For any who are interested, here is a great article regarding the place of the Eucharist, the Bishop and the understanding of the Church in the first three centuries.
EUCHARIST, BISHOP, CHURCH: THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IN THE DIVINE EUCHARIST AND THE BISHOP DURING THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
Thank you for posting this.
Notice that it supports exactly what I said. This author traces the beginnings of the idea to Ignatius of Antioch, just as I do.
Unfortunately, he should have used a title to reflect that, "... During the Second and Third Centuries," rather than saying the "First Three."
I've read what Ignatius said. He certainly taught the "real presence." But so did Luther and Calvin. I'm not convinced that he taught transubstantiation though. I remember reading something by one of the early fathers (I think it was Iranneus) that I was almost certain was teaching consubstantiation.
Mind you, I still think Ignatius was wrong, but not necessarily as much so as modern Catholics/EOs.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
It's not just about "real presence." I have no problem affirming "real presence," given how vague of a term that is. The issue is more about Ignatius's combination of that perfectly fine "real presence" doctrine, with his insistence that the eucharist is not valid unless it is done under the authority of one of these monarchical bishops (or someone delegated by them), such that membership in the Church universal and enjoyment of the blessings of Christ's death and resurrection, requires belonging to this outwardly defined organization of bishops.Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic
All the questions above are answered in the article listed in the OP.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
Luther believed in consubstantiation, while Calvin believed in a special, spiritual, "pneumatic" presence in communion. So both affirmed a special "real precense" but rejected transubstantiation.
Now, personally, I do not believe in the "real presence" in the way that Luther and Calvin did. But the "real presence" for Calvin or Luther was very different than that in the RCC. And different from each other, for that matter.
I think in Ignatius day "bishop" really meant what we would call a pastor, not a modern day bishop:The issue is more about Ignatius's combination of that perfectly fine "real presence" doctrine, with his insistence that the eucharist is not valid unless it is done under the authority of one of these monarchical bishops (or someone delegated by them), such that membership in the Church universal and enjoyment of the blessings of Christ's death and resurrection, requires belonging to this outwardly defined organization of bishops.
http://www.christian-history.org/ignatius.html
http://www.christian-history.org/bis...s-pastors.html
(Disclaimer: Paul Pavao is a great source on church history, but I don't agree with everything that he teaches or believe that the "historical" extra-bibilical teaching is inherently right. Keep that in mind.)
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
I haven't checked your links yet. But Ignatius definitely meant a monarchical bishop. That is, a single bishop who is over all the churches in an entire city. He distinguished this bishop from the elders (or, as Catholics and Orthodox say, "priests"). In the Christian writings of the first century (all the books of the New Testament, plus First Clement), every time those titles appear, they are just two different words for the exact same office, and there was no such thing as one such person being the single leader over all the churches of a city. Even in Ignatius's time, that phenomenon was probably pretty limited to the vicinity of Asia Minor and Syria. His own letter to the Romans conspicuously lacks any reference to a bishop there, while all of his others mention one.
This development of the distinction between episkopoi (overseers or bishops) and presbyteroi (elders) is one of the clear ways that Ignatius's views practices and views departed from those of the apostolic Church. And this very clear provable point has a lot to do with what he does with the eucharist.
Using the older terminology of the apostles, yes "pastor" (or shepherd) is just another label for an overseer/bishop or elder. And your concept of a pastor may well be along those lines. But Ignatius's wasn't.
According to this link (Which could be wrong, of course) Ignatius used the term "bishop" to mean a single pastor, much like the churches of the Apostle John did. On the other hand, the churches founded by Peter and Paul had several ruling elders but no single "pastor" at the forefront. Paul Pavao gives historical evidence here, but its possible that he's wrong.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Our records from the churches of the Apostle John do not use the word bishop. I assume you are referring to the mention of the "angel" of each church in Revelation 1-3. I don't think those are bishops. However, if they are, then it's still a single bishop over an entire city. That's not the way "pastor" is used in the Bible. Nor do I know of churches today that use the word "pastor" that way.
