Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

[myfavoritmartin]

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot: Imagine if Jesus had set up a church on earth that did not have an authority structure that extended all the way to the top:

The Gospel of St. Bizarro:
“And Jesus said to them, 'I will build my Church on all of you equally, and none of you will have universal jurisdiction. Your authority will be limited to your own local church and the gates of hell will not prevail upon my Church…”

.

Seriously, Defide I find this line of reasoning offensive to the diety of Our Lord. With one word this world was created, our creator certainly doesn’t need to have a human organization to enforce His will.

 

[Fredricks]

DeFide
I know it is very hard to imagine a world where God has put forth a system that would have believers operating at a local level serving him and living Godly lives and seeking to do his will. God would never establish such a system because it would confound the wise…
Except of course…
THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE

 

[JaneFrances]

There is no conclusive evidence that Romes bishop had exercised jurisdiction outside of Rome until 200+ad.
It is integral to the Church of Rome to prove otherwise, isn’t it?

200 A.D. seems rather arbitrary, but I’ll bite.

The evidence is conclusive enough for the first 200 years of Christendom such that there is no proof that anyone questioned Rome’s authority before that time. Not to mention that all proofs post-200 A.D. are strong in favor of Roman primacy and authority.

In any case, we have an early 2nd century (ca. A.D. 110) letter to the Roman Church from St. Ignatius of Antioch which clearly identifies the Church at Rome as

"**the Church which holds the presidency **in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of sucess, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father: her therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, Address)

This serves as one pre-200 A.D. proof of Rome’s primacy in the place of presidency over all the Church.

In this same letter he tells the Roman church:

“You have envied no one; but others you have taught.”

Here, Ignatius acknowledges Rome’s superior quality as an authority, having envied no one and taught others.

The presidency and place of authority in teaching others are very good pre-200 A.D. proofs of Rome exercising extra-diocesan jurisdiction. Presidents hold jurisdiction entirely. And those who are envied by no one are superior.

Then, of course, one would supply the passages by St. Irenaeus Against Heresies which is generally accepted as being written prior to 200 A.D. In them he writes:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, **by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, **that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us. . .For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” (3, 3, 2)

He then, goes on to list the successors to the episcopate of this “greatest and most ancient Church” at Rome.

In doing so, he qualifies Clement’s authority to intervene outside of his local diocese, Rome, in the case of the Cornithians. He writes:

“In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . .”

This serves as an example of a Bishop of Rome exercising jurisdiction outside of Rome prior to 200+A.D, as you requested.

 

[Fredricks]

Ignatius-the Church which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of sucess, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father: her therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, Address)

I agree with that, it holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans

This serves as one pre-200 A.D. proof of Rome’s primacy in the place of presidency over all the Church.

How do you go from the place of the country of the Romans to “over all the church”?

“You have envied no one; but others you have taught.”

Here, Ignatius acknowledges Rome’s superior quality as an authority, having envied no one and taught others.

Ignatius spoke in this praising type speech to other churches as well

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which
hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude
of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before
the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable
glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will
of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto
the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of
all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus
and in blameless joy.

As far as Irenaeus, he never mentions the Papacy! What a golden opportunity. He says very similiar things about Ephesus and so forth. One of the slam dunks against the Papacy is how he does not mention it in this passage. I also agree that had maintained the tradition, thanks to the correction of the great Apostle Paul in his letter to them, they remained faithful until such platitudes got the better of them.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Jane,
I went to my Epistle to the Romans by Ignatius and didn’t see any of this, so taking your word for it, lets look whats here…

Your quote by Ignatius…
"the Church which holds the presidency** in the place of the country of the Romans/B], worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of sucess, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father: her therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, Address)

I’d have to say this was a letter to the top Roman church wouldn’t you? Not the top universal church, the one known for all ages that had universal authority.**

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Jane,
I did some further research on his epistle to the Romans… From CCEL which I have never found to be inaccurate this is the same area you highlighted the term presidency, do you see it here?..Here is my link. I’d like to see yours also.
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-19.htm#P1797_305873

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy,1 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most 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 formed 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,2 worthy of being deemed holy,3 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, who are filled inseparably with all the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in God, even the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

It says presides, not presidency**

 

[myfavoritmartin]

HERE IS YOUR POST…
"the Church which** holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans**, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of sucess, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father: her therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, Address)

 

[mercygate]

I agree with that, it holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans

How do you go from the place of the country of the Romans to “over all the church”?

