Mary the Queen of Heaven

[erowe1]

If you would like to share what you have learned about it in your studies, please share it. I have not studied the modern scholarship as closely as you have and am willing to learn more about it.

The Didache is made up of multiple sources, which are sometimes easy to see. The most obvious one is this two-ways source that comprises its opening chapters. By comparison with the use of the same source in the closing chapters of the Epistle of Barnabas, as well as a later Latin translation of the Two Ways by itself called Doctrina Apostolorum, we can see that all of the overtly Christian parts of the Didache's presentation of the two ways (as opposed to more generically Jewish/Christian ethics), are additions that were made to this earlier source that was used. This two ways source is probably the oldest part of the Didache. Treated as a separate document, it would be very reasonable to date the two ways source to the first century, and it could have originated before the middle of the century but that can't be proven.

But the date of the Didache means the date of the whole Didache. Some would dispute that the Didache is actually dependent on the Gospel of Matthew. But there are passages, including one where it explicitly says it's quoting "The Gospel," that I think make any other explanation of their parallels highly unlikely. Those who don't want to admit that the Didache quotes Matthew are trying to push an agenda where the canonical Gospels didn't finally take the forms we know them to have until the second century. So when they deal with quotes of them in other early sources they're on the defensive.

The reason some of the things the Didache says look "primitive" to some people is because they want to impose this linear model of the development of the Church on the early centuries, where all the churches around the world were unified, and they all adopted the same developments at the same time. So, they look at things the Didache says about the Eucharist and bishops and conclude that, since the Didache doesn't reflect any knowledge of Ignatius's rules, then the Didache must be much earlier. This doesn't follow. Instead, we have to recognize that what Ignatius says describes the situation of a small set of Christians out of all the millions of Christians spread around the world already by that time, and that what the Didache says describes the situation of some other set of Christians. In time Ignatius's views would become more predominant, but as of the time Ignatius wrote his epistles, that hadn't happened yet, as his own tendentiousness on the matter shows.

 

[TER]

Originally Posted by TER
You have even made a comment once about your belief that miracles ended after the time frame recorded in the NT.

No, I did not. I do not believe that, have never believed that, and have never said that I did.

I wish to apologize for this statement. I looked up where I thought I read this in the a thread a ways back about cessationism where you asked the question:

"Do those who voted that they have not ceased believe that there are still apostles?"

I should not have inferred from this statement that you do not believe in miracles occuring now and I am sorry for saying it.

 

[erowe1]

Eusebius, Athanasios and Rufinus, all Church Fathers in the fourth century refer to it
Some considered it canonical and others apocryphal.

Can you cite the passages where they refer to it?

And who considered it canonical?

 

[erowe1]

I wish to apologize for this statement. I looked up where I thought I read this in the a thread a ways back about cessationism where you asked the question:

"Do those who voted that they have not ceased believe that there are still apostles?"

I should not have inferred from this statement that you do not believe in miracles occuring now and I am sorry for saying it.

The question asked in that thread did not say "miracles." It said "spiritual gifts" and then in the OP that was specified to mean "sign gifts." If certain spiritual gifts (like the gift of apostleship) were only given to those who founded the Church in its first generation, that doesn't mean that miracles performed by God himself have ceased.

 

[TER]

The Didache is made up of multiple sources, which are sometimes easy to see. The most obvious one is this two-ways source that comprises its opening chapters. By comparison with the use of the same source in the closing chapters of the Epistle of Barnabas, as well as a later Latin translation of the Two Ways by itself called Doctrina Apostolorum, we can see that all of the overtly Christian parts of the Didache's presentation of the two ways (as opposed to more generically Jewish/Christian ethics), are additions that were made to this earlier source that was used. This two ways source is probably the oldest part of the Didache. Treated as a separate document, it would be very reasonable to date the two ways source to the first century, and it could have originated before the middle of the century but that can't be proven.

