Ignatius' epistle to the romans

[exiled]

Being new to reading the ECF’s, I wonder if I am reading this right? Do I read in this document that Rome presides over the churches?
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit,(1) worthy of being deemed holy,(2) and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, and is possessed of the Spirit, which I also salute in the name of Almighty God, and of Jesus Christ His Son: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments,
I see later in the text a reference to the True Presence, but later still Ignatius bids farewell to the church, leaving it in the hands of Jesus Christ, which from the perspective of a protestant acquaintance means it is an independent, self-governing church not under the authority of Rome.
Any comments

 

[Contarini]

Being new to reading the ECF’s, I wonder if I am reading this right? Do I read in this document that Rome presides over the churches?
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit,(1) worthy of being deemed holy,(2) and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, and is possessed of the Spirit, which I also salute in the name of Almighty God, and of Jesus Christ His Son: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments,
I see later in the text a reference to the True Presence, but later still Ignatius bids farewell to the church, leaving it in the hands of Jesus Christ, which from the perspective of a protestant acquaintance means it is an independent, self-governing church not under the authority of Rome.
Any comments

I’m not sure what church you are talking about in that last bit.

The meaning of “presides over love” (or “presides in love”) is debated. One possibility is that he’s referring to the generous financial help provided by Rome to other churches. In one rather hostile but very influential interpretation (Walter Bauer), Rome bankrolled the spread of its particular brand of Christianity (of which Ignatius was the local representative in Antioch) and thus largely created “orthodoxy.” This actually fits quite well with Newman’s picture of early Christian history, though of course he looks at it with much more favorable eyes!

I don’t think anyone (with any knowledge of early Christianity) disputes that Rome had some kind of presiding role from pretty early on. The question is–just how far did this extend, and was it of divine origin or simply a pragmatic matter (given that Rome was the center of the known world at that time). The fact of Roman primacy is not really in dispute. It doesn’t get Catholics very far in their disagreements with other Christians.

Edwin

 

[Verita]

but later still Ignatius bids farewell to the church, leaving it in the hands of Jesus Christ, which from the perspective of a protestant acquaintance means it is an independent, self-governing church not under the authority of Rome.
Any comments

I don’t have the letter at hand, but I would say if he is bidding farewell to the Church it is probably because he is on his way to be martyred. Ignatius was arrested by by Trajan in Antioch and taken to Rome to be killed.

 

[exiled]

I can’t get my friend to even accept that Rome has a primary position in the church. She argues independent, self-governing churches, that once established were left to themselves. This passage by Ignatius she uses to prove that case. Obviously, I don’t see it that way, and I feel quite sure Ignatius is not leaving the Syrians (I think that is who was referenced) without a visible shepherd. So, I need to find a follow up to this, or a writing from the next shepherd of the flock in Syria.

 

[CRW]

I see later in the text a reference to the True Presence, but later still Ignatius bids farewell to the church, leaving it in the hands of Jesus Christ, which from the perspective of a protestant acquaintance means it is an independent, self-governing church not under the authority of Rome.
Any comments

1 Timothy 3-15: If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Jesus is the Body of the Church of Rome but the Church is the Pillar. Jesus, through Peter, gave the authority over the household of God to the Church. IMHO, the location just happened to be Rome. Wherever the Catholic (Universal) Church is, Christ, as the Body is there, but the Church remains the Pillar…

 

[Contarini]

I can’t get my friend to even accept that Rome has a primary position in the church. She argues independent, self-governing churches, that once established were left to themselves. This passage by Ignatius she uses to prove that case. Obviously, I don’t see it that way, and I feel quite sure Ignatius is not leaving the Syrians (I think that is who was referenced) without a visible shepherd. So, I need to find a follow up to this, or a writing from the next shepherd of the flock in Syria.

What does she mean by “left to themselves.” Does she mean that there was no contact among Christian churches? Surely not!

The evidence for primacy is clear. I can’t see how any passage from Ignatius disproves it. That doesn’t mean that later Roman claims of jurisdiction are valid. But some churches clearly had leadership roles within the Universal Church, from as early as we have any relevant evidence. And among these Rome held the first place. Anyone who denies this is simply blind.

Edwin

 

[exiled]

What does she mean by “left to themselves.” Does she mean that there was no contact among Christian churches? Surely not!

The evidence for primacy is clear. I can’t see how any passage from Ignatius disproves it. That doesn’t mean that later Roman claims of jurisdiction are valid. But some churches clearly had leadership roles within the Universal Church, from as early as we have any relevant evidence. And among these Rome held the first place. Anyone who denies this is simply blind.

Edwin

Yes, that is exactly what she thinks. She thinks independent, self-governing churches were intended by Christ so that corruption of one would not lead another, as she claims happened in the Catholic Church. The corrupt church would just implode, so-to-speak.
She insists on uniformity of doctrine among sola scriptura churches, but the way I see it, there are no doctrines except Christ has saved them, and you don’t have a position on an issue, you can’t have disagreement.
I’d like to find some sources of disagreement among protestants to cite to her.

 

[puzzleannie]

Yes, that is exactly what she thinks. She thinks independent, self-governing churches were intended by Christ so that corruption of one would not lead another, as she claims happened in the Catholic Church. .

so Jesus was just kidding at the last supper when he demanded and pleaded for unity among his followers?

 

[exiled]

so Jesus was just kidding at the last supper when he demanded and pleaded for unity among his followers?

She says there is unity among Bible Christians, but the only doctrines she thinks are doctrines are Christ is the Messiah, the Bible is the canon (minus the 7 Catholic books), and that faith alone, the Bible alone, blah, blah, blah.
She really has started to be dishonest in her dialogue with me. She claims the councils, but denies their infallibility except for on the points she agrees with.
It’s typical protestant stuff, by her argument, she is the one infallible hearer of the HS.
I’m not sure why I don’t give up.

 

[Borealis]

I can’t get my friend to even accept that Rome has a primary position in the church. She argues independent, self-governing churches, that once established were left to themselves. This passage by Ignatius she uses to prove that case. Obviously, I don’t see it that way, and I feel quite sure Ignatius is not leaving the Syrians (I think that is who was referenced) without a visible shepherd. So, I need to find a follow up to this, or a writing from the next shepherd of the flock in Syria.

You can ask her to explain why St. Clement (one of the earliest Popes) was asked to intercede with the Corinthian Church. Hand her the first few chapters of Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians and see what she says.