Ignatius II
The Epistle to the Romans is in many ways the most significant contribution made by St. Ignatius to the formation of the early Christian Church.
Before plunging into the text, though, I would like to sketch a little of what I think we can agree on. The Church begins as a brotherhood of Jesus' disciples. Before returning to the Father, he informed the disciples (Matthew 28) of their mission: "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." This positive commandment excludes any unitarian or sub-trinitarian preaching.
Even though the Lord had appeared to nominate Peter as the chief of the apostles, the rock on which the Church--that is, the gathering of the faithful--would be built, Jerusalem, in the early days, was the center of the Church. Peter, meanwhile, had gone off preaching the Word in places like Antioch. When dissension arose between, on the hand, Paul and Barnabas who were converting the gentiles, and certain Pharisees who had converted but insisted that the gentile converts had to be circumcised and live as Jews, the case was referred to the apostles and presbyters (seniors, elders) in Jerusalem: " And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter." [Acts 15:5]. When the Church, presided over by James, decided (after a convincing speech by Peter) that Paul and Barnabas were in the right, a letter was sent out to various congregations of gentile Christians, declaring the decision in the name of the Holy Ghost and the apostles, elders, and brothers in Jerusalem. This decision, which was the express will of the apostles and senior members, was to apply to the entire Church, which is a unity and not a collection of fragments.
We have learned from Clement and Ignatius that the office of bishop, probably evolving rapidly, conferred important authority that should not be contradicted, even with the bishop in question. was a young man. Ignatius teaches us to be humble and respectful in our dealings with the bishop, who is both our bulwark against heresy (a word that refers, literally, to those who prefer to make their own choice, to have things their way) and the embodiment of apostolic authority that derives ultimately from Christ.
As yet there is no clear-cut hierarchy beyond the bishop's church, though it is clear from Acts that the apostles in Jerusalem were appealed to. We are headed toward but have not yet reached the point at which each major church, typically in a city, was presided over by a bishop, and the chief city in a region, often capital of a Roman province, was home to a metropolitan or archbishop, who had authority to elect and to some extent oversee the other bishops in the district. As time went on certain churches, which had received and preserved the authentic teachings of the apostles, were designated as apostolic, and when theological disputes broke out, the unwritten traditions of the apostolic churches was appealed to.
Alexandria would have authority over all Egypt, while Rome was home to the only ancient metropolitanate in most of Italy and Sicily. Five of these churches came to be regarded as dominant: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, after it had wrested the title from Caesarea, and last of all Constantinople, after it was founded by Constantine as “New Rome.” Their bishops, the patriarchs, would exercise authority over the metropolitan archbishops in their region. Although Christianity was preached in many languages and dialects, the Church’s primary language, in those early years, was Greek even in Rome, though Latin emerged later as the language of the Western Empire (Italy, Gaul, Spain, North Africa).
In our discussion of I Clement, the question of Rome's status was raised and left largely unanswered. Though Clement was writing with apostolic authority, he was far from being the only bishop with such powers. What did Ignatius think of Rome's status. To determine that, let us look at his salutations to other churches. The Ephesian church is "worthy of all felicitation" and "blessed with greatness;" the Magnesians are not distinguished in the salutation, while the Trallians are "beloved in God and the Smyrnaeans' Church has "obtained mercy in every gift and is filled with faith and love," and the Philadelphians are similarly praised. Rome, too, has "obtained mercy" but is also "the church beloved and enlightened by the will of Him who has willed all things, which are, according to the love of Jesus Christ, our God, which also has the presidency in the country of the land of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in it holiness, and preeminent in love" and the Roman Christians are themselves "filled with the grace of God" and "filtered clear from every foreign stain."
This is a powerful salutation. Now, for all we know, a Roman bishop might have addressed Antioch in such terms, but there is no evidence. The least we can say is that the Roman Church is distinguished above all the other Churches to whom his surviving letters refer, and, after Titus' conquest of Jerusalem, Rome and perhaps a few other apostolic Churches would seem to have succeeded to the dignity of that first apostolic Church.
Let us move on, briefly, to Ignatius' actual topic in this epistle, namely, his willingness, even eagerness to accept martyrdom. The comparison with Socrates has been suggested, and a contrast has been drawn with Aristotle. I have already pointed out that Socrates was to a great extent guilty as charged: He did propose radical innovations in Athenian religion and his students did seize power, overthrow the government, and rule with contempt for morality and the Athenian constitution. However, guilty or not, Socrates accepted his fate explicitly because, as he said, he was an Athenian and would not disobey his city's commandments. Aristotle was no Athenian and could avoid execution quite cheerfully--as many Christian leaders did, including Polycarp, until he was caught in the end. Nor were they censured for doing so. If Ignatius were not so otherwise exemplary as a Christian, one might be tempted to censure his eagerness. Before examining his own account of his motives, I do want to point out what I see as a relevant parallel with Socrates. While Ignatius certainly does not claim Roman citizenship or endorse the right of the Empire to execute him, rightly or not, he does belong to a Christian commonwealth, already discernible, and he expects to do his duty toward the City of God and in doing, to strengthen the faith of his fellow-citizens.
In essence, Ignatius regards martyrdom as the final step in his imitatio Christi . (Ephesians 3.1). He would rather come to Christ through death than rule over the entire earth. He begs the Roman Christians not to hinder this final step . To rescue him would be to become a man-pleaser rather than a god-pleaser (Romans 2). He does not order them, as Peter or Paul would have, but he is only a convict (katakritos, literally one who has been judged and condemned and a slave (though he certainly knew that Paul was also a prisoner more than once), but as a martyr he shall be free and thus, one supposes, in their company. In meeting death, then, presumably, he would be free to give orders to the Romans (diatassesthai). As Aaron Wolf has pointed out judiciously, Ignatius does not address their bishop and may not have known who he was. Nor do we. The possibilities are Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, or Sistus/Xystos. Clement may well be too early and, besides, he might have been expected to mention him by name, and Sistus too late. About Evaristus and Alexander we know next to nothing--but perhaps as much as Ignatius did. Before emitting too much gas about the superiority and might of the Roman bishops at this time, let us recall that Ignatius and Polycarp were great men at a time when the Roman bishops were not especially well known. (This may explain the lack of a reference.)
It is the Lord of this World who would prevent the culmination of Ignatius' ascent to full disciple-hood. (7) He is not abandoning his duty to the Church in Syria--an anticipation of metropolitan status for Antioch?--but Christ himself will be the bishop, when he is gone.
If Martyrdom is the last stage in the imitation of Christ, this imitation is made possible by the fact that Christ, as Paul and Ignatius (Ephesians 15) declare, dwells with us. Christians are thus Christ-bearers and God-bearers--Ignatius calls himself Theophoros. But if Christ is in us, he also insists that we are in Christ. But who or what is Christ? One perennial heretical tendency is the temptation to eliminate or minimize Christ's humanity. Various gnostics were guilty of this, and though there may have been no actual docetist (from the verb dokein, to seem or appear) movement, it is an error that keeps cropping up. In one gnostic version, Christ never suffered at all: It was Judas on the Cross, while he is mocked by Christ in the form of a serpent--presumably the emissary of the great "god" of the universe sent to undermine the tyranny of the planetary archon revered by the Jews as told in the upside-down version of Genesis that makes the serpent the hero. Nestorians would make a far subtler argument, that Christ's human and divine natures were so distinct as to make Mary the mother only of Jesus but not of God.
Several Syrian gnostics appear to have taught that Christ was born and suffered only by appearance and not in reality. While some docetists were anti-Judaic, others were Judaizing. In all Judaizing heresies, whether ancient or reformational, the problem is always the same: the God who became man and bridged the gap between the Father and us lowly worms who crawl on the face of the earth. Chesterton has some good things to say about Eastern religions that tend to elevate the gods/God so are beyond the human sphere that we are reduced to insignificance. I know it is controversial, but I find a greater compatibility of the Incarnation with Pindar’s Greek notion that “one is the race of gods and men” (a connection noted by St. Paul in his speech on the Areopagus) than with some aspects of Judaism. IIn discussing martyrdom, Ignatius makes it clear that he means the real in-the-flesh martyrdom that Jesus experienced, not some bogus mystical or symbolic version as would have been suggested by heretics.
Ignatius also explicitly condemns such a view, denouncing those atheists, as he calls them (Trallians X) "who say that his suffering was only an appearance.... " In this case, Ignatius will be martyred in vain.
AN ASIDE
In interpreting the traditions of the early Church, I do think we have to exercise great caution and treat them, especially those that have influenced centuries of Christian belief and thought, with great respect. To illustrate my point, I wish to insert a little parable.
