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].
The Church in Rome teaches the other Churches due to its primacy.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].
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].
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
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.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].
For me, it is not necessarily the city but the leaders who resided there -- Peter and Paul.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.
Hello, Arch.For me, it is not necessarily the city but the leaders who resided there -- Peter and Paul.
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.With that church, because of its superior origin, all the 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”
(Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Hi rakovsky -- are you dismissing verses in the Bible that show Peter's preeminence? ThanksHello, 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
Hello Arch-Hi rakovsky -- are you dismissing verses in the Bible that show Peter's preeminence? Thanks
Feeding the sheep? Peter and the 11? Keys to the kingdom? -- does one of the original 12 have a better resume? ?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.
Peters resumeFeeding the sheep? Peter and the 11? Keys to the kingdom? -- does one of the original 12 have a better resume? ?
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.Feeding the sheep? Peter and the 11? Keys to the kingdom? -- does one of the original 12 have a better resume? ?
Notice the difference between Paul's two visits in Galatians 1 and 2.... he 'saw' James but met for a few weeks with Pierre.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.
and you have absolutely no idea what they spoke ofNotice the difference between Paul's two visits in Galatians 1 and 2.... he 'saw' James but met for a few weeks with Pierre.
-- the FACT is that Paul met with PETER for two weeks, not James.[[
and you have absolutely no idea what they spoke of
-- reread for understandingan argument from silence is based on
well; stupidity
Maybe it is you who needs to reread it.-- the FACT is that Paul met with PETER for two weeks, not James.
-- reread for understanding