Ignatius spoke in this praising type speech to other churches as well

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which
hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude
of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before
the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable
glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will
of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto
the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of
*all felicitation: *abundant greeting in Christ Jesus
and in blameless joy.

As far as Irenaeus, he never mentions the Papacy! What a golden opportunity. He says very similiar things about Ephesus and so forth. One of the slam dunks against the Papacy is how he does not mention it in this passage. I also agree that had maintained the tradition, thanks to the correction of the great Apostle Paul in his letter to them, they remained faithful until such platitudes got the better of them.

Are you looking for the word “papacy”?

 

[Fredricks]

Are you looking for the word “papacy”?

I understand why it could appear that way to you but no. It is rather straightforward. Without a doubt, the Papacy developed. What is interesting to me is that Ignatius and Irenaues are actually doing an incredible job of explaining why. The problem is that does not mean it is what the Lord and the great men of God set up as described in the New Testament.
What we are looking for, and does not exist, is evidence from the first 200 or so years of Christianity that points to the fact that all of Christianity believed that a bishop in Rome is the head of the entire church based upon his receiving that role from the great Apostle Peter.
It is certainly our contention that the Bible teaches a very simple form of church government that for us logically comes from Christ. Its described by Peter. Its described by Paul. While the Apostles are all still alive, it is described in the Jerusalem Council even. The difficulty is in the lens by which we examine the evidence. When I read the letter from great servant of God Clement, I see a clear picture of what the Lord established. Others see a Papacy. It is a deflating process for me, as I can imagine it would be for you.
Both sides at their best trying to be charitable and to see the others perspective. I had to leave for awhile because it caused my soul such a sadness.
The Lord be with you.

 

[mercygate]

I understand why it could appear that way to you but no. It is rather straightforward. Without a doubt, the Papacy developed. What is interesting to me is that Ignatius and Irenaues are actually doing an incredible job of explaining why. The problem is that does not mean it is what the Lord and the great men of God set up as described in the New Testament.
What we are looking for, and does not exist, is evidence from the first 200 or so years of Christianity that points to the fact that all of Christianity believed that a bishop in Rome is the head of the entire church based upon his receiving that role from the great Apostle Peter.
It is certainly our contention that the Bible teaches a very simple form of church government that for us logically comes from Christ. Its described by Peter. Its described by Paul. While the Apostles are all still alive, it is described in the Jerusalem Council even. The difficulty is in the lens by which we examine the evidence. When I read the letter from great servant of God Clement, I see a clear picture of what the Lord established. Others see a Papacy. It is a deflating process for me, as I can imagine it would be for you.
Both sides at their best trying to be charitable and to see the others perspective. I had to leave for awhile because it caused my soul such a sadness.
The Lord be with you.

So your reading of the New Testament shows a chuch of independent fiefdoms in which each apostle held sway without reference to the others?

 

[JaneFrances]

I agree with that, it holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans

How do you go from the place of the country of the Romans to “over all the church”?

First, we know that the Church at Roman holds the presidency. On that much we agree.

So, then we must determine over what it presides.

Our choices are:

1. the Church of Rome presides over the Church of Rome
2. the Church of Rome presides over the the other churches

It doesn’t make sense, within the context of this address, for Ignatius to acknowledge Rome’s presidency over itself, as it is abundantly clear through other patrisitic accounts that diocese do exercise self-jurisdiction. So, the only other option is that it presides over other churches. Ignatius does not specify jurisdiction, so we deduce, through historical accounts and patristic witness, that the Church at Rome did in fact hold the presidency over the Church.

Ignatius spoke in this praising type speech to other churches as well

*Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which
hath been blessed in greatness *through the plentitude
of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before
the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable
glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will
of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto
the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of
all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus
and in blameless joy.

This is certainly high praise, but in this greeting Ignatius there is a marked difference in the message from the superlative descriptors he offers to Rome.

Again, to Rome he says:

You have envied no one; but others you have taught.

To envy “no one” is to be superior. To teach others is to be authoritative. This was the position of Rome as president of the Church.

In essence you are comparing apples and oranges. In the case of Ephesus, Ignatius says “You are great, you are worthy of blessing because of your holiness” and to Rome he says “You are the president, you are superior, you are authoritative.” Do not let the language mask the messages. They are quite different despite their shared complimentary tone.

As far as Irenaeus, he never mentions the Papacy! What a golden opportunity.

