St. Augustine from ‘the wealth of Mediterranean theology’ in an attempt to discredit him and the Western Church. He was not only aware of St. Ambrose’s works, he used those same works to establish his own ideas in conjunction with what had been past on to him by the earlier fathers.
Gratias
M
marlo
Guest
do you havea a link to st. cyprian’s writings that is similar to St. Augustines understanding of original sin?
thanks
marlo
thanks
marlo
Gratia et pax vobiscum,
I take issue with this hypothesis that St. Augustine was an ‘original thinker’ or ‘cocooned off from the wealth of Mediterranean theology’. ~ corrected original post due to the keen sighted Opus118…
For example: The correlation between the practice of infant baptism and the doctrine of original sin was first made visible in the works of St. Cyprian not St. Augustine. It had apparently been a custom for some parts of the church to baptize infants on the eighth day after their birth, but St. Cyprian insisted that this was too long to wait:
“If, when they subsequently come to believe, forgiveness of sins is granted even to the worst transgressors and to those who have sinned much against God, and if no one is denied access to baptism and to grace; how much less right do we have to deny it to an infant, who, having been born recently, has not personally sinned, except in that , being born physically according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death by his first birth! [The infant] approaches that much more easily to the reception of the forgiveness of sins because the sins remitted to him are not his own, but those of another.”
St. Cyprian did not in fact elaborate these sentiments into a full-scale theory about the origin and the propagation of “the contagion of the ancient death.” But he did invoke a doctrine of original sin to account for a practice about whose apostolic credentials and sacramental validity he had no question whatever.
St. Augustine, who learned from St. Ambrose to draw the anthropological implications of the doctrine of the virgin birth, learned from St. Cyprian and specifically from the epistle just quoted, which he called St. Cyprian’s “book on the baptism of infants” to argue that infant baptism proved the presence in infants of a sin that was inevitable, but a sin for which they were nevertheless held responsible. “The uniqueness of the remedy” in baptism, it could be argued, proved “the very depth of evil” into which mankind had sunk through Adam’s fall, and the practice of exorcism associated with the rite of baptism was liturgical evidence for the doctrine that children were in the clutches of the devil. St. Cyprian’s teaching showed that this view of sin not an innovation, but “the ancient, implanted opinion of the church.” On the basis of St. Cyprian’s discussion of infant baptism and of St. Ambrose’s interpretation of the virgin birth, St. Augustine could claim that:
“what we hold is the true, the truly Christian, and the Catholic Faith, as it was handed down of old through the Sacred Scriptures, and so retained and preserved by our faithers and to this very time, in which these men have attempted to overthrow it.”
I take grave issue with any attempts to isolate St. Augustine from ‘the wealth of Mediterranean theology’ in an attempt to discredit him and the Western Church. He was not only aware of St. Ambrose’s works, he used those same works to establish his own ideas in conjunction with what had been past on to him by the earlier fathers.
Gratias
- Status