But the date of the Didache means the date of the whole Didache. Some would dispute that the Didache is actually dependent on the Gospel of Matthew. But there are passages, including one where it explicitly says it's quoting "The Gospel," that I think make any other explanation of their parallels highly unlikely. Those who don't want to admit that the Didache quotes Matthew are trying to push an agenda where the canonical Gospels didn't finally take the forms we know them to have until the second century. So when they deal with quotes of them in other early sources they're on the defensive.

The reason some of the things the Didache says look "primitive" to some people is because they want to impose this linear model of the development of the Church on the early centuries, where all the churches around the world were unified, and they all adopted the same developments at the same time. So, they look at things the Didache says about the Eucharist and bishops and conclude that, since the Didache doesn't reflect any knowledge of Ignatius's rules, then the Didache must be much earlier. This doesn't follow. Instead, we have to recognize that what Ignatius says describes the situation of a small set of Christians out of all the millions of Christians spread around the world already by that time, and that what the Didache says describes the situation of some other set of Christians. In time Ignatius's views would become more predominant, but as of the time Ignatius wrote his epistles, that hadn't happened yet, as his own tendentiousness on the matter shows.

I thank you for the reply. I would object that what St. Ignatius said was the situation of a small sect of Christians out of all the millions of Christiants spread around the world. How are you sure there were millions? And how are you sure that he was not reflecting what was the belief spread far and wide? As Bishop of Antioch, he was after all the leader of one of the biggest communities of Christians around.

As for the Didache, couldn't the relationship of the gospel of Matthew reflect that this came from within the same community of believers, during a very close period of time?

 

[TER]

The question asked in that thread did not say "miracles." It said "spiritual gifts" and then in the OP that was specified to mean "sign gifts." If certain spiritual gifts (like the gift of apostleship) were only given to those who founded the Church in its first generation, that doesn't mean that miracles performed by God himself have ceased.

Why is it that you believe that the gift of apostleship ended with the first twelve?

 

[TER]

Can you cite the passages where they refer to it?

And who considered it canonical?

Eusebius called it the Teachings of the Twelve, and listed it as being a source some have rejected and some have accepted as canonical (Historian Ecclesiastica).

 

[erowe1]

John Robinson dates it somewhere between 40-60 AD.
Aaron Milavec and Thomas O'Loughlin date it early.

Why do say that it must have been produced after the Gospels?

I should have thought of Robinson. That comes from his book, Redating the New Testament, which is an excellent book, but considered very idiosyncratic and revisionist in scholarly circles (also a somewhat dated work that seems not to have achieved a following among present day scholars). Also, when people cite him, they will make it look like he was more matter-of-fact than he really was. If you read the section on the Didache in it you'll see that everything he says is prefaced with all kinds of caveats about how unsure he is about any of it. What he's really doing in that book is trying to present how one might argue were one to insist on an earlier than usually accepted date for every book of the NT. He is one who says that the Didache does not actually use Matthew.

My views on this are probably more influenced by the Roman Catholic scholar, John Meier. They can be found in his 4 (soon to be 5) volume work on the historical Jesus, A Marginal Jew. He dates the Didache to around AD 140, and believes it to directly depend on not only Matthew, but also Luke (the latter of which I find possible but very questionable). Niederwimmer, whose commentary is probably more considered the standard than any other, dates it to around the same time. Kraft, whose commentary is also important, only says some time around the middle of the second century. All of these accept that the Didache is dependent on Matthew. I recall that Davies and Allison in their commentary on Matthew, argue for that as well. Vad de Sandt and Flusser vaguely date the Didache to right around the turn of the century, which I would take to mean in the range of 90-110. I believe Van de Sandt and Flusser probably reflect the majority view in accepting the possibility that it is either late first century or early second, but only within a range of dates that allows for the later as much as it does the earlier.

There is a vocal contingent of scholars who focus on the Didache (and I think the fact that it is their academic focus incentivizes them to overemphasize its importance), of whom Milavec is one, who date it more confidently to the late first century and no later. One of them even argues that Matthew is dependent on the Didache, rather than the other way around (Garrow). But these scholars, unlike Robinson, would all date Matthew later. And none of them would argue that the Didache in its final form could be as early as AD 40. Among those who would call themselves Didache specialists (and as you might expect, there aren't too many of those), this contingent might be the majority. But outside of their circle, they have not won over most other scholars of early Christian literature.