I know this is probably a wall of text, but here's a copy and paste of a collection of passages from the Apostolic Fathers that are relevant data for studying the advent of monarchical bishops. I also list some New Testament references at the beginning without giving the whole verse.
____________________________
The rise of monarchical bishops (single bishops over all churches in one city)
Episkopos – (epi-over + scope-look) bishop, overseer, supervisor
Presbyteros – elder; Presbyterion – presbytery, council of elders
Acts 14:23; 15:2; 20:17-35; 21:17-18; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5-9; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:1-5
Epistle of the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth (First Clement, ca. AD 90)
42:1 The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. 2 Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. 3 Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. 4 And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits of their labors, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. 5 Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.
44:1 Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. 2 For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. 3 We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. 4 For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. 5 Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure from this world; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. 6 But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behavior from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honor.
47:6 It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters.
57:1 Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts.
Didache –author unknown, thought to be early 2nd, and possibly late 1st century.
15:1 Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.
Ignatius – bishop of Antioch, wrote 7 epistles on his way to martyrdom in Rome ca. AD 110 (to Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, Polycarp)
Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:1 Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung.
Ignatius to the Ephesians 5:1 For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop- I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature- how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity!
Ignatius to the Ephesians 5:3 He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, "God resisteth the proud." Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.
Ignatius to the Ephesians 20:2 Especially will I do this if the Lord make known to me that ye come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that ye obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ
Ignatius to the Magnesians 4:1 It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not steadfastly gathered together according to the commandment.
Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:1 As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent.
Ignatius to the Trallians 2:2 It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall at last be found.
Ignatius to the Trallians 3:1 In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.
Ignatius to the Philadelphians 3:2 For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ.
Ignatius to the Philadelphians 4:1 Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to the will of God.
Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 8:2 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.
Ignatius to Polycarp 5:2 If any one can continue in a state of purity, to the honor of Him who is Lord of the flesh, let him so remain without boasting. If he begins to boast, he is undone; and if he reckon himself greater than the bishop, he is ruined. But it becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust. Let all things be done to the honor of God.
Last edited by erowe1; 11-13-2013 at 01:29 PM.
I was referring to church history there, not scripture. But I read through Pavao's stuff about it a long time ago, so in addition to the fact that he might be wrong, my memory may be fuzzy.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
The thing to notice in those sources (in post 10), especially when you consider the New Testament ones, which you'll need to look up, is that Ignatius is the first source to distinguish three offices: bishop, presbyter, and deacon.
All the other sources only have two: the labels bishop, presbyter, and pastor, all refer to one of these, and deacon refers to the other.
In all these other sources, the churches of a given city, if they had any of these offices at all (and not all did), would have multiple bishops (a.k.a. presbyters or pastors). Ignatius, however, insisted on a single bishop per city in order to define the boundaries of what he wished to claim was the one true Church as exclusively those people who were in submission to that bishop.
Last edited by erowe1; 11-13-2013 at 01:40 PM.
Some of our most important sources for church history are the ones in the New Testament. For the churches of the Apostle John, I don't know what else we could point to, aside from the letters of Ignatius themselves.
According to the link I posted, the Pauline and Petrine churches actually had multiple elders in each individual church, but again, that may be inaccurate. I don't know much about church history.
I'm not sure.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
We don't know that. It's possible that they did. It's possible that they didn't. We do know that they had multiple elders in each city. And when addressing the church of a city, the singular "church" is still used, even though it's made up of many individual assemblies, each of which met in a house. It's possible that there was one bishop/pastor/elder per house-church. But it's absolutely definite that there were many of these bishops/elders/pastors in the whole city-church that was made up of all those house-churches.
Wanted to bump this extremely informative and educational writing for those who might be interested!
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us