Protestant Ordination - By what authority?

[Kay_Cee]

Angainor:

In the end, we all have to do what we think is right. What value would there be for Luther to remain Catholic if he thought they were all wrong?

The value is in realizing that *he *was not the authority–the Church was. He had absolutely no authority whatsoever to do what he did. It should have struck him as incredibly odd that he was the first to interpret scripture the way he did, because in order to do so, he would have to conclude that Jesus had done one lousy job in establishing a church and a system for us to discover the truth.

As Christians we are called to witness the Good News. We do what we can to convince others of the truth of the Gospel, but in the end other people’s salvation is between them and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I would never dream of declaring my word to be authoritatively correct on any matter involving God’s dominion. Truth does not lie with me. I frankly resent that another human being (save Jesus) would declare such a thing.

Glad to hear this about you, but it sounds like Luther did this without any authority.

I have no problem with another person being an authority, as long as he possesses a God-given authority. The apostles did. Jesus did tell them, “He who hears you hears Me.”

You must also do what you think is right. I’m quite sure no Lutheran has claimed God-given authority on the subject of sola fide or any other subject. They may have tried to convince you of the independant truth of sola fide.That is all a Christian can hope to do is witness to the truth as they belive it to be. The Holy Spirit works from there.

Okay, I have major problems with this.

1. “You must also do what you think is right.” No. I must do what *God *thinks is right. It is not up to me to judge what is right and wrong.
2. If sola fide is not given to us by a God-given authority, why should I believe it?
3. What is this “independent truth” of sola fide? Please define it.
4. If “all a Christian can hope to do is witness to the truth as they believe it to be” and “the Holy Spirit works from there,” doesn’t that create a situation where a Christian could believe heresy and be spreading it, but somehow the Holy Spirit (whom Jesus said would lead us into all truth) corrects everything? If so, why do we have so many denominations? Do you really think it’s okay that we all believe so many contradictory things? Is this really the system Jesus intended to put into place so that we could discover the truth?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

**No, they do not accept any protestant denomination as valid for salvation. **Remember, “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. All salvation comes through the Catholic Church. If someone is saved, it is as a member of the Catholic Church. The Sacraments were given by Christ to his Church.

Strictly speaking, this is not true, not as you’ve written it. We say that these ecclessial communities (only the Orthodox and a few others, like the Old Catholics, are accorded the title “church”) are deficient (see Domine Jesus), but we do not say that they are all invalid for salvation.

From the Catechism:

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Now if you want to argue that as someone who makes it to Heaven, a Protestant would then be a Catholic, that makes more sense. Further, the Catholic Church also teaches:

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains:** "For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.** It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

 

[adventistnomore]

EA_Man:

So how does a Buddist, who has never professed Jesus Christ as his savior nor been baptized receive salvation?

There’s one True Church. Super.
Please identify how the above mentioned Buddist is attached to it.

Thanks

The above Buddhist is judged by his faith and obedience (not to/in his particular religion, but towards God, though he imperfectly comprehends the One True God).

Jesus Christ is the true light that shines upon every man. (John 1:9) The salvation present in the Catholic Church embraces him, though he never realizes it in life. He may never be baptized, but the baptism of his desire to serve God (though he imperfectly comprehends all this) is accepted before God.

 

[EA_Man]

adventistnomore:

The above Buddhist is judged by his faith and obedience (not to/in his particular religion, but towards God, though he imperfectly comprehends the One True God).

Jesus Christ is the true light that shines upon every man. (John 1:9) The salvation present in the Catholic Church embraces him, though he never realizes it in life. He may never be baptized, but the baptism of his desire to serve God (though he imperfectly comprehends all this) is accepted before God.

This answer is completely unsatisfactory regarding the implication that Buddists (individuals following the teachings of Buddha) are in some way in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ.

Buddhism rejects the Christian understanding of the personal, infinite, Creator God. So your answer amounts to; salvation is possible for someone that denies the existence of the One True Triune God who came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ to die as the perfect sacrifice in order to save Man from his fallen state that resulted from his rebellion against the One True God that the Buddist denies exists in the first place. Yet you maintain that the person that denies the existence of a God as the Catholic Church understands Him and the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ is somehow in communion with the RCC.

