that might be your assumption, but it isn’t mine. Tell me, based on the evidence that we have (and not on any assumption or backwards projection):
a) why should I believe that Ignatius’s belief wrt the Eucharist was the same as that of the first century Church at Jerusalem, at Alexandria, at Carthage or at Rome?
b) did Ignatius believe that the Eucharist was part of an agape meal or a separate thing?
c) did Ignatius use leavened or unleavened bread for the one element?
d) did Ignatius envision that it was possible to offer only one of the two elements w/o invalidating the Eucharist?
e) “how” did Ignatius believe the bread was the flesh of Christ? Was it in the same way that he believed Christ’s blood was incorruptible love? Was it symbolically, figuratively, spiritually, mysteriously or transubstantially?
what do you mean?
and that would hold for Protestants too.
Again, based on the evidence that we have (and not on any assumption or backwards projection), according to Ignatius:
- how were these two things paramount?
- what purpose did they serve?
- was infant baptism acceptable? …was non-immersion acceptable when immersion was possible?
as AP pointed out, that depends on what criteria you select and then on how much weight you give to each one. Why should I think that the modern CC properly qualifies as a “descendant Church”? The Catholic Marion doctrines aren’t stated in the NT or in the writings of the ECFs of the 2nd century. (the Prot of James being an EC fabricator and not an EC father). So why should I think that Ignatius would believe that a church possessing those doctrines would be a proper descendant of his catholic Church?
Allow me to use quotes from Ignatius to defend my position.
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.”-Letter to the Smyrnaeans. Whether he understood how it happens is debatable, but he claims to believe the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Lord. This is my point, if he believes the Eucharist is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, that disqualifies any Church who rejects that teaching. It would defy logic for him to be ordained Bishop of Antioch, by Apostles, if he was spreading an idea contrary to the teachings of the Apostles and Christ. Therefore, we can conclude his teaching on the Eucharist is in line with Apostolic teaching, remember he died between 98-117ad. He is said to have studied under St. John, I think St. John had the right idea on the sacraments.
“But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.” -letter to the Smyrnaeans. Sounds like he would be right at home in 40,000 denominations
As you well know, catholic is translated universal. As in no divisions, no splits and one unified belief, in that same letter he encourages them to avoid heretics altogether.
You said “and that would hold for Protestants too.”, how would this hold for protestants? The Protestant Reformation was, at its center, a rejection of the Catholic Church. Ignatius said "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper 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; 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. ". This is the traditional teaching of the Church, everything is to be done according to the Bishop’s permission/direction and in harmony with the Church. At the time of Ignatius, Bishops were more hands on because there were less Christians, as the Church grew the Priests took on more of the tasks under the direction of the Bishop.
As to baptism, “baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him”. This reflects the necessity of Baptism, for if it was necessary for Christ then how much more for us!
You said "Why should I think that the modern CC properly qualifies as a “descendant Church?”, because there has been no evidence of any other Church than the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic” before the reformers. See my earlier post.
I don’t follow what you are saying here, “(the Prot of James being an EC fabricator and not an EC father”. Please explain it to me.