Suppose, for a moment, that I were a mainstream Christian NT scholar, and, in the course of my researches into the development of the Gospel narratives, I had convinced myself that the birth narrative, not found in John who of the Gospel writers was the one who knew him, was a later insertion made for two reasons, first, to fulfill the prophecies and second to obviate the stigma of the Messiah being a Galilean. I have concluded, therefore, that Jesus was born into a normal family in Nazareth, descended not from the House of David but perhaps even from non-Jews. His mother, far from being a perpetual virgin, had other children, though I might still believe that she was filled with the Holy Ghost. What to do? Remember, I am a Christian who accepts the Nicene Creed. <br><br>
Going from the worst scenario to the best, I might publish articles, address crowds, form a militant sect--the Nazarites--and denounce traditional Christians as Bethlemites, soon corrupted to Bedlamites. My sect would be spread around the world and in a few places, say, Latin America and Southeast Asia, become so prominent that it could persecute the Bedlamites. <br><br>
Or, as a scholar I might limit discussion to academic journals and fora, engage in an acrimonious debate but the authorities of my Church--let's imagine I am Catholic--formally denounce my position as heresy and I agree not to teach or publish the opinion. Nonetheless, the damage is done, and less obedient younger colleagues take up the cudgels and within a generation we have the war between Nazarites and Bedlamites. <br><br>
There are a few more intermediate steps, such as quiet discussions with colleagues who persuade me not to publish my theory, but then, once again, I run the risk of one of them turning heresiarch. Or, I could simply keep my opinions to myself, maintaining respect for a tradition maintained by men and women far worthier than me, always bearing in mind the terrible penalties foretold against those who scandalize the weaker brethren. This little tale is not all speculation. Though I have never challenged the birth story, I have engaged in risky speculations in theology and history. The most I have done is to discuss them hypothetically with a very learned theologian, whose answers either persuaded my of my error or at the least of the dangers of a public discussion. Obviously in such important points of doctrine as the virginity of the Mother of God, the divinity of Christ, the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, and the resurrection of the body, a sane Christian would resist any temptation to innovate, but even in the case of pious legends and possible frauds that have been transmitted to us, we are better off to accept the story and learn the meaning that it conveys than to play Lorenzo Valla. <br><br>
Note to comment-writers: Reasoned and civil commentary is invited, and such commentary may include sharp criticism. Personal aspersions, stream-of-conscience fantasies, coarse and ungrammatical language is not permitted. Posts that violate the norms of polite conversation will be eliminated.
Entries(RSS)
Paul's account of the Council of Jerusalem (a.D. 49?) in Galatians chap. 2 is maybe 25 years earlier than the Lucan version in Acts. Luke might be stretching it a bit to credit not Paul but Peter with the first Gentile conversion, that of Cornelius. Yet both Paul and Luke are at pains to stress that Peter's approval was needed, that Peter was the one who was in charge. Paul wants the erring congregation in Galatia to know that Peter had approved removal of the requirement of circumcision. Luke goes further and credits not only the approval but also the initiative in this matter to Peter. Thus the Petrine office is New Testimental. The "keys of the kingdom" passage in Matthew is perhaps more familiar.
I again would welcome how one is to understand "in the country of the land of the Romans". Presiding just there? Or everywhere and located only in Rome? Or is the passage too ambiguous?
In the absence of any other evidence, we are not at all justified in conjecturing error. Besides, if Luke is biased it is in favor of Paul. I really do wish to avoid mixing of historical conjectures on not-related questions with the texts at hand.
More literally translated, the salutation refers to the Roman Church as the one that "sits in the forefront (thus presides over) in the place of the Romans' land," a reference not, I should think, simply to the city of Rome (the topos) but the Roman world. Thus part of the Roman Church's preeminence derives from its location. He repeats the verbal image later, in saying the Roman Church sits in front, takes precedence, presides over in agape, love. Some commentators have tried to trivialize agape into meaning nothing more than the generous charity supposedly practiced by Roman Christians, but parallels suggest that by agape, Ignatius means the true Christian spirit and even more, the collectivity of churches, much as we can say "the faith" when we really mean all those who practice the faith. In this sense, the Roman Church would take precedence over other Churches. This is not the only possible meaning and we should beware of reading Rome's later preeminence backwards. But it is a fair interpretation, justified by Ignatian usage, and consistent with Rome's preeminence as imperial capital and as the place where both Peter and Paul were martyred.
"In this sense, the Roman Church would take precedence over other Churches."
In what? Please be specific.
It's too soon for that. The concept of "Romania" as a unit did not come about until about the time that the capital was removed from the decayed old city to Greece. The Romans' "land" was still distinct from the subject, foreign lands in the empire. Rome was still its own city and not yet the capital of a consolidated nation-state.
Good work Tom, may God bless you.
Clyde
More literally translated, the salutation refers to the Roman Church as the one that “sits in the forefront (thus presides over) in the place of the Romans’ land,” a reference not, I should think, simply to the city of Rome (the topos) but the Roman world.
I could be wrong, but this seems to me a departure even from Roman Catholic claims of papal supremacy. Certainly, Ignatius gives the Christian assembly at Rome higher praise than he bestows upon the Christians of Ephesus or Smyrna. Indeed, he gives higher praise to the Romans than St. Paul does. Ignatius is quite exuberant about the Roman Christians in general, about going to Rome, and about following after the apostles in wearing the martyrs' crown. In all three aspects, he goes to great excess, moving beyond the spirit of St. Paul, particularly on that last point.
It is difficult to accept that "προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων" is the papal silver bullet and means "presiding over the Roman world [or empire]." Even at this stage of development, "church" is not synonymous with "bishop" or "bishops" or "hierarchy" or "Roman pope." If we are to assume that the above-pasted phrase means "presiding over the world," then it would be the assembly of Christians at Rome that presides over the world.
In the immediate context, though, Ignatius is not praising the charity and holiness of Rome's bishop but of Rome's congregation, just as Paul praises the "faith" of those in Rome who are "called to be saints," which faith is "spoken of throughout the whole world." Paul in fact said this in the same breath in which he long to go to them personally "to the end ye may be established"—a clear indication that Peter had not yet been there.
That these Christians "take precedence" or are ahead of the other assemblies in their love for their Christian brethren, which was manifested through their works of charity, is by no means trivial. Love is the theme of Ignatius' epistles, and this is fitting, since his teacher John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, made that his theme. That leading the way in love would somehow translate into power or authority over other assemblies contradicts the spirit of Ignatius' own texts. As each and every bishop is, to Ignatius, the vicar of Christ, how could the "Roman church" usurp that prerogative?
This is one reason why I wondered whether this argument was a "departure." Roman Catholic claims are based on Petrine succession and are rooted in authority given (as the claim goes) exclusively to Peter, not to the "region of the Romans." The Fathers hail Rome not because it is the seat of the empire but because it was founded jointly by Peter and Paul (or Paul and Peter).
Finally, the theme of Ignatius to the Romans is not papal supremacy but the author's "lust for death." If anything, it seems Ignatius is eager to tell the Romans that they mustn't let their leadership in the arena of charity get in the way of his sought-after martyrdom. "Ye never grudged any one." (In other words, don't grudge the request I make of you now.)
Aaron,
These martyrdoms are always unique in certain respects and regardless of whether the Church in Rome was yet the center of the Christian world, it is obvious that Rome was the center of everything else. St. Ignatius pleads with them not to use their influence to mitigate his sentence.( And by the way such fidelity won him mention in the canon of the Roman , the Syriac and Maronite rite in every Mass offered to this day.) Obviously Christianity had made converts in some positions of authority. It is said that such men as Flavius Clemens, the cousin of the emperor, and the Aclilii Glabriones had friends in high places. So regardless of how we view the situation at this time concerning Church authority, it is obvious that all other authority was in Rome. Some see in this a preparation for the rising tide of the Faith.
It is perhaps like the not too distant day when you and Dr. Fleming will need to be handcuffed and transported by plane, train or automobile to Washington D.C. to face the already alleged charges of unpatriotic conservative, or for refusing to throw incense on the altars dedicated to the gods of global democracy. In such a situation, future generations may or may not here mention of the leaders of the Church in Washington, (given the times probably not) , but they will still be present and supposedly presiding. Thanks for your always level headed and good commentary.
Excellent article, excellent comments. Mr. Wolf always neatly rounds out Dr. Fleming's fine analysis with his own fine analysis.
Thank you, Judge Reavis and PcH.
Judge, I agree with everything you wrote. It pains me that, in raising questions about some of my Roman Catholic friends' ecclesiology, it must appear to some that I'm running down the church at Rome or St. Ignatius. Oh, to have the faith (Paul) working in love (John, Ignatius) that the dear Roman Christians had! And oh, to have the courage in the face of death of St. Ignatius! God grant them to us all.
Aaron is rushing ahead a bit. I have taken up so far only the salutation and added a clarification in response to a question. I have not suggested that Ignatius is advancing an argument for papal supremacy over the Church, only that he accords the Roman Church a respect and honor he has not paid to other Churches. Implicit in his language is respect for Rome and the imperial capital and mistress of the world, but he also emphasizes the purity of doctrine preserved there.