 

[erowe1]

Eusebius called it the Teachings of the Twelve, and listed it as being a source some have rejected and some have accepted as canonical (Historian Ecclesiastica).

All we know is that he refers to some book by that title. We have no way of knowing exactly what book he meant. It may have been the same Didache that we discovered over 1500 years later, in a manuscript that was written 600 years later. It may be the two ways source itself. It may be some related work, of which there are several, such as the Didascalia.

I don't think it's unlikely that he was talking about the Didache. But I have no way of knowing, and there's nothing I could conclude about the date or the degree of reverence that was given to the Didache from what he says.

 

[erowe1]

Why is it that you believe that the gift of apostleship ended with the first twelve?

The term "apostle" can be used various ways. In one sense, every missionary (and for that matter, every mailman) is an apostle. And the NT also uses it various ways. But one of those ways is as a technical title for a particular office of leadership over the entire Church, and a particular role of founding that Church. This office was reserved for those who were eye witnesses of the resurrected Jesus, with Paul, whose eye witness encounter was unique, being an exceptional example, rather than the rule. Since their day, no one has held that office, nor could anyone. The foundation they laid has already been laid. While some could be apostles in a different sense, that precise gift of apostleship in that technical sense ceased to be given. The charge for the Church from then on has been to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, not to change it or to provide a new foundation for it.

 

[TER]

I should have thought of Robinson. That comes from his book, Redating the New Testament, which is an excellent book, but considered very idiosyncratic and revisionist in scholarly circles (also a somewhat dated work that seems not to have achieved a following among present day scholars). Also, when people cite him, they will make it look like he was more matter-of-fact than he really was. If you read the section on the Didache in it you'll see that everything he says is prefaced with all kinds of caveats about how unsure he is about any of it. What he's really doing in that book is trying to present how one might argue were one to insist on an earlier than usually accepted date for every book of the NT. He is one who says that the Didache does not actually use Matthew.

My views on this are probably more influenced by the Roman Catholic scholar, John Meier. They can be found in his 4 (soon to be 5) volume work on the historical Jesus, A Marginal Jew. He dates the Didache to around AD 140, and believes it to directly depend on not only Matthew, but also Luke (the latter of which I find possible but very questionable). Niederwimmer, whose commentary is probably more considered the standard than any other, dates it to around the same time. Kraft, whose commentary is also important, only says some time around the middle of the second century. All of these accept that the Didache is dependent on Matthew. I recall that Davies and Allison in their commentary on Matthew, argue for that as well. Vad de Sandt and Flusser vaguely date the Didache to right around the turn of the century, which I would take to mean in the range of 90-110. I believe Van de Sandt and Flusser probably reflect the majority view in accepting the possibility that it is either late first century or early second, but only within a range of dates that allows for the later as much as it does the earlier.

There is a vocal contingent of scholars who focus on the Didache (and I think the fact that it is their academic focus incentivizes them to overemphasize its importance), of whom Milavec is one, who date it more confidently to the late first century. One of them even argues that Matthew is dependent on the Didache, rather than the other way around (Garrow). But these scholars, unlike Robinson, would all date Matthew later. And none of them would argue that the Didache in its final form could be as early as AD 40.

Thank you for this information. I have learned a lot.

 

[TER]

The term "apostle" can be used various ways. In one sense, every missionary (and for that matter, every mailman) is an apostle. And the NT also uses if various ways. But one of those ways is as a technical title for a particular office of leadership over the entire Church, and a particular role of founding that Church. This office was reserved for those who were eye witnesses of the resurrected Jesus, with Paul, whose eye witness encounter was unique, being an exceptional example, rather than the rule. Since their day, no one has held that office, nor could anyone. The foundation they laid has already been laid. While some could be apostles in a different sense, that precise gift of apostleship ceased to be given. The charge for the Church from then on has been to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, not to change it.

