The catholic church to which Ignatius belonged...?

[joe370]

The Holy Orthodox Church.

I agree to a degree, for the orthodox churches, even the non-Chalcedonian churches, can trace their lineage back to the apostolic age.

If Ignatius belonged to todays “one Holy Orthodox Church”, then which autocephalous Orthodox church? Greek Orthodox, Oriental etc…

Where is he quoted as saying something like: Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the “Holy Orthodox Church”? I might have over-looked it.

“See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop…Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church.” Ignatius of Antioch, c. 111 AD, Letter to the Smyrneans 8

 

[joe370]

So my answer is it is no where.

So the one catholic church to which Ignatius once belonged no longer exists,in your opinion, leaving the world with nothing but churches founded by mere men? OK. Thanks for your :twocents:.

 

[joe370]

It is not in the new versions of Catholic Bibles. It was in the old versions. This is an example of a scrible inserting something into the text. That is an interpolation. There are substantial differences between older versions of the Bible and newer ones. That is not a Protestant issue. It is one for anyone who studies and compares translations.

If scripture alone is the Christians final authority then how would you and I resolve the matter?

Also, how could you and I know, with certainty, which scriptural books or passages were in fact, authentic, keeping in mind that, as a sola scriptura proponent, you and I must defer to sacred scripture for the answer, leaving the CC and the PC’s out of it?

 

[Barbkw]

Ignatius mentions the Eucharist explicitly in three of his letters (Letter to the Ephesians, Letter to the Philadelphians, and Letter to the Smyrneans) but there are clear eucharistic allusions in other letters such as the Letter to the Romans.

The passages in the first three letters have to do with the liturgical celebration proper while other allusions are embedded within other aspects of Ignatius’s theology.

The relevant passages seem on the surface to be unproblematic, but the history of the study of Ignatius reveals quite disparate opinions of what Ignatius actually believed. Pierre Battifol has noted two opposing assessments of Ignatius’s sacramental theology.

The first claims that Ignatius believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; the other is that Ignatius saw the Eucharist in less realistic and more symbolic terms. The latter conclusion seems rather odd given the realistic language that Ignatius uses.

Let us carefully examine the context of Ignatius’s eucharistic statements.

The theme of unity, so germane to Ignatius’s theology, surfaces again in his references to the liturgy.

The Letter to the Philadelphians seems especially concerned with the ravenous wolves which can tear the church apart (Philad 2:2). The answer to division and evil teaching (cf. 2:1) is to follow the shepherd appointed for the church. Schism must be consciously rejected by believers if they are to remain faithful to Christ. Avoiding schism can best be accomplished by liturgical unity and so Ignatius exhorts the Philadelphians,

“Therefore, be diligent to employ only one Eucharist. For there is [only] one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and there is [only] one cup for unity in his blood. There is one altar as there is one bishop together with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow servants. The purpose of all this is so that your practices will be in accord with God’s intention (Philad 4:1).”

The structure of this exhortation is worth noting closely.

“Eucharist” (eucharistia) provides the overarching term for the entire liturgy while the succeeding terms designate specific parts of or actors in the liturgy (flesh, cup, altar, and bishop).

In each case the repetition of “one” leaves us in no doubt that Ignatius is distinguishing between an aberrant, unauthorized liturgy and a legitimate celebration under the authority of the bishop.

The emphasis on the “one flesh” and “one cup for unity in his blood” reveals the deepest ground for Ignatius’s idea of the Eucharist. The “one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ” evokes the continuity between the historical Jesus and the liturgical celebration of the church. The “one cup for unity in his blood” is reminiscent of Paul’s words in his letter to the Corinthians:

is not the cup which we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body because we all partake of the one bread (1 Cor 10:16,17).

Continued…

 

[Barbkw]

Paul teaches that it is the body and blood of Christ which makes the members of the church truly one. It is “because we all partake of the one loaf” that we become one body.

Ignatius draws on Paul’s teaching and extends it into a new situation that allows for a clear view of the meaning of the eucharistic liturgy.

Implied in the phrase “one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ” is the reality of the God-man Jesus.

This becomes evident if we ask in what sense many different churches with different altars can all be said to be one.

One answer might be found in the symbolic actions of each church.