Again, the status of Rome is enhanced by the fairly recent martyrdoms of Paul and Peter and the fact that Peter not only founded the congregation there, as he may well have done in Antioch, but remained in charge until he died. It would be special pleading to claim that Ignatius is bearing witness to the supremacy of the Roman Church and its bishop, but that would less erroneous and less misleading than any attempt to twist the Greek into anything but an attribution of a high status not attested elsewhere in Ignatius or in the early Fathers. Antioch, Alexandria, and Caesarea are all emerging as very special churches at this time, and it would be premature to define any peculiar status for Rome. Within the Roman world, let us remember, the city--or rather THE CITY--was regarded, at least since the philosopher Posidonius, as having a destiny to rule and civilize the world. Is it strange that Roman Christians would take over that mission or that it would be recognized by other Christians?
I should also beware of such loaded language as going to "excess." The Church, inspired and informed by the Holy Ghost, has not been and cannot be static but must be forever developing in response to changing circumstances, opportunities, and threats. If Ignatius is moving beyond Paul's conception of the Roman Church, we are not at all justified in censuring him. Among the greatest mistakes we could make in viewing the history of the Church, one routinely and excessively committed by Judaizing Protestants, is to take what we think we know of the Apostolic Church--about which we know rather little--and hold it up as the exemplar for churches throughout history.
I thank Dr. Fleming for his exegesis. Otherwise my point was that if Petrine authority is a New Testamental principle, that if might very well be a Patristic one. it is a Roman one only because Peter went to Rome (though he may not have been there yet when Romans chap. 16 was written). His presence in Rome, his leadership of the Roman Church, and his death there are, it seems to me, all working knowledge for Clement and Ignatius.
TJF @9
"Within the Roman world, let us remember, the city–or rather THE CITY–was regarded, at least since the philosopher Posidonius, as having a destiny to rule and civilize the world. Is it strange that Roman Christians would take over that mission or that it would be recognized by other Christians? "
Yes, this is my view exactly. James stayed in Jerusalem, John to Ephesus, Timothy was martyred near India, etc. but the Rock went to Rome and Christ gave him a special role in building the Church. The whole story is almost too wonderful and improbable to ignore.
"I should also beware of such loaded language as going to 'excess.' The Church, inspired and informed by the Holy Ghost, has not been and cannot be static but must be forever developing in response to changing circumstances, opportunities, and threats."
I believe Dr. Martin Luther would have been very comfortable with Dr. Fleming's statement.
"If Ignatius is moving beyond Paul’s conception of the Roman Church, we are not at all justified in censuring him."
Perhaps. It depends on what is meant by "moving beyond." St. Ignatius, I am convinced, did not actually move beyond Paul's concept of the Roman church. However, (and this charge does not apply to Ignatius, here) it is entirely possible to move beyond the Apostles and straight into heresy. Such an act would demand censure. I am certain Dr. Fleming has in mind those teachers in the Church who are truly in the Church and, therefore, would only strengthen orthodoxy. Still, I believe it is a potentially dangerous a priori assertion to make a de facto prohibition on the censure of Church Fathers when (in fact) they have been known to err.
There aren't many places to witness discussion like this. Many thanks to Dr. Fleming, Aaron Wolf, et al.
Reavis@11
Where the writer mentions Timothy he meant to write Thomas, as in doubting Thomas, who wanted material evidence of Christ's divinity.
I thank Jeff Anderson for contributing a precision. In a natural growth process, the tree is only am extension or fulfillment of the sapling, whose code of development is there in the seed, while heresies are more like grafts, hybrids, DNA jiggering etc. in distorting the organic development and, typically, creating something inferior and often quite evil--like the "meat-sheets" whose laboratory creation I heard discussed this morning on NPR. There are some obvious tests. When a point has been made directly and emphatically by Christ, for example, his teaching on divorce, and that point has been upheld and strengthened by the Apostles and the early Church, there an be no legitimate "moving beyond." Or, to take a better example, Christ's various pronouncements on the members of the Holy Trinity do not add up to a coherent theology of the Trinity. The clarifications were up to the Apostles and the early Fathers, who, in responding to challenges, eliminated what might once have been a harmless mistake. Some ecclesiastical historians have written as if Athanasius andn Augustine sought quibbling distinction and imposed them on a more pluralistic Church. In fact, most of what they did was to respond to the challenges often by heretics. Once these issues have been clarified--filtered out, as Ignatius might say--we are not justified in going back to an earlier less dogmatic position.
#8 Aaron writes :
"It pains me that, in raising questions about some of my Roman Catholic friends’ ecclesiology, it must appear to some that I’m running down the church at Rome or St. Ignatius. "
Aaron,
One of the deficiencies of electronic discussion is the lack of context. Nobody who knows you, can conceive of you running down or belittling anything or anybody in the simple derogatory sense. Wendell Berry once remarked in another context that the problem with factory farming is that it develops the avarice and desperate side of men to the point that young farmers would rather have their neighbor's land than to have a neighbor. It is the same with annonymous electronics, it develops the sense of winning an argument at the expense of admiring your friends. How boring life would be without distinctions and differences. To do this kind of inquiry right( that is to learn something ) one needs a little courage, a thick skin and a big heart, both of which are known to be in abundance to anyone associated with Chronicles or the Rockford Institute. Quit worrying about it.
I have taken up so far only the salutation and added a clarification in response to a question.
You also mentioned the future development of ancient metropolitanates, Rome among them.
Implicit in his language is respect for Rome and the imperial capital and mistress of the world . . .
Where? How so?
I completely understand if the thrust of this argument is that there is an implicit deference to the Roman church because of her apostolic founding and, in particular, the unique presence of the "chair of Peter." But where does Ignatius (or any of the Fathers) praise Rome qua Rome? It is the "wild beasts" of the mistress of the world that he is hoping to face down.
. . . he also emphasizes the purity of doctrine preserved there.
Amen.
. . . the fact that Peter not only founded the congregation there, as he may well have done in Antioch, but remained in charge until he died.
This is not in the text of Ignatius to the Romans either—nor does it appear in 1 Clement. Scholars do not agree that St. Peter founded the Roman assembly (unless we count the Pentecost sermon, as I mentioned earlier). Certainly, Peter was there, and certainly he faced the death our Lord predicted for him there, but there was a tremendous grasping for proofs of Roman authority in the centuries that followed, which led to the impossible claim that Peter ruled the Roman church for 25 years. St. Paul's epistle to the Romans singlehandedly rules that out. (The aforesaid grasping is one explanation for the various and sundry expansions and inventions of Ignatius' epistles, which Eusebius mentions.)
but that would be less erroneous and less misleading than any attempt to twist the Greek into anything but an attribution of a high status not attested elsewhere in Ignatius or in the early Fathers.
Amen.
Within the Roman world, let us remember, the city–or rather THE CITY–was regarded, at least since the philosopher Posidonius, as having a destiny to rule and civilize the world. Is it strange that Roman Christians would take over that mission or that it would be recognized by other Christians?
This, I think, is special pleading. The mission of the universal church (militant) is not to "rule and civilize the world"—not according to the New Testament and not according to the Fathers. Clement, bishop of Rome, underscores plainly Christ's teaching that "My kingdom is not of this world." Christ did not die and rise again so that the Roman church might civilize the world, but to save the world from sin and death. To that end, writes Clement, we are, at least in spirit, to follow the examples of Abraham, Elijah, and Ezekiel: "Let us be imitators also of them which went about in goatskins and sheepskins, preaching the coming of Christ." They lived in the shadow of the impending parousia and it was only later that Roman Christians began to confuse their uniqueness with the kingdom of God. St. Augustine's City of God was written to address this.
I should also beware of such loaded language as going to “excess.”
I think "Judaizing" is a missile compared with the bb of "excess." At any rate, this warning and the paragraph that follows is very soundly Roman Catholic, but it too is loaded—built on a certain assumption about the role of Scripture and the way in which the Holy Spirit guides the Church. I call Ignatius excessive, particularly in his "lust for death," precisely because it contradicts the doctrine of St. Paul and our Lord Himself. They did not directly hasten their own deaths and avoided conflict with the authorities whenever possible. St. Paul was at a "strait betwixt two"—wanting to be "absent from the body and present with the Lord," but at the same time desiring to continue his ministry. This is lacking in St. Ignatius, who has already decided that it is his time to die.
Yes, the Holy Spirit would, did, and does guide the Church—the universal assembly of believers. This does not mean that the bishop of Antioch was granted the charism of infallibility. To assert that Ignatius is somehow developing, clarifying, or inventing a doctrine of Roman (qua Roman) supremacy or of Christian fatalism that somehow improves on St. Paul's teaching goes beyond Protestant and Roman Catholic debates over the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Ignatius himself knows that there is a clear line between himself (and his brother-bishops) and the apostles, both in terms of authority and in terms of sanctification. That line extends (so we Protestants would argue) between Holy Scripture and Tradition. "It is written" is applied by the Fathers to the writings of the Apostles (the NT) in the same manner as the Apostles apply it to the OT.
If Ignatius is moving beyond Paul’s conception of the Roman Church, we are not at all justified in censuring him.
What are we to make, then, of St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church?
