Sojourning In A Strange Land

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Jesuspaidtheprice' post='1089780' date='Oct 12 2006, 08:23 AM']
Hi Era,

What is most curious about Ignatius is that he does not even write to, in another letter, that of the Romans, or acknowledge a bishop in Rome. [/quote]

Areguements from silence are rarely good ones. Ignatius makes it clear that the purpose of his letter is for ALL the Churches of Rome. He does illude to the primacy of the roman diocese and it's purity of doctrine..

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ, His only Son; the church by the will of Him who willed all things that exist, beloved and illuminated through the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God; which also presides in the [b]chief place of the Roman territory[/b]; a church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, and bearer of the Father's name: her do I therefore salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.

[quote]And this is not so much as even an argument as it is an observation - that in the earliest times the Church was not ruled by one bishop over one local see in one area. [/quote]


Actually this is a matter of your lack of understanding. The Catholic Church is not like a monarchy. The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church but this does not deny an atonomy that the other bishops have in having authority in their own dioceses. But in making this arguement you blow your case for their being a bishop of Rome with primacy, for in Clements Leter to the Corinthians he excercises a primacy consistanct with our Papal primacy in ordering the Corinthians to reinstate the leaders they have ousted. This outside of what would be a Bishops diocesean boundaries. This letter was recognized as authoritative far and wide throughout the Church. So what we have is an arguement from silence regarding Ignatius and one that is quite explicit in Clement. Irenaus also indicates that there is a Peterine primacy from Rome. So your arguement from silence does not hold up very well under a birds eye view of the Church Fathers. I could go on with more evidence in the same time frame as your Ignatius evidence if you like.

By the way there are Bishops and Auxillary Bishops in many dioceses so once again I don't think the evidence gives us reason to say that your belief as you have stated it and apply it above is valid.

Edited October 17, 2006 by thessalonian

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

I haven't "blown" my case for anything or misunderstood anything, you've simply missed the observation and simple question (the necessity of the development of the monoepiscopate). My guess is that you've quickly glazed over my posts thinking I'm "out to get you" as most anti-Protestants are. As you seem bent on believing I'm attacking the Church, when I've hardly done any such thing. If want to see an attack on the Church read Tacticus. I've tried again though, and failed again to engage this board in what could have been an interesting discussion. "for in Clements Leter to the Corinthians he excercises a primacy consistanct with our Papal primacy in ordering the Corinthians to reinstate the leaders they have ousted" which is what I said in so many words though not speaking specifically for the primacy of the pontif maximus but the bishop himself, and which is what tells me you're not interesting in paying attention.

[cmotherofpirl]

give us time JPTP, we are not used to serious attempts at conversation. Clement speaking as head of the Church did clearly put the Corinthians in their place.
What significance do you place on that.?

[thessalonian]

[quote]My guess is that you've quickly glazed over my posts thinking I'm "out to get you" as most anti-Protestants are. As you seem bent on believing I'm attacking the Church, when I've hardly done any such thing.[/quote]

Stop guessing. I never said you attacked the Church. I've seen that you have been trying to have a reasonable discussion and that is admirable. It doesn't make your theories any less biased and incorrect. The Papacy has gone through developement of doctrine but the roots of it in scripture and in the early church are clear to Catholics. You will not allow yourself to see it however. You will post endless theories and they will fall short of the mark of convincing any of us because you cannot see what we see in history and scripture. We will pray.

Your attributing Clement's words to his office of Bisho misses the mark badly. Corinth is 600 miles from Rome. Outside the bounds of a Bishop's authority as I stated above. Even more interesting is that the Apostle John was in Ephuses, 200 mi. away, at the time. Why didn't John give the order? Why was such an order by clement seen as authoritative by so many when an apostle was still walking the earth?

I see you ignored my arguement from silence charges. You know many people write letters to their senators and congressman and don't ever mention the president. Imagine that. I suppose 1900 years from now someone pickup up one of these letters to a congressman will say "there was no president of the united states" or perhaps that only democrats were allowed to write to washington when a democrat was in office and vice versa. Oh there could be many interpretations.

Blessings

Edited October 18, 2006 by thessalonian