S
steve_b
Guest
That’s NOT the definition of the Catholic Church.
Oh didn’t you know, the seminaries are filling up again. The drought is easing.
Where the heck are you going with this?
- Status
That’s NOT the definition of the Catholic Church.
Where the heck are you going with this?
S
steve_b
Guest
That’s NOT the definition of the Catholic Church.
Oh didn’t you know, the seminaries are filling up again. The drought is easing.
Where the heck are you going with this?
M
Montalban
Guest
If you’d seen my statements in context with the person I was addressing you may have picked up on the fact that he argued that the Catholic church surely must be ‘the’ church, 'cause it’s so strong and powerful. Not only did I say that this of itself is a non-argument (Moslems make the same argument for the rapid spred of Islam), but, depending on what one ‘measures’ one can fnd that the RC Church is not so strong. Having made treaties with fascists is no more a reflection on your church than the Russians (Orthodox) compromising with the communists.
It is off-topic, but I didn’t start that. Just pointing out where one can go with such absurd ‘measures’ for success
M
Montalban
Guest
And I asked you how do you bind and loose if you’ve not access to the keys?
And of course the Church Fathers say the others have the keys. It’s implied
M
Montalban
Guest
I already did by quoting extensively what Ignatius says regarding church governance. Go back and read where he states that every church headed by a Bishop is the Catholic church.
There you have it… the longer the letter, the greater the church! Well done! Size does matter
As Ignatius said… everywhere headed by a bishop there is the church.
See above. The Church is not the church simply by the number of cities it holds
Only if you believe that the church is that which collects the most amount of cities; like a spiritual monopoly board. Your church acquires wealth, you admire that.
"Montalban:
Same question. You are good at re-wording it. The church could be out in the desert, for all I care.
Why make any elaborate/courteous greeting to any church at all? This is just you repeating Bishopite’s question.
"Montalban:
Then cite some examples from history. I have. You haven’t. (check out Pope St. Victor). Or the fact that none of the first great Ecumenical Councils was called by a Pope. One was called without notifying him. One was called against his wishes. Plenty of examples that I’ve put forward that you’ve not addressed.
Indeed, Rome was once a bulwark of Orthodoxy.
M
Montalban
Guest
"Montalban:
Jesus is fully God. Yet we believe in a Trinity, so that though there are three persons, they are all fully God. They are united and of one will. So to with the church. The entire church is Catholic. Each church headed by a bishop is Catholic. Each person in the church united to it is Catholic. That’s the triune mystery at work here on earth.
Many have put forward the idea that we need a pope to protect against heresy. There’s nothing however to say that one man may not err, as well.
It goes back to the Trinune mystery. Each church is fully God. To have two bishops would be to change the nature of that union. It is why we can’t change the structure of our church to accommodate a Pope, nor could we accommodate the filioque, which is a distortion of the Trinity.
All people can err.
Many ‘hint’ that the faith of Peter is the unity.
M
Montalban
Guest
First, there’s this note to the text…
The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/footnote/fn73.htm#P7320_1946616
.
“2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.”
(Ibid.)
Note that he says because of Peter and Paul it is ‘pre-eminenent’ and it is an ‘example’ of the other churches. He is in effect saying “I could list all the churches which hold the faith handed down by the Apostles, however to save time, this church, founded by Peter AND Paul will serve as the example…”
He doesn’t accord Rome any superiority in power, and in fact is stating that the example of Rome must apply equally to all the other churches that have likewise kept to Christian tradition. They are thus all equal. Rome is an archetype. An ‘example’. Not the ‘leader’. Because he immediately brings it back to being the faith held by the churches everywhere, founded by all the Apostles.
The RC Church version would be that “Rome is pre-eminent because it was founded by Peter”
His version is “Rome is pre-eminent because if was founded by Peter and Paul” That is, it’s position is not dependent upon Peter alone, but because it’s the only church that was associated with two great founders. And it’s still an ‘example’ for describing all the other churches founded by all the other Apostles.
