Did St Augustine influence the Latins?

[Magicsilence]

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’.

Or rather, you see what you want to see.

Whether peter/his successor was in charge was not on the mind of the early Christians. Would you have bothered about a wandering leader constantly being persecuted and his whereabouts dubious?

No, Ignatius was practical. To the Trallians, they knew only deacons, priests and bishops. Upper workings of the Church were not of concern, the Christian faith was.

God Bless!

 

[marlo]

this post is amazing, St. Cyprian teaches that baptism of an infant is for the forgiveness NOT of his sin (since an infant is unable to sin) but by another (adam and eve)

“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_bernard]

do you havea a link to st. cyprian’s writings that is similar to St. Augustines understanding of original sin?

Unfortunately no but I know that Ancient Christian Writers Vol. 1 and 3 cover St. Cyprian and his works.

This reference may be in error as I’m posting from memory…

Gratias

 

[Ghosty]

A link to St. Cyprian’s letter.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Montalban]

Or rather, you see what you want to see.

I see what he says. I’ve stated why I believe it. You and Ghosty just repeat “I don’t see it”. How you see a papacy in his limitations of the church is as still only known to you.

Whether peter/his successor was in charge was not on the mind of the early Christians. Would you have bothered about a wandering leader constantly being persecuted and his whereabouts dubious?

If he was the leader of the church, he’d have been listed as ‘leader of the church’. You can’t argue that he was both the leader, and one who in effect wasn’t because he was always being hunted.

No, Ignatius was practical. To the Trallians, they knew only deacons, priests and bishops. Upper workings of the Church were not of concern, the Christian faith was.

If only he meant this work only for them, and it ignores the other evidence I cited about the completeness of the church. Oh well. I guess you or someone else will just retort “I don’t see it”.

 

[Ghosty]

The reason I don’t see it is that a ) it’s not evident in
the writing, as two different realities are being refered
to, and b ) your view contradicts the decisions of
numerous Councils, and Apostolic Canon 34 in particular:

"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him
who is first among them and count him as their head and do
nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may
do those things only which concern his own ‘parish’6 and
the county places which belong to it. But neither let him
(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all;
for so there will be unanimity and God will be glorified
through the Lord in the Holy Spirit { OR “Through the Lord
Jesus Christ and the Father through the Lord by the Holy
Spirit, even the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit.”}

So even if we disregard the Papacy, it is clear that there
is an order to Bishops, and that no diocese can be
considered complete in and of itself. This Canon clearly
bears out the notion of Catholic meaning universal, and
seems to go against any argument that every individual
diocese is rightfully Catholic in itself.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty:

The reason I don’t see it is that a ) it’s not evident in the writing, as two different realities are being referred to,

What two realities?

He’s saying in effect “These are the church offices, AND NO MORE” to that you just assume there must be a reason he didn’t include the Pope, or as Magicsilence believes that this letter was restricted solely to that church. Or that he is including the Pope, who is a bishop. In short you’ve got all these add-ons to what he’s saying.

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty:

and b ) your view contradicts the decisions of numerous Councils, and Apostolic Canon 34 in particular:

Quote:"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and count him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own ‘parish’6 and the county places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity and God will be glorified
through the Lord in the Holy Spirit { OR “Through the Lord Jesus Christ and the Father through the Lord by the Holy Spirit, even the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”}

Ghosty:

So even if we disregard the Papacy, it is clear that there is an order to Bishops, and that no diocese can be considered complete in and of itself. This Canon clearly bears out the notion of Catholic meaning universal, and seems to go against any argument that every individual diocese is rightfully Catholic in itself.

Jesus is completely God.

A church headed by a bishop is completely Catholic

Jesus is part of the Trinity. It is the ‘triune mystery’ of God that each member is fully God, yet each are in communion with each other. There is nothing above ‘God’.