Among the greatest mistakes we could make in viewing the history of the Church, one routinely and excessively committed by Judaizing Protestants, is to take what we think we know of the Apostolic Church–about which we know rather little–and hold it up as the exemplar for churches throughout history.
That assumes a peculiar view of Tradition and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It also assumes that the history of the early Church is so shrouded in mystery that we cannot learn anything from it directly, but can only look to it to confirm (not that we need confirmation) what the Roman magisterium currently teaches us. Thus the circuitous arguing that many Roman Catholics engage in: Quote the silver-bullet text from the Fathers to shoot down the Protestant; then, when the Protestant fires back with another text from that same Father, say "who are you to interpret this text? If Tradition has always taught X, how can you say that the Father means Y?" Why cite the Father at all, then?
I don't know what "Judaizing Protestants" means in this context. (Ignatius doesn't mention them.) Judging the history of the Church in light of the infallible Scriptures is not an attempt at returning to circumcision or taking back the yoke of the Law. Protestants really want to be Jews, with their Jewish canon and their obsession with Jewish Scriptures. That is as neat an argument as Catholics really want to be pagans, with their obsession with philosophy.
Is Ignatius referring to any specific false teachings?
Also, is he saying that the bishop is the true conduit through which unity can be maintained?
Edward @17
"Is Ignatius referring to any specific false teachings? "
Yes, from the very beginning the Church was thrown on the defensive. ( or offensive ) One of the errors Ignatius was thwarting was whether Christ was born of the virgin and became man or whether he was simply God in spirit. I forget the name given to this particular departure from the faith but it does have one.
"Is he saying that the bishop is the true conduit through which unity can be maintained?"
Yes, I believe so because it was so from the beginning as modeled from the prophets of old. Some said Elijah, some said John the Baptist ... but God alone revealed the truth to Peter and the Apostles who in turn handed down what they had received. Some went in one direction to preach the gospel, others went in another direction. Peter went to Rome. He could have gone, he might have gone, somewhere else but the historical fact is he went to Rome, center of the world; taking Christ, center of all hearts, with him. The early apostles appealed to him to settle disputes, just as Trajan sent St. Ignatius to Rome to settle his crime. These are historical facts that tradition has viewed as significant and later commentators have viewed as mere coincidence. When the Bishops were good, they were really good, when they were bad they brought consternation, emnity and division into the Church.
Aaron @16
"Christ did not die and rise again so that the Roman church might civilize the world, but to save the world from sin and death."
This is a good distinction to make. Civility is the fruit of being saved from sin and death and not the other way around. Since the Incarnation, it is impossible to have civilization without the Incarnation. Witness the impending death of Europe. There were undoubtedly civilizations before the coming of Christ and he did not come to condemn them but to save them from their own destruction.
Also " I call Ignatius excessive, particularly in his “lust for death,” precisely because it contradicts the doctrine of St. Paul and our Lord Himself. They did not directly hasten their own deaths and avoided conflict with the authorities whenever possible. St. Paul was at a “strait betwixt two”—wanting to be “absent from the body and present with the Lord,” but at the same time desiring to continue his ministry. This is lacking in St. Ignatius, who has already decided that it is his time to die."
This is another good point. As we shall see in the martrydom of Polycarp, Ignatius was the exception. Most of those who "talked big" like St. Ignatius did not manage once the real "nut cutting " began. Polycarp avoided it as long as he could and the Church has always counseled the path of Polycarp to that of Ignatius -- as in be careful what you ask for and why you are asking. But evidently he did indeed "know himself." This difference was also apparent between Socrates and Aristotle. Both were brought up on trumped up charges. Socrates, however,refused the escape plot while Aristotle said he did not want Athens to commit another offense against the love of Wisdom. Some saints say go ahead and offend me, while others try to protect the prosection from offending God. It is understandable given the different temperments and talents of God's creatures. IMO
Ignatius is an opponent of Docetism, in particular. This makes sense, as his teacher John was concerned at the end of his earthly life with what we now call proto-Gnosticism. Thus John calls anyone who denies that Christ came in the flesh "antichrist."
Docetism means "seeming" or "appearance" and has to do with the heretical notion that Christ only seemed human. In To the Smyrneans, Ignatius begins by offering a Scriptural (OT and NT) defense of the Incarnation, then condemns the heresy as a sort of pretend religion with a pretend hope. "But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts?" This is similar to St. Paul's response to those who deny the Resurrection in 1 Thess.
(An aside: Ignatius sees the Doectists' denial of the Real Presence as part and parcel of their pretend religion. "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.")
One interesting facet of this is the way that Ignatius' arguments for obedience to the bishop flow from this defense of the Incarnation. The bishop is, for him, a unique embodiment of Christ. The Docetists deny the Incarnation and (so) are lacking in love and charitable acts, refrain from the Eucharist and prayer, and have no regard for the Church's bishops. The Christians, on the other hand, are one with Christ by or through their unity and obedience to the bishop, from whose hand they should receive the (real and not illusory) Body and Blood of Christ. As St. John taught, they are known by their love, and they are obliged to do their part in answering Christ's prayer to the Father in the Garden (which only John records), "That they may be one, as we are" (the Father and the Son).
Let us try to be still more clear on some of the disputed points. Rome's political and civilizational status is a fact, not an extrapolation. Thus, "Within the Roman world, let us remember, the city–or rather THE CITY–was regarded, at least since the philosopher Posidonius, as having a destiny to rule and civilize the world. Is it strange that Roman Christians would take over that mission or that it would be recognized by other Christians?" Note the question mark. I do not insist on the point but on the whole it seems likely, given the view of Rome over the previous several centuries. Christianity may have appeared to come out of the blue; in fact, it developed in a particular context with a set of assumptions, some of which Christians could not escape. Where else would you locate the headquarters of a worldwide religious conspiracy, if not in the capital?
I do not say that Ignatius necessarily accepted the conventional valuation put on Rome or that he said the sky was blue and water wet, but these are everyday facts taken for granted in the period. To suggest that Rome's rise to preeminence in the Western Church is unrelated to her role as mistress of the world would seem to me very strange. Or are we going to argue that Rome was not the preeminent Church in the West? I anticipated a century or so of development in order to make clear that I was not arguing that Rome was the only or necessarily most important patriarchal Church in the later Empire, only that this salutation does in fact appear to anticipate later developments. To argue against this is to argue against the course of history, and for what purpose? This becomes all the more obvious in the case of Constantinople, the New Rome, which did not enjoy a reputation for apostolic foundation, though one was later discovered.
If we take the position that nothing can be known about anything and that all traditions are suspect, then, we may as well deny that Peter every went to Rome or was martyred there, or that his grave became the site of a cemetery church near the very circus where he was allegedly martyred or that non-Catholic archeologists who excavated the site find evidence of continuous reverence paid to that site, which is located under the altar of St. Peter's. That Christians may have come to Rome before Peter is quite possible, but that an apostle whom our Lord described as the rock on which He would build his Church would not come to preside over--or perhaps rather found as a community and then preside over--again seems like a very strange sort of skepticism, which, if applied to the Scriptures would have us believing nothing. No well-informed person can believe that if Peter used the title bishop, he was assuming all the powers of the papacy in the 8th century, and no well-intentioned person could argue that, whatever his title or functions, Peter played a preeminent part in the Roman Church before his martyrdom.
Finally, there is a case to be made that while Aristotle was innocent, Socrates got the punishment he deserved, as an innovator in religion and the teacher of dissolute hoodlums like Alcibiades and Critias.
Let us move on to Ignatius view of martyrdom and then to the problem of docetism, but before we do, I hope that everyone of good will is in agreement on the central point I have tried to make, that Ignatius provides evidence that at least one major bishop, himself, treated Rome with more respect than he accorded other churches with which he was familiar. Whether he would have expected similar respect to be paid to Antioch, I do now know, though he does speak of his own Church as not only Antioch but of Syria. We can explore the relations between these two great Churches, when we take up Polycarp. I have not so far met with an argument refuting, successfully, my contention that at the very least Ignatius seems to anticipate for Rome the special status enjoyed later by the great metropolitanates founded by apostles. I would also like to add that both Catholic and Protestant commentators are far to prone to play debater in discussing the early Church. I am trying merely to find what is most probable in the texts, given their historical context, neither arguing for Roman primacy nor against it.
"neither arguing for Roman primacy nor against it."
But alas, unless that is addressed, and the Catholics defend and promote the truth of the matter, it will always and ever be the 800 pound gorilla in the room whenever Catholics and Protestants both read the works of Fathers like St. Ignatius. If Roman Primacy comes up, Catholics must defend it, and St. Ignatius is a pretty good source for doing so.
"No well-informed person can believe that if Peter used the title bishop, he was assuming all the powers of the papacy in the 8th century"
He certainly had all the powers which the First Vatican Council defined as being essential to the Papacy as a divinely-founded Petrine office. And that claim alone is enough to scandalize the separated brethren.