I appreciate your need to have the word “Papacy” defined and explicit in these early writings. It isn’t.

And it is not unimportant to point out here that you would not require such an explicit and developed definition and terminology for other fundamental Christian doctrines.

Certainly, such an explicit definition would close the case for more contemporary objectors, but you are looking at Irenaeus through 21st Century eyes, clouded by dissent, over-analysis, revision and doubt.

Whether he missed your “golden opportunity” or not is irrelevant. His purpose wasn’t to prove the Papacy to you. It was to establish a viable succession and demonstrate credibility for the Bishop of Rome. In doing so, he provides us convincing and reliable proof for an authoritative presidency for the Church.

He says very similiar things about Ephesus and so forth.

Once again, I would encourage you not to be distracted by the language and miss the message.

One of the slam dunks against the Papacy is how he does not mention it in this passage.

I remember someone, somewhere talking about the weak premise of an argument from silence.

In any case, what he does say is always stronger than what he could have said, but didn’t.

So, what DID he say? I paraphrase for brevity and quote for accuracy:

He makes it very clear that all Churches, all bishops, “the faithful everywhere” must be in unity with, that is, “must agree” with “the greatest and most ancient Church” because of its superior origin."

I also agree that had maintained the tradition, thanks to the correction of the great Apostle Paul in his letter to them, they remained faithful until such platitudes got the better of them.

I hope you are not suggesting that the whole gospel and Apostolic charge hinged on the behavior of St. Peter!

 

[Fredricks]

So your reading of the New Testament shows a chuch of independent fiefdoms in which each apostle held sway without reference to the others?

No.
Reference to others and cooperation is explicit or implicit throughout.

 

[JaneFrances]

Jane,
I did some further research on his epistle to the Romans… From CCEL which I have never found to be inaccurate this is the same area you highlighted the term presidency, do you see it here?..

I generally use Jurgens. I see nothing essentially different, however, in the link you provide.

It says presides, not presidency

Presidents preside.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I generally use Jurgens. I see nothing essentially different, however, in the link you provide.

Presidents preside.

1st "the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, " This is way to vague to accept universal authority… go to link I provided above and click on next and see more of his epistles you’ll see almost Identical phrasing for all the churches… To the point one could make this exact case for any of them. Jane upon studying Ignatius you’ll see you’ve got nothing here, except a revered church in Rome.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

1st "the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, " This is way to vague to accept universal authority… go to link I provided above and click on next and see more of his epistles you’ll see almost Identical phrasing for all the churches… To the point one could make this exact case for any of them. Jane upon studying Ignatius you’ll see you’ve got nothing here, except a revered church in Rome.

HERE IS ONE…
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness.

Not the bishop of Rome…

 

[Eireann]

To be honest with you all, what I’m posting is Mark Bonocore’s reply to an email I sent him about a year ago.

And so it’s once again over to Mark…

DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH

“Today we kept the Holy Day, the Lord’s Day (Sunday), and on it we read your letter (Pope Soter’s Epistle). And we shall ever have it with us to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement.” (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter in Eusebius)

TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE

“This is the way the Apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” (Demurrer Against the Heretics, A.D. 200)

Shall I go on???

When he talks about Peter he, the successor of the universal church according to you, never mentions this fact? >>>>

Why would he need to? Does George W. Bush need to mention that he is the successor of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson every time he speaks about them, or if he were to cite them as examples? Of course not. Your problem here is that you are ignoring (or are genuinely oblivious to) the context of this letter. Once again, it was written in response to AN APPEAL to Roman authority by the Corinthians. Clement doesn’t have to prove his authority to the Corinthians, any more than the Apostles and presbyters of Jerusalem needed to prove their authority to the Christians of Antioch when Paul and Barnabas appealed to them for a solution in Acts 15:2. The authority is presumed. Clement happens to be writing to ancient CATHOLIC Christians, not to modern (skeptical) Protestant ones.

<<<<<< In this very long letter…it just never comes up? >>>>

Gee, the Bible is also a pretty long book. Yet, the word “Trinity” never comes up in it, nor does the Bible ever clearly define the Trinity as “One God in three co-eternal Divine Persons.” Does this mean that we should doubt the Trinity or reject it??? I don’t think so. Face it, your argument is a non sequitur one. Clement’s letter is indeed pretty long; but it is not a letter concerned with addressing or proving the authority of Petrine Rome. The mere fact that the Corithians appealed to Rome for an authoritative solution to their schism shows that they had no need to be convinced about its authority.

