valtteri21
Member
Catholics used this to "prove" the papacy: You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others].
What does this quote from Ignatius mean?
- Thread starter valtteri21
- Start date
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
The Church in Rome teaches the other Churches due to its primacy.
Our Lord's God
Well-known member
Yeah just about any lame excuse passes as "proof" in their corrupt minds.
What does this quote from Ignatius mean?
It defiantly proves Peter was correct
Saint, Ignatius of Antioch,
another Myth put forth by Rome
fabricated stories.
as Peter says
2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.
They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—
bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.
Lies, Deception and Deceit
deceived men that go forth deceiving others
From thier own Encyclopedia
The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome; These letters were addressed to the Christians
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius (Church History III.36) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Ignatius of Antioch
Biography of the bishop and writer. Ignatius was martyred at Rome sometime between 98 and 117Even their own know these things,
but they still teach as if it was truth
-------- Posters ------
Saint, Ignatius Bishop of Antioch
There was no such man; him nor Polycarp
they are nothing more than
fabricated stories
put forth by Rome to bolster their claims of
being the One True Church
Our Lord's God
Well-known member
Even if we supposed for the sake of argument, Ignatius existed and did write letters, I'd like to see the evidence that the so-called "short recension" is "genuine."
I have never seen any evidence whatsoever, just assertions. And that Eusebius says there were "seven" does make the documents we now have "genuine."
Who decided that ANY of these Ignatian writings which we now have are "genuine." (short recension OR long recension) and on what basis has this claim been made?
Or did some wayward fool just declare that since they decided "the long recension" is inauthentic, therefore, the "short recension" must be authentic. If so, that would be the stupidest "therefore" I have ever seen.
rakovsky
Well-known member
FYI, I find that RC supreme Primacy claims' reasoning in the Bible have a basis in reality, but come across as making jumps in logic beyond what the text says. Ignatius isn't the Bible, but it seems one would have to use his quote in that same way if one wanted to use it to prove Papal supremacy.
Ignatius begins:
"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 wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans..."
So he is writing to the Church presiding in Rome. He writes:
"You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others]...."
He is saying that the Christian Church in Rome never envied anyone. He is speaking of the past, and complimenting them but not saying that the Roman Church can never as a rule envy anyone. He points out that they taught others but doesn't say that their role is to teach all other churches or that this role is unique to them. After all, the Church in Jerusalem also taught the Church in Rome. He says that their instructions are enjoined by Rome on others, but he doesn't specify on whom those instructions are enjoined, nor whether this action is unique to Rome, nor whether Rome is dogmatically recognized as having this unique role.
I think that Papal Supremacy would be too much hay to see in that verse of Ignatius.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
For me, it is not necessarily the city but the leaders who resided there -- Peter and Paul.
rakovsky
Well-known member
Hello, Arch.
I don't know when the Western Church first started asserting Papal Supremacy, whereby the Pope was basically all bishops' bishops. We don't find it clearly - specifically and explicitly - in the 1st century century records, eg. Bible and 1st c. Church Fathers. Irenaeus (late 2nd century) of Lyons is the earliest one that comes to my memory for asserting something that would point in this direction, although he is vague about it:
For instance, he isn't clear if he is making an infallible permanent rule, ie. that Rome's leadership can never err doctrinally, or if he is just noting that Christians have maintained the apostolic tradition, and then concluding conditionally that therefore all Christians must agree with Rome. That is, he maintained critical thinking, rather than unconditionally considering Rome infallible, and if he saw Rome's leadership making a mistake administratively or doctrinally, then he would disagree with Rome.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
Hi rakovsky -- are you dismissing verses in the Bible that show Peter's preeminence? Thanks
rakovsky
Well-known member
Hello Arch-
The idea that Papal Supremacy in the form that the RC Church teaches papal supremacy requires leaps of logic, to the extent that I don't perceive those leaps in the Bible itself.