If, for example, all the churches of Asia Minor have the same liturgy, they are symbolically representing their unity.

However, Ignatius places the emphasis elsewhere. His command to celebrate “one Eucharist” is based, not on a common liturgy, but on the “one flesh” of the real Incarnation. One can hear the docetic denials just below the surface.

If, as the Docetists claimed, Christ only appeared to have taken on human flesh, and only appeared to have suffered, then the celebration of the Eucharist only appears to have his body too. In countering the virtual denial of Christ’s humanity, Ignatius carefully chooses “one flesh” as the reason why unity is more than symbolic.

The churches are one because they all ultimately have the same altar (the heavenly), the same bishop (Christ), and most of all the same nourishment (one flesh).

If the Docetists are just beneath the surface in Ignatius’s exhortation in Philad 4:1, they are front and center in his condemnation of them in the Letter to the Smyrneans where the problem of unity and liturgy seems to have been quite acute:

They abstain from the Eucharist and [appointed times] of prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his kindness raised. Those who speak against Godís gift will die in their disputes. It was better for them to love so they may be raised (Smyrn 7:1).

It is important not to read these lines with a modern mentality.

The Docetists’ abstention from the liturgy was more than a decision in favor of diversity of opinion and practice.

They abstained from the authorized liturgy because they would not confess the faith of the church in the real humanity of Jesus in the Eucharist. When Ignatius says they abstained from prayer, he does not mean all prayer but public prayer with the church.

The refusal of the Docetists to pray with the church at the eucharistic feast was grounded in their denial of a true Incarnation. Denial of the Incarnation leads to denial of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

If the eternal Word never truly became a man, how could his humanity be conveyed in the Eucharist?

Yet we should not suppose that the Docetists necessarily denied any presence at all. Perhaps they even confessed Jesus’s body in the sacrament. Their belief might be inferred from Ignatius’s explanation of what they denied when he adds, “the flesh … which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his kindness raised.” They denied any identity between the historical body of Jesus and the eucharistic body. Thus, it is impossible not to view Ignatius as teaching the real human presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist…

© Matt C. Abbott

renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100201

 

[Barbkw]

The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Alt)

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

 

[Nicea325]

I have been told by certain non-Catholics that men such as Ignatius and Polycarp did not belong to the present day Catholic Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, but we know Jesus’ Catholic Church to which Ignatius belonged will last until the end of time, so where in the world today is the Catholic Church to which Ignatius of Antioch belonged, if in fact you do not believe it is the present day Catholic Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome?

“See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop…Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church.” Ignatius of Antioch, c. 111 AD, Letter to the Smyrneans 8

Unfortunately poor understandings and opinions do not change an iota what those two men believed and taught: Catholic teaching.

 

[Nicea325]

The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

Oh dear! Hopefully Radical will not read because he will go on for days how those men really did not believe in something which did not exist or was taught,blah,blah,blah. It is only symbolic,blah,blah.:whacky:

 

[Mickey]

If Ignatius belonged to todays “one Holy Orthodox Church”, then which autocephalous Orthodox church? Greek Orthodox, Oriental etc…

I am certain that he would not recognize today’s RCC.

Where is he quoted as saying something like: Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the “Holy Orthodox Church”? …

He said “catholic”…not Roman Catholic.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No I don’t believe there was much arguement about the Apostolic Church 107-AD. Really not much arguement now with all the persecution going on.

 

[BrianH]

If scripture alone is the Christians final authority then how would you and I resolve the matter?

Also, how could you and I know, with certainty, which scriptural books or passages were in fact, authentic, keeping in mind that, as a sola scriptura proponent, you and I must defer to sacred scripture for the answer, leaving the CC and the PC’s out of it?

You and I do not resolve this. Translators solve this. As best as I can tell, there does not appear to be much difference between what versions like the NIV and modern Catholic Bibles consider authentic. They differ from the older versions like the KJV and DR.
The Catholic Church or the United Methodist Church do not usually decide these kind of things. There are exceptions. The Catholic Church defended the Comma Johanneum. Then they reversed course.
On a personal note, United Methodists are not Sola Scriptura.
We do not know for certainity what exact passages are authentic. There is general consensus but I would not call it “certainity”. 500 years ago when people used the older versions I am pretty sure they thought they were authentic. I think that IF someone found even older versions, translations would change again. That is a constant in Christian history.