Each church headed by a bishop, in communion with each other church headed by a bishop is equal and completely Catholic. There is nothing above the bishop in his church. The Church is reflecting the Triune nature of God.

There is absolutely no problem with each church in a district headed by a bishop all working together and being of one accord, as each member of the Trinity is of one Will.

 

[Montalban]

I went over this already in another thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1611603&highlight=complete+trinity+image#post1611603
And presented such evidence
viz.

Montalban:

And I explained why this analogy has limitations. We are all, also of the Body of Christ. What is important is that you being part does not lessen me being part. But the church ideally should speak with one will should it not? Which is why the church is founded on all the Apostles. Haven’t we gone over this enough?

Even Catholic teaching says this much…
“Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws”
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12MYSTI.HTM

Excepting that the Church is the Body of Christ. Excepting I’ve cited that each church has the fullness of God. Excepting that I’ve cited the definition of “Catholic” was each church headed by a bishop. Etc.

Even in Catholic teaching (again I’ve got to point this out)
“If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.”
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p5.htm

The Body of Christ. The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to the Pauline literature and constitutes one of the most significant concepts therein (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-27; Eph 4:7-16; Col 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is to demonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within the church, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body of Christ is the last Adam (1 Cor 15:45), the new humanity of the endtime that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage of the image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that the church, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to go spiritually. It is “not yet” complete.
churches.net/churches/utmiss/…H%20CLAIMS.htm

There are, according to the RCC ‘three states of the church’. The Church is a reflection of the Body of Christ. Christ is fully God.

Except of course you believe that the Pope is also an extra special ‘more equal than others’ kind of guy. You thus have a ‘body’ of Christ (who is God) in which one part is more exalted than the others. And that we are only part of the Body in relation to him (the Pope).

And from a few posts before that one

Montalban:

This was because… “each local church was under the complete authority of its bishop, elected for life by the clergy and representatives of the laity of the see, with the consent of the neighboring bishops, one of whom would consecrate him, so that the apostolic succession from Christ’s disciples would be maintained. The charismatic equality of all bishops has never been challenged in Eastern Christendom; but in the later part of the third century, in the period between the persecutions of Valerian and of Diocletian, when the number of Christians rose sharply, it became the custom of bishops to meet now and then in conclave in the local metropolis, under the presidency of the metropolitan bishop, who thus gradually obtained an undefined administrative and even spiritual authority over his fellows.”
Runciman, S., (1977), “The Byzantine Theocracy”, (Cambridge University Press), p8.
This administration of the church tended to follow the pre-existing lines of Roman provincial administration. And likewise the conclaves followed the Roman pattern…

“Bishops adopted for many of their councils the official senatorial formulae of convocation. Like the Senate the council was a deliberate assembly, each bishop having equal rights in the discussion.”
Davis L. D., (1990), “The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology”, (Liturgical Press, Minnesota), p23

 

[Magicsilence]

What two realities?

He’s saying in effect “These are the church offices, AND NO MORE” to that you just assume there must be a reason he didn’t include the Pope, or as Magicsilence believes that this letter was restricted solely to that church. Or that he is including the Pope, who is a bishop. In short you’ve got all these add-ons to what he’s saying.

Consider:

"Montalban, my dear friend, I hear of all the troubles within your country, how heretics come in from all sides and threaten your faith, subverting it with poison that is injurious to the soul. I beseech you, hold fast to the traditions of your faith and remain obedient to your bishop, his presbyters and deacons also. For without these, there can be no Church, just as without Christ there can be no life eternal!

Blessings in Christ

Your Servant

MS"

Does this deny patriach’s, or ecumenical patriach’s, or archbishops?

It is not the point of my letter to you. It is not the laity who are generally in contact with the EP, but archbishops or other patriachs.

This is also the same with Ignatius, he is not writing to them about ecclesiastical dealings, but about the Christian faith. And the nearest contact for them is their deacons, priests and bishops. Without these, it is true, there is no Church.