Jesus does not explicitly state something like: "Peter, you are the administrative head of all Christians, and this status is permanent, and therefore all your successors in your See will rule the Church, and this only applies to the See where you serve when you are killed, and Papal Supremacy entails you being practically all bishops' bishop with total universal jurisdiction, and it entails you having Papal Ex Cathedra Infallibility."
Therefore the only way to see this idea as Biblical is to assert that the Bible's statements indirectly entail this kind of line of logic, using the leaps in italics. The way that one would try to assert this is by looking at statements like Jesus' one to Peter: You are Peter/Petros, and on this rock/petros I will build my Church.
However, Jesus' statement is ambiguous as regards to Peter's position. First, it's amibiguous what "this rock" refers to - either Peter himself, or to Peter's statement in the preceding passage that Jesus was the Son of God. Second, supposing that Jesus did mean Peter himself, the statement doesn't show itself as being permanent, as Biblical Christianity doesn't teach personal infallibility. Jesus alone was sinless, and there is no doctrine that it's impossible for someone, even an apostle (Peter, Judas, Thomas, etc.) to fall away. Third, Jesus' statement doesn't clearly entail the other italicized leaps in logic.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
Feeding the sheep? Peter and the 11? Keys to the kingdom? -- does one of the original 12 have a better resume? ?
Peters resume
Gal.2:4
And that because of false brethren unawares brought in,
who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,
that they might bring us into bondage:
..
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch,
I withstood him to the face,
because he was to be blamed.
And that because of false brethren unawares brought in,
who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,
that they might bring us into bondage:
..
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch,
I withstood him to the face,
because he was to be blamed.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
Paul persecuted
Peter denied
Thomas doubted
Judas betrayed
Next
Peter denied
Thomas doubted
Judas betrayed
Next
rakovsky
Well-known member
Right. Feeding the sheep, Peter and the 11, and Keys to the Kingdom are not an explicit, specific declaration of the full concept of Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, status as all bishops' bishop. For instance, "Feeding the Sheep" does not specify that the role of feeding sheep is unique to Peter. If all bishops or apostles are shepherds/"pastors", then the same declaration could apply to the other bishops or apostles too.
As a result, the only way to get the full concept of Papal Supremacy from the Bible is through logic leaps, once that I don't see in the text.
Likewise, even if it were true that none other of the twelve has a better resume (James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, who commanded Peter to stop eating gentile food in Galatians, and John who alone stayed with Jesus at the crucifixion have comparable leading and noble qualities in their resumes), it wouldn't mean that the full concept of Papal Supremacy is given in the Bible. That is, even if Peter, who denied Christ and repented, had the best resume, it wouldn't necessarily entail that all of his successors in Rome in particular had permanent doctrinal ex cathedra infallibility.
Actually, when one looks at the situation in the apostolic Church, there appears to be a triumvirate of Peter, James, and John, like when Paul says that he saw them as three pillars leading the Church in Jerusalem, not as Peter being one pillar leading the whole Church. Likewise, these three apostles went to the Mount with Jesus for the Transfiguration.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
Notice the difference between Paul's two visits in Galatians 1 and 2.... he 'saw' James but met for a few weeks with Pierre.
[[
none whatsoever
an argument from silence is based on
well; stupidity
and you have absolutely no idea what they spoke of
none whatsoever
an argument from silence is based on
well; stupidity
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
-- the FACT is that Paul met with PETER for two weeks, not James. -- reread for understandingMaybe it is you who needs to reread it.
gal 1
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.
Gal 2:11-13
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. 12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. 13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2
2 I went there because God revealed to me that I should go. While I was there I met privately with those considered to be leaders of the church and shared with them the message I had been preaching to the Gentiles.
6 And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching.
7 Instead, they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews.
9 In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the church, (the RCs like to say the mention first has primacy, please note it is not Peter)
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. 12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. 13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
14 When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others, “Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?
These passages recall Paul meeting with Peter twice and others. Nowhere is Peter seen as more important than others.