I agree that there is certainly a special place for the Twelve, but I would contend that St. Paul is not the exception but one example of how the authority of the apostolic ministry did not end with the Twelve. Even with regards to the 12, only 11 received direct ordination from Christ, Matthias received it by the Apostles after they deliberated on it in council and through the Holy Spirit. (Of course, it is God Who gives the grace for the ordination, the Apostles are the vehicles of this transference of grace). Likewise, those whom they ordained carried this authority by the consent and will of the Apostles in the laying of the hands where we learn the Holy Spirit was given to them. The Holy Spirit is what gives them the authority to be apostles and leaders in the image of the Apostles.

 

[erowe1]

I agree that there is certainly a special place for the Twelve, but I would contend that St. Paul is not the exception but one example of how the authority of the apostolic ministry did not end with the Twelve. Even with regards to the 12, only 11 received direct ordination from Christ, Matthias received it by the Apostles after they deliberated on it in council and through the Holy Spirit. (Of course, it is God Who gives the grace for the ordination, the Apostles are the vehicles of this transference of grace). Likewise, those whom they ordained carried this authority by the consent and will of the Apostles in the laying of the hands where we learn the Holy Spirit was given to them. The Holy Spirit is what gives them the authority to be apostles and leaders in the image of the Apostles.

But when they chose Matthias, they acknowledged the rule that an apostle could only come from the pool of eye witnesses of the risen Lord. They also acknowledged that the college of the apostles was limited in number to 12. They nominated two candidates, but only one could actually be an apostle. Having both was not an option. This also highlights why Paul's apostleship, as a 13th, was so exceptional.

Paul acknowledges himself as an exceptional case and not a new norm. The norm is what all the other apostles were.

Also, for me there's an important theological concept related to this, which is that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and not the New Testament, which came after Him, is God's final revelation. What God accomplished through the apostles was not to add something more to that, but to propagate that final revelation of God in the life, death, and resurrection of His Son, and to found the Church as the outworking of that revelation. Even their ministry was essentially a conservative, traditional one, passing on what they had received from Jesus. Innovating was not their commission. The developments and changes that occurred under their leadership, such as we read in Acts 15 and elsewhere, were born out of what God had already revealed through Jesus, sometimes as their recognition of natural consequences of that revelation which they had not previously understood, but that once they understood it, it was clear that it comported with the way of the Lord. The Church's understanding of theology will continue to develop in a way like this even today, as we reflect on what God revealed to us in His Son, and apply the truths revealed to new circumstances and questions previously not asked or adequately considered. But for us today to be able to do this, we are not in the position the apostles were in, having experienced firsthand the incarnation, life, teachings, miracles, deeds of compassion, death, and resurrection, of Jesus. For us, when we want to appeal to that standard of God's final revelation through His Son, we must go to the writings left by that first generation, and what they tell us that revelation was. We cannot trust a person who comes to us today and claims to be an untimely born apostle like Paul, with some new knowledge about what God revealed 2000 years ago in His Son, which was only now revealed to him.

 

[erowe1]

..

 

[JohnWeeks613]

Not even remotely true. But nice attempt at trolling.

heavenlyboy34, Aparently you only want to except as true a tradition derived at by people that identify themselves as Christian, but when a Christian is doing those practices of biforcation and amalgamation it is a holy enterprise and truth reaveald by "God". My comment was compiled information I came across and read a number of times, and from what I remember of most, if not all, the post sources were Christian attributed citations what most of all Christianity accepts, and are the rullings that came out of the Counsel of Nicea. One of the points that may have been elusive to my post is that from what I understand and what is custom is that when a group of Christions come together and decide on any matter the outcome is considered the will of "god". No "attempted troling" was intended and nothing derogotory was said. I simply presented facts about the ruling of Constitine at Nicea in response to the posting of the centuries old battles of which group is the origional or true Christian discused in several posts thus far. The Adolf Hitler quote was to emphasize what porpaganda, PSYOP, does-it creats a version of truth and to each group it is truth not necessarily reality. There is about six thousand denominations of Christianity and each may believe they are the "true" or "origional" Christian Church and invariably they do not all agree on what truth is. Not off topic in my opinion at all. You chose to attack the facts I presented and made an opinion the matter as you have with other posts in relation thereto, as I have not made an opinion on the matter that I recall. I am a man that is trying to seek truth, and from time to time I'll investigate and compare statements people make when they say, more or less, "the bible says so", and have been doing that for about a little over seven years. Yours truly, comrad in phenomonology ,John M. Weeks Jr.