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter **and ** Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”
Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.1.1 (quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859)
And this is one of the sources that says Linus NOT Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate."
Ibid. Book III.3.2-3
That is, Linus gets his office from the Apostles (plural). Paul and Peter are equal.
Eusebius also accepts this role for Linus "The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.
Eusebius “The History of the Church” Book V Chapter VI. Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome cited at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P2930_1381485
SO I agree, as do all Orthodox that Rome had a kind of Primacy. It is not because of Peter ALONE (which is the Roman Catholic argument). We have one section of verse we don’t know the original Greek.
In short Irenaus is saying that the Apostles went about building churches. Peter AND Paul did so in Rome. They are great men. They together founded the church there. They appointed Linus. Because they are associated with Rome he will use Rome as the example of his argument for arguing that the faith was held by all the churches founded by the Apostles.
The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/footnote/fn73.htm#P7320_1946616
.
You missed the opening to this passage
“2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.”
(Ibid.)
Note that he says because of Peter and Paul it is ‘pre-eminenent’ and it is an ‘example’ of the other churches. He is in effect saying “I could list all the churches which hold the faith handed down by the Apostles, however to save time, this church, founded by Peter AND Paul will serve as the example…”
He doesn’t accord Rome any superiority in power, and in fact is stating that the example of Rome must apply equally to all the other churches that have likewise kept to Christian tradition. They are thus all equal. Rome is an archetype. An ‘example’. Not the ‘leader’. Because he immediately brings it back to being the faith held by the churches everywhere, founded by all the Apostles.
The RC Church version would be that “Rome is pre-eminent because it was founded by Peter”
His version is “Rome is pre-eminent because if was founded by Peter and Paul” That is, it’s position is not dependent upon Peter alone, but because it’s the only church that was associated with two great founders. And it’s still an ‘example’ for describing all the other churches founded by all the other Apostles.
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter **and ** Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”
Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.1.1 (quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859)
And this is one of the sources that says Linus NOT Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate."
Ibid. Book III.3.2-3
That is, Linus gets his office from the Apostles (plural). Paul and Peter are equal.
Eusebius also accepts this role for Linus "The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.
Eusebius “The History of the Church” Book V Chapter VI. Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome cited at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P2930_1381485
SO I agree, as do all Orthodox that Rome had a kind of Primacy. It is not because of Peter ALONE (which is the Roman Catholic argument). We have one section of verse we don’t know the original Greek.
In short Irenaus is saying that the Apostles went about building churches. Peter AND Paul did so in Rome. They are great men. They together founded the church there. They appointed Linus. Because they are associated with Rome he will use Rome as the example of his argument for arguing that the faith was held by all the churches founded by the Apostles.
M
Montalban
Guest
The Fathers I quoted don’t say that they hold the keys only in relation to Rome.
M
Montalban
Guest
No. But as I noted earlier the church was there until 1922 when the allies (including America) sat on their proverbials and let the Turks wipe out the Christian presence in the city. God’s work through Americans?
Yes you have; by stating that the Orthodox churches in certain places have ‘gone’ whilst Rome is still there
Thanks for repeating a position without recourse to backing it up
Which is to repeat the God’s justice argument.
In short you make an argument you claim you’re not making. And you repeat a (what is now in effect) ‘just-so’ statement about Peter. Well done.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
"steve b:
To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:
These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again. I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.
When the Turks decided to attack the Christian population of Smyrna in 1922 they imprisoned the Christians in the Christian quarter and set fire to it. You can read the account written by the United States Consul George Horton.
American frigates were anchored in the waters off Smyrna, but the Americans simply watched as the Christians were burnt and slaughtered. We know from their reports that the smell of burning human flesh turned their stomachs. Even worse, when some of the Christians managed to get to the shore and got into fishing boats to set out for what they thought would be the safety of the American ships, the Americans fired on them. Is that not too ghastly for words?! They did not want to offend the Turks by saving Christian lives.