As for Dr. Wolf, yes, Catholics do claim that the Roman Church is superior to other local churches -- it is not just that the Bishop of Rome happens to have extra powers over the Church. Rome's cathedral, the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran, has inscriptions on its walls that say "Mother and Mistress of all Churches of the entire world." But the authority in the Church of Rome rests in the hierarchy alone. The clergy of Rome actually do outrank the clergy of other churches, which is why cardinals all have titular parishes, diaconates, and dioceses in the Roman ecclesiastical province. Cardinals occupy the highest rank in the Church because they are, by right of their titles, the clergy of the preeminent local church.
"He certainly had all the powers which the First Vatican Council defined as being essential to the Papacy as a divinely-founded Petrine office. And that claim alone is enough to scandalize the separated brethren."
Certainly? What does "certainly" mean in the context of a rational and historical inquiry, when so little of Peter's ministry is actually known? Even a famous saint in his circle, Santa Pudenziana, could well be a misunderstanding of a phrase meaning the house church belonging to Pudens. If we were not too busy discussing Ignatius, I would sketch out a bit of the the history of the office and term "cardinal," but we shall have to postpone that until a later time. We are engaged in a very limited project, namely, to look at these early texts, to try to come to some agreement on what they most probably mean in their original context, and, moving text by text, to develop some understanding of the Church's development. The worst we can do is to import a priori pronouncements, whether Lutheran or Tridentine, into the discussion. Future attempts to derail the discussion will be eliminated.
Caper @22
As the former confederate soldier, Marshal Rooster Cogburn, said to that Texas Ranger who went to sleep on watch, then woke up in a scare and fired random shots at Ned Pepper and his gang, " Now you done it !!!!!!"
I have posted this continuation on the main entry of Ignatius II:
Let us move on, briefly, to Ignatius' actual topic in this epistle, namely, his willingness, even eagerness to accept martyrdom. The comparison with Socrates has been suggested, and a contrast has been drawn with Aristotle. I have already pointed out that Socrates was to a great extent guilty as charged: He did propose radical innovations in Athenian religion and his students did seize power, overthrow the government, and rule with contempt for morality and the Athenian constitution. However, guilty or not, Socrates accepted his fate explicitly because, as he said, he was an Athenian and would not disobey his city's commandments. Aristotle was no Athenian and could avoid execution quite cheerfully--as many Christian leaders did, including Polycarp, until he was caught in the end. Nor were they censured for doing so. If Ignatius were not so otherwise exemplary as a Christian, one might be tempted to censure his eagerness. Before examining his own account of his motives, I do want to point out what I see as a relevant parallel with Socrates. While Ignatius certainly does not claim Roman citizenship or endorse the right of the Empire to execute him, rightly or not, he does belong to a Christian commonwealth, already discernible, and he expects to do his duty toward the City of God and in doing, to strengthen the faith of his fellow-citizens.
In essence, Ignatius regards martyrdom as the final step in his imitatio Christi . (Ephesians 3.1). He would rather come to Christ through death than rule over the entire earth. He begs the Roman Christians not to hinder this final step . To rescue him would be to become a man-pleaser rather than a god-pleaser (Romans 2). He does not order them, as Peter or Paul would have, but he is only a convict (katakritos, literally one who has been judged and condemned and a slave (though he certainly knew that Paul was also a prisoner more than once), but as a martyr he shall be free and thus, one supposes, in their company. In meeting death, then, presumably, he would be free to give orders to the Romans (diatassesthai). As Aaron Wolf has pointed out judiciously, Ignatius does not address their bishop and may not have known who he was. Nor do we. The possibilities are Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, or Sistus/Xystos. Clement may well be too early and, besides, he might have been expected to mention him by name, and Sistus too late. About Evaristus and Alexander we know next to nothing--but perhaps as much as Ignatius did. Before emitting too much gas about the superiority and might of the Roman bishops at this time, let us recall that Ignatius and Polycarp were great men at a time when the Roman bishops were not especially well known. (This may explain the lack of a reference.)
It is the Lord of this World who would prevent the culmination of Ignatius' ascent to full disciple-hood. (7) He is not abandoning his duty to the Church in Syria--an anticipation of metropolitan status for Antioch?--but Christ himself will be the bishop, when he is gone.
Ignatius is a good subject when speaking of the Papacy and Peter. In his epistle to the Philadelphians Ignatius uses the term "the rock" in a different context than is normally assumed for it in light of Matthew 16. He writes
"This is the Way which leads to the Father, the Rock, the Defence, the Key, the Shepherd, the Sacrifice, the Door of knowledge, through which have entered Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and all the company of the prophets..."
The Rock and the Key pertain to that which allowed Abraham and others who died before Christ came to obtain their salvation.
We have some of the same symbolism as in Matthew 16
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The case can be made then that the rock pertains to that which prevents the gates of hell from prevailing, (as in the case of Abraham, Isaac, etc.) and not to Peter. It is a doctrine and not a person.
#26 SKR - What doctrine are you referring to? The Catholic Church teaches that the Church exists in eternity - not just time. Hence the patriarchs and prophets of old entered heaven through Christ and his Church, which he built on earth on the renamed Peter (rock) to whom he gave the authority of the keys. Now I'm not saying that this is specifically what Ignatius had in mind when he wrote the above passage - only that what he wrote is not contradictory to or incompatible with Catholic teaching.
“Within the Roman world, let us remember, the city–or rather THE CITY–was regarded, at least since the philosopher Posidonius, as having a destiny to rule and civilize the world. Is it strange that Roman Christians would take over that mission or that it would be recognized by other Christians?”
I'm wondering if possibly the generosity of Ignatius' greeting was do to the strength of the persecuted Christian community as apposed to the strength of Rome "THE CITY". Is it possible that their faith in the face of adversity earned the Roman Christians greater praise. This may well be to simplistic. In any case this is a great discussion and I will be following along.
#27 Kirt Higdon
I was just pointing out that in light of the passage from Ignatius, the antecedent to the "rock" in Matt. 16 might not be Peter, but rather the doctrine, power, or authority spoke of that allowed Abraham et al to leave hell, and in Matt. 16 to prevent the gates of hell from prevailing. I think the Gospels are clear that Peter was the head of the Church on Earth. He was given the keys, but also it is clear that he was present with James and John during some of the most intimate experiences with the Lord that are recorded in scripture. It is also clear that the others deferred to him as their head.
Some questions. What did Ignatius mean that Christ would be Bishop in his absence? Was the Church to be disbanded in that area? Why would there not be another Bishop chosen? Also Ignatius is adamant that he could not command as an Apostle nor had the knowledge of one--How does this mesh with Peter, an Apostle, being Bishop of Rome? Peter had the keys to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. In other words isn't an Apostle greater in authority within the Church than a Bishop?
Dr. Fleming hit me like the Socratic torpedo fish yesterday with his comments about the legal merits of the case against Socrates. So I went home after my daughters band concert and re-read the Apology, and thought more about the martrydom of St. Ignatius. These things humanly speaking are impossible to understand completly.
To the hypothetical question: Surely , Socrates, after we let you leave Athens you can spend the rest of your days in quietly minding your own business." Socrates responds , "This is the hardest thing of all to make some of you understand. If I say that this would be disobedience to God, and that is why I cannot " mind my own business", you will not believe I am serious. If, on the other hand I tell you that to let no day pass without thinking of goodness and all the other subjects about which you hear me talking and examining both yourself and others is really the best thing a man can do, and that life without this sort of examination is not worth living, you will be even less inclined to believe me. Nevertheless that is how it is gentlemen , as I maintain, though it is not easy to convince you of it."
Turning to St. Ignatius he tells us that his mind is no longer open to the things of this world, but has closed around the conviction of the redemptive power of Christ's suffering and death. He is now convinced that a broken and contrite heart is a sacrifice to God, that the seed must die to renew life, that the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep, and greater love than this no man has, than to lay down his life for his friends. All these teachings have come to fruition for St. Ignatius.(Just as the spiritual companion that spoke to Socrates and the oracle of Delphi had convinced him ) Humanly speaking, or for most of us mere mortals, we catch only glimpses of the abiding supernatural presence that transcends our every day life. To fully grasp the significance of St. Ignatius' willingness to die for Christ and his Church, or how his will to do so is sustained throughout his long journey back to Rome requires some type of grace or gift of the Holy Spirit. But to "those who received Christ, he gave power to be made the sons of God. Who are born not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
For those, who through no fault of their own, have not come to the faith, such events are often used or described as supports for contemplation. Or as Merlin said to King Author, sometimes we can only admire. But for those blessed with faith in the christian tradition it is called the communion of saints through the blood of real martyrs like St. Ignatius. My thanks to Tom Fleming for his topedo fish electricity in these discussions.
Technically speaking, that is blasphemy. Christ is Head of His church and there is but one Head.
Respectfully, no. Peter and the others deferred to James.