He talks about the Apostles but never mentions Peter having a special role. >>>>

Again, does he need to? Given the Scriptural record, one would think the Corinthians would already be familiar with that too.

It is has been said that everyone KNEW this. How do you know that? >>>>>

Because of the comprehensive evidence of all the early fathers. Above I presented three early witnesses for the identity of Clement —Ireneaus, Dionysius of Corinth, and Tertullian. Here are two of these same early witnesses testifying to the universal authority of Rome:

IRENEAUS OF LYON

“Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the bishops’ successions of all the city-churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness or wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper (i.e., renegade heretics), by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient (i.e., established) church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For it is a matter of necessity that all other city-churches agree with this church (Rome) because of its *preeminent authority.” (Against the Heresies, 3, 3:2).

DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH

"For from the beginning, it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to ALL the churches in EVERY city . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and by urging with consoling words, as a LOVING FATHER (“pope” in Greek) his children, the brethren who are journeying. (Dionysius, Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius’ Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170])

 

[Eireann]

As for Tertullian, he unfortunately was a Montanist heretic, and so denied all Church authority. But EVEN HE (despite himself) testifies to the universal authority of Rome, as he mocks the universal decree of Pope Callistus in which the Pope relaxed the original Apostolic discipline for the Sacrament of Confession --making it possible (for the first time in history) to receive Confession more than once after Baptism. In this, Tertullian calls the Pope the “Pontifex Maximus,” which was a pagan office at the time --the constitutional head of the Roman state religion. Tertullian is mocking the universal (i.e., Empire-wide) nature of Callistus’ authority. And he writes …

TERTULLIAN

“In opposition to this [modesty], could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The ‘Pontifex Maximus,’ that is the ‘bishop of bishops,’ issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.’ O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, ‘Good deed!’ …Far, far from Christ’s betrothed be such a proclamation! (_On

Modesty_ 1.1, ANF IV:74).

You have an argument from silence, that is all. >>>>>

Silence??? I don’t think so. In fact, even if we look at Clement’s own contemporaries, we see that Rome held the place of authority. For example, Ignatius of Antioch, writing about a decade after Clement, says that Rome “presides in the chief place.” He writes in his opening paragraph of his Epistle to the Romans, saying …

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ, His only Son; the church by the will of Him who willed all things that exist, beloved and illuminated through the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God; which also *presides in the chief place of the Roman territory; a

church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and *presiding in love, *maintaining the law of Christ, and bearer of the Father’s Name: her do I therefore salute in the Name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.” (Ignatius to the Romans Chap. I)

 

[Eireann]

Here Ignatius twice says how Rome “presides.” For this, he uses the Greek word “prokatthemena,” which is defined as an authoritative, jurisdictional position; and this is the meaning of the word whenever Ignatius uses it.

He also, later in the same letter, tells the church of Rome …

“You have never envied anyone, you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in *your instructions you enjoin [on others]. Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but [truly] will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one.” (Ignatius to the Romans, Chap. III)

Here, Ignatius is asking the Romans not to interfere with his martyrdom or try to save his life as he is led to death in the Roman arena. But, in requesting this, Ignatius mentions how Rome is known for giving instructions to other churches and to be a teacher of others. This is precisely what we see in Clement, and in Ireneaus, and in Dionysius, and even in Tertullian above.

So, the patristic record is FAR from silent. Rather, it is your side that lacks any evidence. And if you disagree, why don’t you show us some??

We never have one mention of a single bishop in charge of a city or a region.>>>>

Total nonsense. Read the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch. Again, Ignatius was a CONTEMPORARY of Clement; and he NAMES the reigning bishops of Ephesus, Smyrna, Magnesia, Tralles, and Philadelphia. What’s more, in his epistle to the Ephesians, Ignatius makes this all-telling statement:

“…as also **bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth]****, are so by the will of Jesus Christ.” (Ignatius to the Ephesians Chap III).

As everyone knows, whenever Ignatius uses the word “bishop,” it always refers to the singular leader of a city-church; and he clearly says that such bishops exist EVERYWHERE …including Rome.

One reason, we still have the Biblically based system of multiple bishops, elders, presbyters, in charge of the churches at this time. >>>>>

That is total nonsense and an American Evangelical fabrication. Even in the Bible itself, there was always a leading presbyter (later exclusively called “bishop”) in each city-church who unified and presided over the presbyters …just as each synagogue had a chief rabbi among the other rabbis Don’t believe me? Look at the evidence:

James was unquestionably the leading presbyter (read: bishop) of Jerusalem:

Acts 21:17-19: “When we reached Jerusalem the brothers welcomed us warmly. The next day, Paul accompanied us on a visit to James, and all the presbyters were present. He greeted them and proceeded to tell them in detail what God had accomplished among the Gentiles through his ministry.”