Let God forgive…
But the Church of Smyrna still exists today, much reduced, probably not many more than in the days when Saint John write the Apocalypse. And how fitting that the martyrdom of the Christians in 1922 was by fire - the same death suffered by the great Bishop of Smyrna Saint Polycarp. Holy Martyrs of Smyrna, pray for us.
img222.imageshack.us/img222/4659/mitropolitissmyrnis400bfe4.jpg
“Special mention must be made of Metropolitan Chrysostom of Smyrna. This brave and noble Greek Orthodox Cleric supported the Greek liberators in 1919, and was a voice for the aspirations of a nation that had been enslaved, humiliated, massacred, and denigrated for centuries. When the news broke that the Kemalist aggressors would retake Smyrna, it became apparent that the Greeks and the Armenians would not survive. Metropolitan Chrysostom was offered refuge by the French Consulate. This Saint refused the offer of safety and chose to share the fate of his flock. Metropolitan Chrysostom was handed over to a fanatical Muslim mob by the crazed and sadistic Kemalist General Noureddin Pasha. He was humiliated by having his beard cut off, and then his eyes, ears, nose, and hands were cut off. Metropolitan Chyrsostom was canonized as a Saint by the Orthodox Church of Greece in 1992.”
Christians, dead on the beach of Smyrna, 1922
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:He-smyrna-vict-line.jpg
Smyrna burns 1922
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/İzmirYangını.jpg
The Church of Smryna survives to this day, as God said it would…and it is Orthodox, as it has been for 2000 years.
To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:
These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again. I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.
The Church of Smyrna is an undying shame for America - a voice which cries to the Lord in pain and suffering.
When the Turks decided to attack the Christian population of Smyrna in 1922 they imprisoned the Christians in the Christian quarter and set fire to it. You can read the account written by the United States Consul George Horton.
American frigates were anchored in the waters off Smyrna, but the Americans simply watched as the Christians were burnt and slaughtered. We know from their reports that the smell of burning human flesh turned their stomachs. Even worse, when some of the Christians managed to get to the shore and got into fishing boats to set out for what they thought would be the safety of the American ships, the Americans fired on them. Is that not too ghastly for words?! They did not want to offend the Turks by saving Christian lives.
Let God forgive…
But the Church of Smyrna still exists today, much reduced, probably not many more than in the days when Saint John write the Apocalypse. And how fitting that the martyrdom of the Christians in 1922 was by fire - the same death suffered by the great Bishop of Smyrna Saint Polycarp. Holy Martyrs of Smyrna, pray for us.
img222.imageshack.us/img222/4659/mitropolitissmyrnis400bfe4.jpg
“Special mention must be made of Metropolitan Chrysostom of Smyrna. This brave and noble Greek Orthodox Cleric supported the Greek liberators in 1919, and was a voice for the aspirations of a nation that had been enslaved, humiliated, massacred, and denigrated for centuries. When the news broke that the Kemalist aggressors would retake Smyrna, it became apparent that the Greeks and the Armenians would not survive. Metropolitan Chrysostom was offered refuge by the French Consulate. This Saint refused the offer of safety and chose to share the fate of his flock. Metropolitan Chrysostom was handed over to a fanatical Muslim mob by the crazed and sadistic Kemalist General Noureddin Pasha. He was humiliated by having his beard cut off, and then his eyes, ears, nose, and hands were cut off. Metropolitan Chyrsostom was canonized as a Saint by the Orthodox Church of Greece in 1992.”
Christians, dead on the beach of Smyrna, 1922
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:He-smyrna-vict-line.jpg
Smyrna burns 1922
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/İzmirYangını.jpg
M
Montalban
Guest
The ‘God’s justice’ argument is circular.