Acts 15 accounts a dispute. Peter speaks but the audience turns to Barnabas and Paul to hear what they had to say, owing to the signs and wonders which they had performed. Then a hush falls on everyone; the concluding remarks, the summary and conclusion of the whole debate is to be given by James. Peter's opening speech is five verses, but James's concluding remarks are fifteen. James gives the farewell, ending the meeting and dismissing the crowd and the apostles.
In Galatians 1:18-19, St. Paul says he went up to see Peter, then mentions that he saw none of the other apostles, save "James, the brother of the Lord." In 2:9, he lists three apostles, James first. In verse 11, he says "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
In other words, Paul rebuked Peter, not the other way around, and Paul clearly took precedence over Peter publicly, a relationship recorded in holy Scripture.
Paul explains why he rebuked Peter in verse 12 by saying, "For before that certain men came from James, he did eat with Gentiles..." This gives three points, that James had the authority to send emissaries to Peter, second that Peter had come under the influence of the Judaizers, and third that he corrected his behavior while James's men were watching him, proving that Peter was accountable to James.
Then Paul spends the second half of the chapter (ten verses in all) explaining why he rebuked Peter to his face and begins Chapter 3 with,
Our faith is in Jesus Christ, not in human institutions. The believer is first a Christian, and secondly a member of a denomination or tribe. We worship the Lord alone and to worship anything else – though it be the body of Christ – would be idolatry.
Re Socrates, Robert, look again at the Crito, where he puts forward an irrefutable argument against civil disobedience. We are indebted to our Polis/commonwealth for the marriage of our parents, our education, for our very lives, and by remaining within it we forfeit the right to disobey the decisions we think are wrong, including a sentence of death. Now, I do not wish to suggest that Socrates was not a profound moral thinker and a very great man, but I do think that his student Plato, near the end of his career, came to realize the dangers to the city of a teacher who undermines traditional authority--as Socrates did. In the Laws, where the old men are comparing and criticizing constitutions, one of them observes that they would never do this in the presence of young men who could be unsettled. And Plato did not even have bloggers to worry about. One point I was trying to make--and it is something of a stretch--is to compare Ignatius's loyalty to God and his Church to Socrates' love of the true god revealed by reason and to the city which had shaped him.
I don't know precisely what Ignatius meant in saying Christ would be the bishop, other than that he was entrusting his Church to Christ until they found another bishop. It seems likely the Antiochians would not have chosen another bishop until they were informed of Ignatius' death, so naturally there would be, in a very difficult period, a sort of interregnum.
Woodcutter wondered if Ignatius' admiration for Rome might derive from the persecution of Christians in Rome. It is true that Nero's great persecution (after the fire in 64) would have been in a previous generation, but Domitian became a serious persecutor of Christians and Stoics (both groups refused to worship a man as god) near the end of his reign. He had been murdered only recently (in 96), and the memory must have been lively. We know too little of the details of Ignatius' arrest, but Trajan was a most reluctant persecutor. He insisted on having the law against Christians carried out, but in his famous rescript to Pliny the Younger he forbade anonymous denunciations and put strict limits on the procedures to be used in investigating Christians--amounting to something like a don't ask, don't tell policy. If Ignatius had been arrested early in Trajan's reign, he would not have benefited from the policy change. The Roman bureaucracy changed only slowly, which sometimes helped the Church when a new Emperor decided to renew the persecution. To answer the question directly, I think the persecutions of the Roman Church enhanced their reputation, but Rome's overall prestige, it seems probable, also plays a part. After centuries of propaganda, modern Christians have convinced themselves that the Empire was evil. Despite the persecutions, St. Paul did not appear to think so: His remarks on obedience to authority in Romans can only be applied to the one government he knew of and experienced. It is hard for us to understand the attitude of citizens and residents of an empire that protected its citizens from the terrors of invasion, because for many centuries we have been schooled to look at the world as a conflict between us and them, whether us consists of enlightened freemasons or traditionalist Catholics. Obviously, it was easier for Socrates to be loyal to the city of his ancestors than it was for a Jew or Hellenized Syrian to be loyal to Rome, but loyalty there was, even among Christians (if we except the terrible simplifiers like Tertullian.)
According to Tradition, the first bishops were the apostles themselves or their appointees. Peter obviously had great prestige even among the apostles and some of that prestige attached to the churches in Antioch and more especially Rome. Ignatius, in proper humility, is not putting himself on par either with Peter or with his teacher St. John, but he suggests--as Aaron W pointed out in conversation with me--that in martyrdom he will reach a higher level discipleship.
As for Peter's position within the Church, while it may be a mistake to say at any given point that Peter was the head of the Church on earth, it is certainly not blasphemy. Indeed, such a charge is absurd. All that was intended by this remark was that Peter represented Christ on Earth--which is close to the position taken by the Fathers we have been reading.
As for the question of who was the apostle to which the others deferred, that is a far more difficult question to answer, and, if PcH had been paying attention, he would know that we have already looked at the passage in Acts. James the Just is certainly an important figure, but if we rely on purely rational and historical inquiry we cannot be certain who he was. There are several important Jameses, and I refuse to take up in this discussion the question of whether James was the son of Mary. Tradition makes him the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, which was certainly the headquarters of the Faith in its early days, and. so it appears, important questions are referred to that Church, with James presiding over the meeting. Peter, after all, was off doing missionary work. The Church in this earliest period seems to have worked by consensus of the apostles and the elders. James was executed--improperly, it seems--in roughly 62--and after the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus, the congregation remained for a time, perhaps until the rebellion under Hadrian, when Christians--along with the non-Christian Jews--moved to Caesarea and the Church suffered a loss of prestige. So far as I know, the bishops of Jerusalem were Jewish Christians of no great distinction, and this fact might have marginalized them in the Church. I don't think there is a clear idea of when Peter went to Rome and apart from his martyrdom we know little of his work there and, as the ultra-skeptics will say, we do not know that he was head of the Church there, though that is an early tradition. His importance is manifest in Clement's fine words on his martyrdom and from Ignatius' statement that he cannot command the Romans as Peter and Paul did. It is reasonable to assume that by this he is referring to Peter's local role in the Church and Paul's great epistle to the Romans.
The Church Universal--Orthodox as well as Catholic--early on acknowledged Peter's importance at Rome and the significance of the Roman Church. It is quite possible that this significance was somewhat exaggerated by later generations, but to maintain an ancient tradition that has been upheld by so many saints and doctors of the Church can hardly be accounted blasphemy. On the contrary, to deride an ancient tradition as blasphemous comes very close to impudence.
I don’t know precisely what Ignatius meant in saying Christ would be the bishop, other than that he was entrusting his Church to Christ until they found another bishop. It seems likely the Antiochians would not have chosen another bishop until they were informed of Ignatius’ death, so naturally there would be, in a very difficult period, a sort of interregnum.
Indeed—a fine explanation. Life in this brief ingerregnum is interesting to consider, given Ignatius' overall ecclesiology. If Christians are admonished not to celebrate the Eucharist—the very center of Christian worship—without the bishop or his immediate approval (or celebrate marriages), what of worship during the interregnum? We could assume that Ignatius gave trusted presbyters a general permission in his absence. Given Ignatius' great emphasis on the bishop's office (bulwark against heresy, center of unity, vicar of God/Christ, Eucharistic president, etc.) we can understand his great concern about a vacant see in Syria. This explains the earnestness with which he pleads with Polycarp to send a messenger to Antioch, to see how things are going and report back to the great bishop of Smyrna.
Ignatius, in proper humility, is not putting himself on par either with Peter or with his teacher St. John, but he suggests–as Aaron W pointed out in conversation with me–that in martyrdom he will reach a higher level discipleship.
See? Aaron W tradition interprets Aaron W scriptura! But seriously, yes—the disciple must take up his cross, the servant is not greater than his Master, and in particular, the imitation of Christ is fulfilled uniquely in martyrdom. This certainly explains Ignatius' zeal for the wild beasts—although, interestingly enough, tradition tells us both that Ignatius was John's disciple and that St. John was the only Apostle not to wear the martyr's crown.
PcH @ 31 writes:" our faith is in Christ not in human institutions"
I often think this is only a 3/4 truth. Certainly institutions can at times get carried away, but they also carry on whatever it is that needs to be handed to the next generation -- Courthouses, Churches, Archives, etc. Even the poet seemed to notice this in embracing the confines of the Sonnett. Make no mistake, I admire your learning and dedication to Christ and passionate defense of the truth. But I was just wondering if submitting to some disciplines and traditions are not creative in the end. Such as the following poem suggests.
Nuns fret not at their convent's narrow room
And hermits are contented with their cells;
And students with their pensive citadels;
Maids at the wheel, the weaver at his loom,
Sit blithe and happy; bees that soar for bloom,
High as the highest Peak of Furness-fells,
Will murmur by the hour in foxglove bells:
In truth the prison, into which we doom
Ourselves, no prison is: and hence for me,
In sundry moods, 'twas pastime to be bound
Within the Sonnet's scanty plot of ground;
Pleased if some Souls (for such there needs must be)
Who have felt the weight of too much liberty,
Should find brief solace there, as I have found.