Galatians 2:12: “For until some people came from James*, he used to eat with the Gentiles …”

Similarly, Timothy held the office of monarchial leader in Ephesus. For, using the singular “you” in Greek*, Paul instructs Timothy how to managing the Ephesian church, saying …

1 Tim 5:17-22 – “Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor …Do not accept (YOU singular) an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. Reprimand (YOU singular) publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid. I charge YOU (singular) before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels to keep these rules without prejudice, doing nothing out of favoritism. Do not lay hands (YOU singular) too readily on anyone …”

Therefore, Timothy himself was the one who both ordained presbyters and sat in judgment of them. He was the bishop.

 

[Eireann]

So, while there was yet no distinction between the TERMS “bishop” and “presbyter,” the practical distinction of the offices was already fully established. And this is EXACTLY the same conditions that we see in Clement and in Ignatius immediately after the Apostolic age. The only difference is that Ignatius distinguishes between the TERMS “bishop” and “presbyter,” which was apparently an ASIAN development while, in Europe, the older TERMINOLOGY remained for a little while longer. This is why Clement doesn’t distinguish between the terms. And we can see this most clearly by comparing the contemporary letters of Ignatius with those of his friend Polycarp of Smyrna (in Asia) when Polycarp writes to the Philippians (in Europe). Case in point …

When Ignatius writes to the Smyrneans, he says …

“You must all follow THE BISHOP as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbyters as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without THE BISHOP. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by THE BISHOP, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever THE BISHOP appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans)

And who was the bishop for these Smyrneans? It was Polycarp! In fact, Ignatius directly addresses Polycarp by name in his accompanying Epistle to Polycarp, writing …

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, sends heartiest greetings to Polycarp, who is BISHOP of the church of Smyma, or rather has for his bishop God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Here, Ignatius uses the Asian TERMINOLOGY. But, when Polycarp himself writes to the church of Philippi in Europe, he does not call himself the “bishop of Smyrna,” but presents himself as merely one of presbyters, writing …

“Polycarp, and the presbyters with him*, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi: Mercy to you, and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour, be multiplied.”

Thus, we see what was really going on here. In the days of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, the TERMS “bishop” and “presbyter” were still being used interchangably IN EUROPE! Indeed, it was Ignatius himself who first used the TERM “bishop” to distinquish the leading presbyter of a city-church from the other presbyters. And this TERMINOLOGY was an Asian phenomenon, whereas the PRACTICE of a monarchial leader what common throughout the universal Church (as Ignatius makes clear in his Epistle to the Ephesians above). However, the TERMINOLOGY of distinguishing the office of what we call a “bishop” from what we call a “presbyter” (or “priest”) had not yet spread to the West. Rather, the West was still using the TERMS interchangably, just as we see in Scripture.

 

[JaneFrances]

1st "the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, " This is way to vague to accept universal authority…

Once again, presiding denotes a presidor. A presidor in the ordinary sense is a president. The fact that other translations than yours uses the word “presidency” is not unimportant. Neither should it go unnoticed that, in this particular discussion, you alone are denying Rome’s presidency.

There is nothing vague about the fact that Ignatius identifies the Church of Rome as holding presidency. No other church has that claim.

go to link I provided above and click on next and see more of his epistles you’ll see almost **Identical phrasing **for all the churches…

False.

In no other epistle does Ignatius identify another “presidency” among the Churches he writes. No other Church but Rome is recognized as a presidor. There is no “identical phrasing” equating the authority and presidency of Rome with that of other dioceses.

To the point one could make this exact case for any of them.

Please provide the “exact case” of another Church identified as holding the presidency of any sort.

Jane upon studying Ignatius you’ll see you’ve got nothing here, except a revered church in Rome.

Actually, studying Ignatius provides much insight into the ancient Christian tradition which has always held Church unity contingent upon Roman presidency. To be sure, the Roman church is revered in many ways just as other churches have been, but Rome alone is identified as presidor by Ignatius and, as Irenaeus demonstrates the church “of superior origin” with which all “the faithful everywhere” must agree to be sure of their participation in the Apostolic deposit of faith.