Are you sure that you want to stick with this answer?

Thanks.

 

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

This answer is completely unsatisfactory regarding the implication that Buddists (individuals following the teachings of Buddha) are in some way in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ.

Buddhism rejects the Christian understanding of the personal, infinite, Creator God. So your answer amounts to; salvation is possible for someone that denies the existence of the One True Triune God who came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ to die as the perfect sacrifice in order to save Man from his fallen state that resulted from his rebellion against the One True God that the Buddist denies exists in the first place. Yet you maintain that the person that denies the existence of a God as the Catholic Church understands Him and the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ is somehow in communion with the RCC.

Are you sure that you want to stick with this answer?

Thanks.

In your first post, as well as his response to it, the was no “denying” Jesus…if you deny Him, He will deny you, but if you don’t know Him in the first place, then that is a different story. (Only God knows for sure.)

 

[wabrams]

jimmy:

No, they do not accept any protestant denomination as valid for salvation. Remember, “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. All salvation comes through the Catholic Church. If someone is saved, it is as a member of the Catholic Church. The Sacraments were given by Christ to his Church.

So if you aren’t a Catholic, you’re going to Hell?

 

[RyanL]

EA_Man:

T…salvation is possible for someone that denies the existence of the One True Triune God who came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ to die as the perfect sacrifice in order to save Man from his fallen state that resulted from his rebellion against the One True God that the Buddist denies exists in the first place…

I don’t believe that any “Jew” before or after Christ believed any of this. Are you condemning Elija to Hell because he didn’t believe in a Triune God or in Jesus Christ?

Perhaps you should read this before you continue…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[wabrams]

The simplest answer I can give to the question is that God is the authority. They pray, feel a call to preach, go to divinty school, graduate, then become ordained by their denomination. What gives that denomination the authority to ordain? I guess one could say that God called them to start their church and spread his word. The more churchs under that denomination sprunge up and the original minister ordained other men to be ministers.

 

[EA_Man]

RyanL:

I don’t believe that any “Jew” before or after Christ believed any of this. Are you condemning Elija to Hell because he didn’t believe in a Triune God or in Jesus Christ?

Perhaps you should read this before you continue…

God Bless,
RyanL

First of all, I’m not condemning anyone to anything.

Secondly, in the case of Elijah or any other OT “believer”, they believed in God as God had revealed Himself to them and in His promise of a Messiah.

Thirdly, Buddhists TODAY DENY the very concept of God put forth in the RCC of TODAY. Therefore since Buddhists deny the existence of God (as taught CURRENTLY by the RCC) how can they be in communion with His Church? They would have to believe in that very God in order to accept His claims and the gift of Salvation through Faith in His Son Jesus Christ, whom they also deny as being divine. Perhaps you can reconcile those opposing truth claims. If so, you’re a better man than I.

Peace

 

[RyanL]

EA,

Did you read the link?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[adventistnomore]

EA_Man:

This answer is completely unsatisfactory regarding the implication that Buddists (individuals following the teachings of Buddha) are in some way in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ.

Buddhism rejects the Christian understanding of the personal, infinite, Creator God. So your answer amounts to; salvation is possible for someone that denies the existence of the One True Triune God who came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ to die as the perfect sacrifice in order to save Man from his fallen state that resulted from his rebellion against the One True God that the Buddist denies exists in the first place. Yet you maintain that the person that denies the existence of a God as the Catholic Church understands Him and the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ is somehow in communion with the RCC.

Are you sure that you want to stick with this answer?

Thanks.

I will remain true to the explicit teaching of the Church’s ordinary magesterium:
Lumen Gentium 16:

Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

The Catholic Church has always distinguished between those who embrace false doctrine FORMALLY and those who embrace error only MATERIALLY. Yes, the Buddhist in question believes in erroneaous teachings. He may not have been taught to believe in a god, but he aims to live a moral life, at peace with his neighbors and with nature. In such a way, he honors God. Although he will never be fully intiated into the sacramental mytery of the Church, we believe his soul can recieve God’s mercy, especially in the next life.