Interesting commentary. Respectfully, I thought it relevant to address the idea that a mortal man can be head of the whole church, since to the Protestant and Orthodox majority, that is believed to be the reason either for the Schism or the Reformation. Several sectarian views advocating papal supremacy have been put forward here with little comment from the majority of Christians, who disagree strongly with such claims and, I feel sure, would regard Chronicles as a partisan Roman Catholic publication to see them so often zealously advanced.
In this way, I do not believe it was a flippant statement to characterize the supremacist claim as "blasphemous;" the Headship of the church is the Divinity of Christ. Jesus Christ is Head of the church because He is God. One Orthodox statement online reads:
Protestants would concur. Stating that the mortal head of the church is "the vicar of Christ" does not improve anything for the Orthodox or Protestant because of the violation of the "Christocentric nature of the Church" above mentioned. The Reformers were equally emphatic; the Anglican Homilies, for example, covering hundreds of pages, cite holy Scripture and the church fathers to explain the Protestant and Greek notion that the vicarage of Christ over the whole church was innovation and a usurpation of and a rebellion against the Divine Headship of Christ. The Homilies further develop the argument that the supremacist view led to the betrayal of and political undermining of the beautiful and Christian Greek Empire and caused its fall to Islamic invasion. This is not to advocate one position or another, but is in reply to one position that has been repeatedly advanced.
I see two extreme positions in this regard. One is that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church and the other is that there are Christians in every denomination except for the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, both those views cut Rome off from the majority of the body of Christ. The difference is not between human organizations, but between the visible church and the invisible. There are Christians in every branch of Christianity, just as there were true believers in every one of the twelve tribes of Israel. I have met them and they are my brothers. This includes, of course, Catholics.
Thank you Dr. Fleming for answering my questions. Yes, of course it is the Church of Christ and He is always its Head. I guess a better description would have been the Lord's designated representative for His Church on Earth. But this is a bit clumsy.
Realizing my ignorance, another question. Is there evidence that Peter was actually Bishop of Rome, or soley that he presided over the Church at Rome? In other words could another have been Bishop performing those duties, while Peter as an Apostle was the rightful authority over the Church?
I understand that PcH is writing in sincerity, but his comments are awfully muddled and riddled with false dichotomies. I am not, in fact. making the case either that in Ignatius' time the Roman Church is the one true Church or even that it was or must be supreme. It is important to stick to the texts and the points at issue here; otherwise we shall be going off in all directions. In particular, I strongly object to the insertion of irrelevant and anonymous materials from other websites. The Eastern position, from fairly early on and down to fairly late, was unequivocal in acknowledging the primacy of the Roman bishop, and even today most Orthodox bishops and theologians I know concede that if the Church were reunited, the heir of Peter would preside over the meetings of the patriarchs--indeed, in some Eastern ecclesiastical disputes in recent years, appeals have been made to the Pope. But all such discussion is premature, since in the age we are examining, it is not at all clear that the concept of a metropolitan, much less a patriarchal church has emerged.
I did not say that his remark was flippant but impudent, which implies a shameful lack of respect for those that deserve respect. Chronicles is not a Catholic publication, and a majority of its writers are not Catholic. I and one of my two full-time editors are, but not the third. The only religion editor we have had was a Protestant, Harold O.J. Brown, a man I am proud to have called a friend. I know there are ill-educated and bigoted Protestants who think they know something about Church history who think themselves, as Paul would say, something. Such people do not interest me, but they are not suited to take part in a reasoned discourse whose object is the truth. My Lutheran friend Mr. Wolf and I disagree on many things about history and proper Church governance, but we are at one in pursuing the truth and in respecting the traditions of the early Church.
"Do ye, beloved, be careful to be subject to the bishop, and the presbyters and the deacons. For he that is subject to these is obedient to Christ, who has appointed them; but he that is disobedient to these is disobedient to Christ Jesus. And “he that obeyeth not Or, “believeth not” (John iii. 36). the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” For he that yields not obedience to his superiors is self-confident, quarrelsome, and proud. But “God,” says [the Scripture] “resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble;” Prov. iii. 34; Jas. iv. 6; 1 Pet. v. 5. and, “The proud have greatly transgressed.” The Lord also says to the priests, “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that heareth Me, heareth the Father that sent Me. He that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.”" Chapter V-The Praise of Unity
Could Ignatius be accused of violating the "Christocentric nature of the Church" in the quotation above. Protestants use the same claim when deriding the Catholic dogmas on Mary. Isn't it a cop out, though, when legitimately trying to discover who has true authority and what type of authority it is, to accuse someone of neglecting Christ?
Unless you are accusing Catholics of being fundamentally dishonest (believing in papal supremacy for reasons other than its truthfulness), I think the Catholic claim and how it fits contextually within the writings of Ignatius should be looked at critically and not dismissed out of hand as blasphemous.
Robert Reavis - I loved your comment, particularly the poem. I think there is an importance in providing a genuine sense of other-worldliness to produce a proper worship of God. The poem was beautiful.
Now, my apologies for using the word "blasphemy." I was trying to show how certain partisan comments are perceived by others and why, but I could have used a weaker word.
About me: growing up, our favorite babysitters were Catholic; they were the most popular family in the neighborhood, the boys were altar boys, and I believe the family was also the most popular in their parish. I also learned to swim at the home of some other neighbors, also good friends, and members of the same parish. We could talk about anything and no offense was ever taken. At the same time, while walking to school, other Catholic kids, in uniform, would cross the street and walk on the other sidewalk. Our friends would apologize for their bad manners and say that that school, which they also attended, could be very strict in attitudes toward outsiders, and they would also tell us the traditional and harmless stories about mean old nuns and change the name of the school from "Our Lady of Peace" to Old Ladies' Prison. When I later moved 500 miles away, I had a standing offer to stay with them when I wished.
Dr. Fleming I am not sure why you thought I was addressing you, did you say this: "I think the Gospels are clear that Peter was the head of the Church on Earth?" You didn't. This is the type of comment I was calling your attention to which is inflamatory to non-Catholic readers and in fact you did address it after I commented on it. The person who said it is otherwise polite. On the other hand you now say this:
This is the type of statement that sends Bible-believing Protestant and traditional Orthodox readers to other magazines. One would think this were obvious. They would call the statement "arrogant." Worst of all, it breaks the rule you made about "no propaganda." In context of your other intemperate comments, this sounds like provocation.
You don't even know me! Of course you are right that I am nobody (actually I'm less than that!), but may I say that UCLA outranks Chapel Hill and that its Department of History -- my field -- was ranked just after Yale and above Duke while I was there? Not that this should matter; but one cannot demand respect while flinging insults hither and yon. Being nobody I am probably wrong, but most of us unwashed peasants give respect without expecting anything in return.
You see with chaw in all our mouths, we like to watch what we say when we put on a white shirt. If we put on a shirt.
I have seen you abuse others here and at seminars many times without any visible cause. Do you really think that so many people have it in for you? We don't.
We respect you.
You are brilliant.
You are a world-class scholar and genius of the first order. Who can deny that?
I am amazed how quickly you can form your thoughts and compose excellent essays on the fly.
I am sure many other people are likewise amazed.
Your ability to teach classical languages to us lowly simpletons (please laugh here) boggles the mind.
But, sir, I do think you need to laugh more and discern when people truly and genuinely respect you -- which is most all the time!
People respect you and you deserve it.
I am going to order your latest book.
As for me, I am just another nobody. Does respect from a nobody count?
I would be a nicer, if I could, but I have to run now...
Woops. The above is me, not Passing Through. I am borrowing a computer and used the other person's name by mistake because it was already in the field and I have to run. Sorry about that. Y'all are welcome to a free laugh at my expense.
Robert Reavis - I loved your comment, particularly the poem. I think there is an importance in providing a genuine sense of other-worldliness to produce a proper worship of God. The poem was beautiful.
Now, my apologies for using the word "blasphemy." I was trying to show how certain partisan comments are perceived by others and why, but I could have used a weaker word.
About me: growing up, our favorite babysitters were Catholic; they were the most popular family in the neighborhood, the boys were altar boys, and I believe the family was also the most popular in their parish. I also learned to swim at the home of some other neighbors, also good friends, and members of the same parish. We could talk about anything and no offense was ever taken. At the same time, while walking to school, other Catholic kids, in uniform, would cross the street and walk on the other sidewalk. Our friends would apologize for their bad manners and say that that school, which they also attended, could be very strict in attitudes toward outsiders, and they would also tell us the traditional and harmless stories about mean old nuns and change the name of the school from "Our Lady of Peace" to Old Ladies' Prison. When I later moved 500 miles away, I had a standing offer to stay with them when I wished.
Dr. Fleming I am not sure why you thought I was addressing you, did you say this: "I think the Gospels are clear that Peter was the head of the Church on Earth?" You didn't. This is the type of comment I was calling your attention to which is inflamatory to non-Catholic readers and in fact you did address it after I commented on it. The person who said it is otherwise polite. On the other hand you now say this:
This is the type of statement that sends Bible-believing Protestant and traditional Orthodox readers to other magazines. One would think this were obvious. They would call the statement "arrogant." Worst of all, it breaks the rule you made about "no propaganda." In context of your other intemperate comments, this sounds like provocation.