You are really taking his words out of context.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[Montalban]

Consider:

"Montalban, my dear friend, I hear of all the troubles within your country, how heretics come in from all sides and threaten your faith, subverting it with poison that is injurious to the soul. I beseech you, hold fast to the traditions of your faith and remain obedient to your bishop, his presbyters and deacons also. For without these, there can be no Church, just as without Christ there can be no life eternal!

Blessings in Christ

Your Servant

MS"

Does this deny patriach’s, or ecumenical patriach’s, or archbishops?

It is not the point of my letter to you. It is not the laity who are generally in contact with the EP, but archbishops or other patriarchs.

a few points
a) this text I never took in isolation, but looked at Ignatius’ other works, including what he said about the Catholic church being complete, when it is headed by a bishop. Your analysis fails then due to an attempt to isolate this text from others mentioned
b) a patriarch is not ‘higher than a bishop’, in the sense that the pope is. So it’s still saying all bishops are it.
c) he is making a statement that is absolute, on the limits of church offices. He is not saying “*In your local church *there is only deacons, priests and a bishop”. Or do you now suggest that even in a Catholic idea of a local church there is no reference to the Pope?

This is also the same with Ignatius, he is not writing to them about ecclesiastical dealings, but about the Christian faith. And the nearest contact for them is their deacons, priests and bishops. Without these, it is true, there is no Church.

You’re saying that he’s suggesting that this local church, topped by a bishop doesn’t come under the control of a Pope! The Pope, in the Catholic church can interfere even at a local level. For you, in an attempt to argue that this local church is all that Ignatius is talking about, therefore is a church in which not even the Pope can interfere in.

I’m sorry that you would have to invent such a strange situation.

Imagine if he were just talking to that church and said “Your own church has as its officers deacons, priests and a bishop AND NO ONE ELSE” then what right a Pope in this local church? Funny you’d have to argue against your own churches idea of Papacy in order to make that work.

I suppose that makes sense since you’re already (by way of your example atop) re-written what he said.

He says there is no church (absolute) aside from deacons, priests, and the bishop, to these there are no others (absolute).

For you he’s written (Within your own church) there is nothing but deacons, priests and the bishop.

You are really taking his words out of context.

No, you are. Here is a wider picture of what he writes.

He stated all churches headed by a bishop are Catholic (Smyrnaeans 8), not the Pope, not a bishop of bishops, not power held only reference to Rome.

He stated nothing should be done without the bishop (Smyrnaeans 8), not Pope, not reference to Rome. RCC teaching allows the Pope to interfere in a bishopric.

The structure of the church has no place above Bishop (Trallians 3), not Pope, no reference to Rome

The bishop holds all power (Trallians 7), not Pope, not only in reference to Rome

He states that there’s no one above the bishop, save for Jesus (Letter to Polycarp; Romans 9), not the Pope, not only in reference to Rome

He stated all churches headed by a bishop are Catholic (Smyrnaeans 8), not the Pope, not a bishop of bishops, not power held only reference to Rome.

He stated nothing should be done without the bishop (Smyrnaeans 8), not Pope, not reference to Rome. RCC teaching allows the Pope to interfere in a bishopric.

The structure of the church has no place above Bishop (Trallians 3), not Pope, no reference to Rome

The bishop holds all power (Trallians 7), not Pope, not only in reference to Rome

He states that there’s no one above the bishop, save for Jesus (Letter to Polycarp; Romans 9), not the Pope, not only in reference to Rome

The absolute lack of writing relating to the Pope is a clear sign something’s amiss, especially when he goes about making absolute statements regarding the limits of the church.

It doesn’t even work, your ‘example’, in Catholic theology to have him say “To the local church that has only the deacons, priests, and the bishop” as it instantly excluding any role for the Pope in local affairs. I’ve already demonstrated that the Pope is not just one of many bishops, but a ‘bishop of bishops’ you deny him of this role.