Perhaps, as the truths the gospel break through his heart, and he comes to the full and unhindered realization of the truth, (probably through final divination/purgatory) he will express the same manifest faithfulness as he did in life, and truly be embraced by heaven on the Last Day. Since salvation flows only from the Church in Catholic theology, he is truly embaced by the soul of the Catholic Church, albeit in an imperfect, deficient way.

Attempts to discard this idea as salvation by works make the equal mistake of creating a soteriology dependent upon intelectual assent to a full, particular set of doctrines. (Such as would exclude the Old Testament saints whose knowledge was IMPERFECT).Our full surrender to, and practice of, the truth is necessary for salvation. Where this is impossible because of indoctrination/ignorance/imperfect teaching, God’s mercy still reaches out to the man’s level of comprehension.

Those, however, who have allowed darkness and ignorance to creep into their souls b/c of pride, rebellion, gain, ease, lust, or another unworthy cause will be judged on the Last Day, as will all who, in full* and clear* knowledge of the truth, reject the claims of the Church, usually for the factors listed before.

 

[adventistnomore]

EA_Man:

Secondly, in the case of Elijah or any other OT “believer”, they believed in God as God had revealed Himself to them and in His promise of a Messiah.

Certainly true… the critical issue is accepting God as He has revealed Himself to the individual.

Imagine a mentally-handicpped individual in contact with Christianity. At some depth of such an impairment, intellectual assent or cognizance of the truth of the atonement is impossible. Are they therefore excluded from salvation? No, the Catholic Church teaches that they can recieve salvation as they believe in God to the level God has been able to reveal Himself to them. (Perhaps, a level beyond/beneath rational comprehension).

Cultural/religious indoctrination is believed to be another impairment or defeciency that limits man’s ability to surrender to Christ. The Church’s mission requires that we share the truths of the faith with others. In many situations however, especially ignorance [due to lack of contact], incomprehension [due to cultural/linguistic/conceptual barriers], or fear *, this obstacle is nearly insurmountable.

Although every doctrine may be rationally presented to their minds, the Chruch may fail at gaining response from these individuals who are trapped behind such hinderences. In this situation: the mere rational presentation of true doctrine is not insufficient. Such a rational presentation does not constitute an not the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit. **Therefore, they cannot be judged for rejecting the convicting power of the Holy Spirit (which is the actual cause of eternal damnation). The effectual calling of these individuals must be understood as including something deeper than, or beyond, the rational presentation of Catholic doctrine. ** This the Church cannot provide, but God can in ways unknown and mysterious to us. Therefore, the Church trusts the salvific plan of Christ to embrace even these, and administer to them the salvation (though probably not the sacraments) flowing from the Catholic Church.

** The issue I see in assuming that any rational, full presentation of Catholic doctrine automatically constitutes a truly salvific revelation of God. ** Individuals aand soceities are far more complex, and so is the Church’s soteriology. A truly salvific revelation of God may require more or less than such a presentation, and salvation is most truly, the domain of the Holy Spirit interior workings and not of the Church’s missionary outreach alone.*

 

[Angainor]

First off, what is a “love-feast”?

jimmy:

So, you are basically hoping that the Lord will accept a sacrifice that is offered apart from the bishops as being good and valid.I celebrate the Lord’s Supper as properly and as sincerely as I am able.

jimmy:
Anything in oposition to the bishop is in oposition to Christ.That is quite an absolute statement. I do not think you can reasonably conclude that by Ignatius’ words.

jimmy:
Of course you deem your Eucharist proper, but the problem is you are apart from the bishops, and according to Ignatius it is improper.Again, I do not think you can conclude that from Ignatius’ words. Ignatius makes the positive statement that Eucharists performed with the consent of the bishops is deemed proper. You would be overreaching if you then draw the negative conclusion that all other Eucharists are improper.

jimmy:
It is amazing how you insist on staying apart from the bishops.All of Ignatius’ bishops are dead.

 

[Angainor]

Kay Cee:

The value is in realizing that *he *was not the authority–the Church was. He had absolutely no authority whatsoever to do what he did.