Christianity was once a minority faith. As such it couldn’t be said to be ‘proven’ to be in God’s favour because it wasn’t the strongest faith (as some here seem to think that because Catholicism is the strongest, it must be a sign of God’s blessing)
So it was not the church of God until it took on the strength to show that it was the church of God; God’s blessing which is manifested by it being the strongest Church. Circular reasoning.
Hopefully we can put this line of ‘reasoning’ to rest and return to the evidence from the Church Fathers.
Peter is the Rock. So is Paul. So too the other Apostles.
Christianity was once a minority faith. As such it couldn’t be said to be ‘proven’ to be in God’s favour because it wasn’t the strongest faith (as some here seem to think that because Catholicism is the strongest, it must be a sign of God’s blessing)
So it was not the church of God until it took on the strength to show that it was the church of God; God’s blessing which is manifested by it being the strongest Church. Circular reasoning.
Hopefully we can put this line of ‘reasoning’ to rest and return to the evidence from the Church Fathers.
Peter is the Rock. So is Paul. So too the other Apostles.
M
Montalban
Guest
I’ve discussed lately Ignatius and Irenaus. Let’s compare what they say to the RC Church’s idea of Papacy
Ignatius calls the Roman church the ‘president’ church; but in what sense? To the church that presides over the local Roman area, or to one that presides over the entire Christian world.
In looking further into his texts we see him say that every church headed by a bishop is completely Catholic. For him each and every church should submit to all others. For him there is no higher earthly authority than the bishop. For him, he says “There is no more church” other than the clerical positions he states.
Opposed to this is the RC Church’s idea. For them “Catholic” means only every church together and in relation to the Church in Rome. For them every church should submit only to Rome. For them every bishop is still accountable to a super-bishop; a bishop of bishops (in Rome). This position of uber-bishop is unknown to Ignatius.
Irenaus says that all churches Rome holds a kind of primacy. This is because Rome was founded by two leading-lights: Peter and Paul. It serves as an ‘example’ for summing up any church; it’s used as an archetype. All churches founded by Apostles should be in agreement with it, but as it’s the archetype, they should all be in agreement with each other. As it is ‘x’ and all other churches are ‘x’ then merely stating ‘x’ serves for exampling all of that type.
Opposed to this is the RC Church’s idea. For them Rome’s primacy is due only to Peter. It serves as an example church because it is the leading church (in authority). All churches should be in agreement with it, and thus only through it they are in agreement with each other.
It’s like quoting Jerome to say he supports Peter’s primacy. Yes, he does, but it’s based on Peter’s age, not 'cause he exclusively holds the keys.
The development of Petrine primacy is a long trek. The RC Church has moved away from the original understanding of Peter as the rock.
M
Montalban
Guest
Occasionally a Church Father mentions Peter as the ‘prince’ of the Apostles. Even here it’s not as held by the RC Church today.
In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me*, the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome. Or rather we did retain him to the end, for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter.
John Chrysostomon
On the Inscription of the Acts, II
*He is referring to St. Flavian, his bishop who was not in communion with Rome. Not being in communion with Rome and John Chrysostomon still remained loyal to his local bishop.
Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one
Gregory the Great.
Volum VII, Letter 40
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-234.htm#P6430_2272546
Gregory is recognising three different churches as holding the ‘chair’ of Peter. The modern Catholic idea would develop from the belief that Peter, as ‘prince’ of the Apostles would divest his special powers to only one church (and through that to the rest of the churches).
In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me*, the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome. Or rather we did retain him to the end, for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter.
John Chrysostomon
On the Inscription of the Acts, II
*He is referring to St. Flavian, his bishop who was not in communion with Rome. Not being in communion with Rome and John Chrysostomon still remained loyal to his local bishop.
Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one
Gregory the Great.