 

[BrianH]

So the one catholic church to which Ignatius once belonged no longer exists,in your opinion, leaving the world with nothing but churches founded by mere men? OK. Thanks for your :twocents:.

Yes. That is correct. And women of course

 

[AmateurPianist]

I have been told by certain non-Catholics that men such as Ignatius and Polycarp did not belong to the present day Catholic Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, but we know Jesus’ Catholic Church to which Ignatius belonged will last until the end of time, so where in the world today is the Catholic Church to which Ignatius of Antioch belonged, if in fact you do not believe it is the present day Catholic Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome?

“See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop…Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church.” Ignatius of Antioch, c. 111 AD, Letter to the Smyrneans 8

Simple…

Over the course of time the Catholic church to which Ignatius belonged divided. And these divisions may have divided again.

One of these divisions inherited the name “Catholic”. Of course the attribute “name” is such that only one division can possibly inherit this attribute.

Nevertheless, all of these divisions are logical descendants of the original “Catholic” church to which Ignatius belonged.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

I have been told by certain non-Catholics that men such as Ignatius and Polycarp did not belong to the present day Catholic Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, but we know Jesus’ Catholic Church to which Ignatius belonged will last until the end of time, so where in the world today is the Catholic Church to which Ignatius of Antioch belonged, if in fact you do not believe it is the present day Catholic Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome?

“See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop…Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church.” Ignatius of Antioch, c. 111 AD, Letter to the Smyrneans 8

Ah, my new favorite Saint and hero. Ignatius of Antioch. Catholic, real presence, bishop’s authority, are the important facts that converted me to Catholicism. Funny that Protestants deny that Ignatius Church is different from our Catholic Church… Hmm. Kind of knuckle headed if you ask me. Sort of sounds like “if the KJV is good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for me” attitude. Ignorance.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Yes. That is correct. And women of course

So by your own admission you’re saying Jesus is not eh Son of God and basically is crazy or lied? Did I miss something:

 

[joe370]

QUOTE=BrianH;8576020]You and I do not resolve this. Translators solve this.

So you and I must defer to the authority of said translators, and not to scripture alone?

 

[joe370]

Simple…

Over the course of time the Catholic church to which Ignatius belonged divided. And these divisions may have divided again.

One of these divisions inherited the name “Catholic”. Of course the attribute “name” is such that only one division can possibly inherit this attribute.

Nevertheless, all of these divisions are logical descendants of the original “Catholic” church to which Ignatius belonged.

Could you please provide the names of all those descendent non-Catholic churches that spanned the centuries (4th century to the 10th century for example) - alongside the CC to which the apostles and Ignatius belonged?

Are you suggesting that the church to which Ignatius (a pupil of an apostle) - belonged has been lost to history forever, leaving us with nothing but descendant man-made churches of the original “Catholic” church to which Ignatius belonged?

I know there were a few eastern schisms such as the Chalcedonian schism and the eventual 11th century east - west schism, but they were not descendant churches of the one CC to which Ignatius belonged,** for they could trace their lineage all the way back to the Ignatius** and the apostles. I don’t see any non-Catholic descendant churches until the 16th century reformation.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

So you and I must defer to the authority of said translators, and not to scripture alone?

Joe, why you’ve obviously not graduated from the church of what’s happening now school of bible and auto mechanics. [something my wife says, a former fundamentalist] As we explain more precisely, they revise their objections to fit their thesis: “The Catholic Church is not the real Church”.

 

[joe370]

Joe, why you’ve obviously not graduated from the church of what’s happening now school of bible and auto mechanics. [something my wife says, a former fundamentalist] As we explain more precisely, they revise their objections to fit their thesis: “The Catholic Church is not the real Church”.

LOL… I am a tad confused as to how Brian can claim that all SS proponents must defer to the authority of a translator to resolve something, and in the same breath insist that all SS proponents must defer to the authority of scripture alone.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

LOL… I am a tad confused as to how Brian can claim that all SS proponents must defer to the authority of a translator to resolve something, and in the same breath insist that all SS proponents must defer to the authority of scripture alone.

It’s not logical, but it is what they are taught and try to reconcile. It doesn’t work, yet they continue to insist.