You don't even know me! Of course you are right that I am nobody (actually I'm less than that!), but may I say that UCLA outranks Chapel Hill and that its Department of History -- my field -- was ranked just after Yale and above Duke while I was there? Not that this should matter; but one cannot demand respect while flinging insults hither and yon. Being nobody I am probably wrong, but most of us unwashed peasants give respect without expecting anything in return.
You see with chaw in all our mouths, we like to watch what we say when we put on a white shirt. If we put on a shirt.
I have seen you abuse others here and at seminars many times without any visible cause. Do you really think that so many people have it in for you? We don't.
We respect you.
You are brilliant.
You are a world-class scholar and genius of the first order. Who can deny that?
I am amazed how quickly you can form your thoughts and compose excellent essays on the fly.
I am sure many other people are likewise amazed.
Your ability to teach classical languages to us lowly simpletons (please laugh here) boggles the mind.
But, sir, I do think you need to laugh more and discern when people truly and genuinely respect you -- which is most all the time!
People respect you and you deserve it.
I am going to order your latest book.
As for me, I am just another nobody. Does respect from a nobody count?
I would be a nicer, if I could, but I have to run now...
All
I am enjoying and learning from your postings as well as the readings. I think we should abstain from defensiveness and aggression regarding our own position or tradition and try to stick to the text and our leader(s) promptings.
Dear PcH or Passing Through,
There is no time for all this when you are riding with Tom Fleming. It is like playing basketball for Bob Knight, being an outrider in the Bad Lands, learning golf under Ben Hogan, studying english under John Henry Newman, or Why the Reformation Happened under Luther, or learning the manual of arms with the Silent Marine Corps Drill team. It is privilege, honor, impossible, demanding, humiliating and worth it, --- all at the same time. Humanly speaking it is impossible, but then again, why the hell do we keep coming back ? And honestly, given the times, after being around Dr. Fleming for a while , where else would you rather be ? I mean for the long haul. Cheers rr
Let me amplify a little, to participants generally and especially to PcH, whom I believe to be an intelligent, honest, well-intentioned young man in search of historical truth and whose insights I have appreciated in the past. (By the way, my family and friends typically regard me as all too frivolous and silly in making jokes on inappropriate occasions.)
Suppose, for a moment, that I were a mainstream Christian NT scholar, and, in the course of my researches into the development of the Gospel narratives, I had convinced myself that the birth narrative, not found in John who of the Gospel writers was the one who knew him, was a later insertion made for two reasons, first, to fulfill the prophecies and second to obviate the stigma of the Messiah being a Galilean. I have concluded, therefore, that Jesus was born into a normal family in Nazareth, descended not from the House of David but perhaps even from non-Jews. His mother, far from being a perpetual virgin, had other children, though I might still believe that she was filled with the Holy Ghost. What to do? Remember, I am a Christian who accepts the Nicene Creed.
Going from the worst scenario to the best, I might publish articles, address crowds, form a militant sect--the Nazarites--and denounce traditional Christians as Bethlemites, soon corrupted to Bedlamites. My sect would be spread around the world and in a few places, say, Latin America and Southeast Asia, become so prominent that it could persecute the Bedlamites.
Or, as a scholar I might limit discussion to academic journals and fora, engage in an acrimonious debate but the authorities of my Church--let's imagine I am Catholic--formally denounce my position as heresy and I agree not to teach or publish the opinion. Nonetheless, the damage is done, and less obedient younger colleagues take up the cudgels and within a generation we have the war between Nazarites and Bedlamites.
There are a few more intermediate steps, such as quiet discussions with colleagues who persuade me not to publish my theory, but then, once again, I run the risk of one of them turning heresiarch. Or, I could simply keep my opinions to myself, maintaining respect for a tradition maintained by men and women far worthier than me, always bearing in mind the terrible penalties foretold against those who scandalize the weaker brethren. This little tale is not all speculation. Though I have never challenged the birth story, I have engaged in risky speculations in theology and history. The most I have done is to discuss them hypothetically with a very learned theologian, whose answers either persuaded my of my error or at the least of the dangers of a public discussion. Obviously in such important points of doctrine as the virginity of the Mother of God, the divinity of Christ, the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, and the resurrection of the body, a sane Christian would resist any temptation to innovate, but even in the case of pious legends and possible frauds that have been transmitted to us, we are better off to accept the story and learn the meaning that it conveys than to play Lorenzo Valla.
My apologies to PcH for wounding his feelings, but I have to write these posts so rapidly--I try to budget no more than an hour a day for my web columns--that I do not have the leisure to be as diplomatic as I might wish to be.
That's alright. You can mail me a four-year course in Attic for the autodidact c/o Clyde Wilson.
I don't find St. Ignatius' desire for martyrdom, in his letter to the Romans, over the top. Perhaps he was one of the few who reached another Ignatius' -- St. Ignatius of Loyola -- third degree of holiness.
Martyrdom leads us to a consideration of Ignatius' Christology, if that is not too technical a term for this early time.
If Martyrdom is the last stage in the imitation of Christ, this imitation is made possible by the fact that Christ, as Paul and Ignatius (Ephesians 15) declare, dwells with us. Christians are thus Christ-bearers and God-bearers--Ignatius calls himself Theophoros. But if Christ is in us, he also insists that we are in Christ. But who or what is Christ? One perennial heretical tendency is the temptation to eliminate or minimize Christ's humanity. Various gnostics were guilty of this, and though there may have been no actual docetist (from the verb dokein, to seem or appear) movement, it is an error that keeps cropping up. In one gnostic version, Christ never suffered at all: It was Judas on the Cross, while he is mocked by Christ in the form of a serpent--presumably the emissary of the great "god" of the universe sent to undermine the tyranny of the planetary archon revered by the Jews as told in the upside-down version of Genesis that makes the serpent the hero. Nestorians would make a far subtler argument, that Christ's human and divine natures were so distinct as to make Mary the mother only of Jesus but not of God.
Several Syrian gnostics appear to have taught that Christ was born and suffered only by appearance and not in reality. While some docetists were anti-Judaic, others were Judaizing. In all Judaizing heresies, whether ancient or reformational, the problem is always the same: the God who became man and bridged the gap between the Father and us lowly worms who crawl on the face of the earth. Chesterton has some good things to say about Eastern religions that tend to elevate the gods/God so are beyond the human sphere that we are reduced to insignificance. I know it is controversial, but I find a greater compatibility of the Incarnation with Pindar's Greek notion that "one is the race of gods and men" (a connection noted by St. Paul in his speech on the Areopagus) than with some aspects of Judaism. In discussing martyrdom, Ignatius makes it clear that he means the real in-the-flesh martyrdom that Jesus experienced, not some bogus mystical or symbolic version as would have been suggested by heretics.
Ignatius also explicitly condemns such a view, denouncing those atheists, as he calls them (Trallians X) "who say that his suffering was only an appearance.... " In this case, Ignatius will be martyred in vain.
Dr. Fleming,
Here is a slight answer to a big question. I hope others will brave the difficulty as well.
Traditional psychologies can be said to base their view of man - however expressed - on the principle that there are two selves in man - an inner Self or “sacred” core related to his very “being,” and an outer psycho-physical “personality” --his mind and body. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches “duo sunt in homine,” (There are two in man) and St. Paul speaking about the Law of his members being opposed to the law of his mind (Rom. 7:23).
We often hear Plato*s familiar admonition that we should “know ourselves.” This admonition was placed over the sun door of the temple of Apollo - the sun door being that pathway through which we pass beyond the limitations of this measurable world. The Greeks well knew the distinction between Helios, the material sun, and Apollo the “Sun of God.” Socrates tells us that the injunction to “Know thyself* is not “a piece of advice,” but “the God*s salutation to those who enter,” and that the words are spoken by the God to those who are entering his temple “otherwise then as men speak” (Charmides 1 64D). Elsewhere, Socrates states that “he who orders, ‘know thyself,* bids us know the soul,” but goes on to say that one who knows only what is of the psyche “knows the things that are his [possessions/”baggage”], but not himself.” (Alcibiades 1, 130, OE ff.). Plato then, and in fact, all the traditional religions, are much less interested in our getting to know our lesser “selves” than they are with our getting to know the Spirit that dwells within us and whose “temple” our bodies are, and with which our lesser selves must learn to “harmonize.”
To the question, Who is Christ, HE is God made man, come down from heaven who revealed to us, our true nature or purpose by suffering for love. An obvious miniature model is the family in which the father and mother make sacrifices for love of their children. In which "the seed dies to give new life." Or as in the case of St. Ignatius for love of his Lord and flock . In the larger, more veiled version is where man learns to suffer for the sake of all good things, all lovely things , pure things, etc. described by St. Paul., which eliminates the sting of death by this growing participation in this eternal life.