Volum VII, Letter 40
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-234.htm#P6430_2272546
Gregory is recognising three different churches as holding the ‘chair’ of Peter. The modern Catholic idea would develop from the belief that Peter, as ‘prince’ of the Apostles would divest his special powers to only one church (and through that to the rest of the churches).
S
steve_b
Guest
As you know, this gets us way off topic. You should start another thread if it’s of interest to you.
S
steve_b
Guest
As I mentioned to Fr A, this gets us way off track.
You’re the one who insists that each Church is completely autocephelous and independent, beholding to just themselves. Everyone according to you is there own president.
You focused on the negative. I focused on the positive.
B
Bishopite
Guest
You know, you shouldn’t ask me to cite my sources if you don’t cite yours. Your view of the council of Trent is simply your opinion.
M
mich2
Guest
I agree with most of what you have said, Montalban. However, this image can also be transposed to other levels as well. For example, the Holy Mass is celebrated with the faithful, in unity with the deacons/deaconesses (alter boys/ girls in catholic churches), and “one” priest presiding over. During the days of Ignatius, each local church (having vast territories such as the whole province of Syria) had one bishop. However, within our era, it would be ridiculous to have one bishop to every local church. But, it seems that a representative among the priests within each parishes still exists; in the catholic church we find one pastor as being appointed as head of the parish priests within the local church.
So today, the bishop is head of the whole diocese (which would be about the same territory as the time of Ignatius, but with a number of local churches). We now also have archbishops in charge of even larger territories.And so now, we come to the whole Catholic Church…the faithfull everywhere.Ought there not to exist a universal (Catholic) bishop as well? It seems the early christians point to the bishop of Rome.
Again, Montalban, I believe that Peter is the Holy Office of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all Truths…not a person.
But are there many bishops, within the Universal Church? Should’nt there be only one?
I don’t have problems with this interpretation, Montalban; however, by “profession of faith” I do not see it to be “Though art Christ…” only, but, along with “flesh and blood has not reveal this to you”…This is the gift of infallability.
Andre
M
Montalban
Guest
You should look to who first raised this as an issue.
M
Montalban
Guest
You were the one who raised it most recently.
And how does this disprove that?
You’re the one who still made the “God’s Justice” argument, then claimed you weren’t, and in the same post you repeated it. Now you’re calling us to start a new thread; and you were on the negative. You stated that the church doesn’t exist in certain cities. Man, you really need to pick an argument and stick to it.
You’ll also note that I’ve called people to get back on topic and address the evidence from the Fathers. I’m still waiting for you to do this.
M
Montalban
Guest
First you have skewered things somewhat. It is true that bishops can perform the Liturgy, but the position of priest is not a post-Biblical invention. There were always people to serve in that capacity in stead of the bishop. You’re trying to suggest that because the bishop isn’t exclusively the conductor of the liturgy today, that as time spread new positions were formed. In your church, yes, but priests are still from the Apostolic era. That is in part the point of this argument. Your church ‘adds’ to things by creating positions that are foreign to Ignatius; Cardinals, Archbishops, Popes, etc. For Ignatius clearly the limits of church are stated. Beyond these he says “There is no church”. If you want to argue you’ve a ‘valid’ reason for adding to these, that’s up to you, but they’re clearly an addition. The office of Pope is a development. Ignatius can’t be said to be arguing for a position he knew nothing about.
Deacons
1 Timothy 3:10
And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1 Timothy 3:13
For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Priests
1 Timothy 4:14
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
Presbytery
4244 presbuterion pres-boo-ter’-ee-on neuter of a presumed derivative of 4245; the order of elders, i.e. (specially), Israelite Sanhedrin or Christian “presbytery”:–(estate of) elder(-s), presbytery.
Strongs Lexicon
eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=presbytery
Bishops
1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Titus 1:7
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
1 Peter 2:25
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
That the community was small enough for the bishop to minister to the whole community in NO WAY takes away from the fact that priests were there. All this shows is that Jesus set up the church to allow for the expansion of it.
- Status