Luther did not claim to “have authority” for what he did.
Kay Cee:

It should have struck him as incredibly odd that he was the first to interpret scripture the way he did,

The first? No, not the first.
Kay Cee:

me:

As Christians we are called to witness the Good News. We do what we can to convince others of the truth of the Gospel, but in the end other people’s salvation is between them and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I would never dream of declaring my word to be authoritatively correct on any matter involving God’s dominion. Truth does not lie with me. I frankly resent that another human being (save Jesus) would declare such a thing.

Glad to hear this about you, but it sounds like Luther did this without any authority.

Quite right. Luther didn’t possess the authority. Men don’t possess authority.
Kay Cee:

Okay, I have major problems with this.

1. “You must also do what you think is right.” No. I must do what *God *thinks is right. It is not up to me to judge what is right and wrong.

No it is not “up to you”. It is not up to any person. I said, “You must also do what you think is right.”
Kay Cee:

1. If sola fide is not given to us by a God-given authority, why should I believe it?
2. What is this “independent truth” of sola fide? Please define it.

Here are some arguments for what you call “sola fide”. If you become convinced of the independent truth of it, good.
Kay Cee:

1. If “all a Christian can hope to do is witness to the truth as they believe it to be” and “the Holy Spirit works from there,” doesn’t that create a situation where a Christian could believe heresy and be spreading it,

Yes, we are warned about that and are given advice on how to combat it. Stay strong and proclaim the truth.
Kay Cee:

If so, why do we have so many denominations?

That topic is outside the scope of this conversation.QUOTE=Kay Cee]Do you really think it’s okay that we all believe so many contradictory things?OK? Of course not. In a perfect world everyone would believe the truth.

 

[adventistnomore]

Permit me to also answer your questions,

Angainor:

That is quite an absolute statement. I do not think you can reasonably conclude that by Ignatius’ words.

I turn you to the Epistle to the Magniesians by St. Ignatius of Antioch:

[Speaking of a submissive deacon] “…I have joy, because he is subject unto the bishop as unto the grace of God, and to the presbytery as unto the law of Jesus Christ.”

“I urge you, be diligent to do all things in godly concord, the bishop presiding in the likeness of God.”

“For it is not that a man deceives this visible bishop, but rather that he tries to cheat Him Who is invisible.”

“Submit yourselves to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, and the Apostles to Christ and the Father, that there may be union both of flesh and spirit.”

• St. Ignatius of Antioch

In the thought of St. Ignatius, submission to the established, visible, bishop is as necessary as submission to God. Hence, opposition to the lawfully ordained bishop is opposition to God, and to the divine order He established within His Church.

Again, I do not think you can conclude that from Ignatius’ words. Ignatius makes the positive statement that Eucharists performed with the consent of the bishops is deemed proper. You would be overreaching if you then draw the negative conclusion that all other Eucharists are improper.

BUT, he is writing to individuals who have broken communion with the visible bishop. THEREFORE, he tells them that a Eucharist that is valid if it is offered in communion wth the episcopacy of the Catholic Church. The implication is clear: their Eucharist is not valid. He is not discussing canon law with them: he is rebuking them.

A positive statement in a negative context is understood as a negative statement.

All of Ignatius’ bishops are dead.

All the apostes were dead, and yet St. Ignatius is clear: submission was absolutely due to their successors. In the case of these bishops, they may be dead, but their successors now hold the office of their episcopate. Authority does not innately reside in the indivudal, but in the office itself.

 

[jimmy]

wabrams:

So if you aren’t a Catholic, you’re going to Hell?

No, that is not what I said. What I said is that there is only one Church and there is only one way to Christ. If a protestant or a muslim is saved it is not because of there being protestant or being muslim. They would be saved due to their conformity to the Truth, which is found completely in the Catholic Church.

 

[cjaubert]

EA_Man:

Buddhists TODAY DENY the very concept of God put forth in the RCC of TODAY. Therefore since Buddhists deny the existence of God (as taught CURRENTLY by the RCC) how can they be in communion with His Church? They would have to believe in that very God in order to accept His claims and the gift of Salvation through Faith in His Son Jesus Christ, whom they also deny as being divine. Perhaps you can reconcile those opposing truth claims. If so, you’re a better man than I.

Besides the fact that this is WAY off topic, here is the very simple answer, from the Catechism:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847	 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

That is quite an absolute statement. I do not think you can reasonably conclude that by Ignatius’ words.

Actually it is not a stretch at all. Ignatius’ most consistent message is do nothing apart from the bishop. He mentions it in all of his letters. Here are some examples.

It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment.
It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality. For it is not the being called so, but the being really so, that renders a man blessed. To those who indeed talk of the bishop, but do all things without him, will He who is the true and first Bishop, and the only High Priest by nature, declare, “Why call ye Me Lord, and do not the things which I say ?”[1] For such persons seem to me not possessed of a good conscience, but to be simply dissemblers and hypocrites. Ignatius to the Magnesians

For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop–I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature–how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity ! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses[4] such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church ! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even[5] by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, “God resisteth the proud.”[9] Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.
For if I, in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop–I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature–how much more do I reckon you happy, who so depend[3] on him as the Church does on the Lord Jesus, and the Lord does on God and His Father, that so all things may agree in unity ! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses[4] such power that Christ stands in the midst of them, how much more will the prayer of the bishop and of the whole Church, ascending up in harmony to God, prevail for the granting of all their petitions in Christ ! He, therefore, that separates himself from such, and does not meet in the society where sacrifices[6] are offered, and with “the Church of the first-born whose names are written in heaven,” is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,[7] while he presents a mild outward appearance. Do ye, beloved, be careful to be subject to the bishop, and the presbyters and the deacons. For he that is subject to these is obedient to Christ, who has appointed them; but he that is disobedient to these is disobedient to Christ Jesus. And “he that obeyeth not[8] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” For he that yields not obedience to his superiors is self-confident, quarrelsome, and proud. But" God," says[the Scripture] “resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble ;”[9] and, “The proud have greatly transgressed.” The Lord also says to the priests, “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that heareth Me, heareth the Father that sent Me. He that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.” Ignatius to the Ephesians

 

[Kay_Cee]

Angainor:

No it is not “up to you”. It is not up to any person. I said, “You must also do what you think is right.”

I would like to concentrate on this since it seems to be the crux of the issue.

I sincerely hope we’re not going to get into a discussion where it depends what your definition of **is **is.

You said, “You must also do what **you think **is right.” You did not say, “You must do what is right.” Why did you add “you think” if it is not relative to what you were trying to say?

 

[jimmy]

The more, therefore, you see the bishop silent, the more do you reverence him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household,[11] as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself, standing, as he does, before the Lord. For “it behoves the man who looks carefully about him, and is active in his business, to stand before kings, and not to stand before Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect[2] has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth. slothful men.”[1] And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect ’ has any dwelling-place among you. Nor indeed do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ, the true Shepherd and Teacher. And ye are, as Paul wrote to you, "one body and one spirit, because ye have also been called in one hope of the faith.[3] Since also “there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.”[4] Such, then, are ye, having been taught by such instructors, Paul the Christ-bearer, and Timothy the most faithful. Ignatius to the Ephesians

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. 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. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.(2) even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord’s might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast.(1) But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid. Ignatius to the Symrnians

Angainor:

Again, I do not think you can conclude that from Ignatius’ words. Ignatius makes the positive statement

that Eucharists performed with the consent of the bishops is deemed proper. You would be overreaching if you then draw the negative conclusion that all other Eucharists are improper.

Actually that is the whole point of his writing it. It was to declare that being apart from the bishop is against Christ. To say that it is a proper Eucharist that is in communion with the bishop is to declare those outside communion as improper. It was nothing to say that Eucharist in communion with the bishop was proper, that was a given. It is certainly right to draw the negative in this case because the whole point of Ignatius’ words are to declare that those apart from the bishop are wrong.

Angainor:

All of Ignatius’ bishops are dead.

Hahaha, so that is the reason why your are protestant? Is that all the faith you have? Ignatius was declaring it for all bishops, not only for those of his time. All bishops hold the succession. To be apart from them is very serious.