 

[TER]

But when they chose Matthias, they acknowledged the rule that an apostle could only come from the pool of eye witnesses of the risen Lord. They also acknowledged that the college of the apostles was limited in number to 12. They nominated two candidates, but only one could actually be an apostle. Having both was not an option. This also highlights why Paul's apostleship, as a 13th, was so exceptional.

I agree with all your points except the last one. St. Paul was not part of the Twelve but he is loved and remembered as the Apostle to the Gentiles and an apostle of the Church. He was not one of the Twelve, but is an apostle nonetheless, one of many though in many ways, greatest of them all. He is not an exemption, he is an exemplary human being, a Saint, and living proof that the the apostolic authority did not end with the Twelve and that Christ is still active in this world and revealing Himself. That He can still pick and choose His beloved and obedient Apostles, which are those who run to the saints for answers to the questions and trust in the grace of the Holy Spirit within the life of the Church.

With regards to the choosing of Matthias, when the early Church confronted the issue about filling the vacancy left by Judas' betrayal, notice how the Church sorted it out, how they allowed the Holy Spirit to bring them to the truths. In a synod with discussion and prayer. And complete faith in the mystery and power of God.

By consensus they formed a solution and then allowed God to answer it, by casting lots!

This is the work of the Church in the world, to do the best in resolving things, to finding balance and peace, and to handle all issues and difficulties in a spirit of righteousness and with complete faith in God.

The dogmas come from Christ and Christ has handed these dogmas to the Twelve. They then by prayer, faith, and partaking of the Holy Eucharist, organized themselves and then dealing with whatever issues they where confronted with in order to ensure that the dogmas and teachings of Christ here handed down faithfully.

For this reason they literally hand-selected elders (the protobishops), presbyters, and deacons, and prayed that the Holy Spirit would come down upon them and guide them to all truths. For the ultimate goals for the leaders of that time and just as it has been since is to keep undefiled the worship of the Lord's Supper, to faithfully and in service pass down the dogmas of the faith, and to ensure orthodox and faithful leaders were there as replacements and who have been anointed by the Holy Spirit to guard the apostolic truths.

This is how these dogma of the Christian faith were protected and passed down through time. It requires a dynamic Church full of many members, some hands, some feet, some eyes and some ears, all different in service and authority, but members and sharers of the same Christ nonetheless.

While the dogmas are static, the administration of the duties of the anointed leaders and the ecclesiology of the Church are part of this dynamic work of the Church, part of its contending in the world as one body unified around Jesus Christ. Does it always work out? Of course, not. Look at Judas! But the a Church struggles nevertheless and by the grace of God holy men and women rise up like pillars to the faith and do the will of God.

As we see it being developed in the short time frame of the book of Acts, so did it grow to become called the One, Holy, Apostolic Church. The same worshipers in communion. Still the small minority of the world at the time of the Council of Nicea when the phrase was coined to describe this reality, but through the centuries and unspeakable persecutions, the greatest assembly of men and women the world has ever known.

The Church contended, and circumstances changed and developments occurred under the primal cause to hand down faithfully the dogmas of the faith. But while the Church and its members change, and the days and the seasons with it, the ministry has always been the same which is the transference of the truths of the faith through the Holy Spirit in obedience and faith and in unity of mind, faith, and spirit. Sealed by the gifts of the Holy Spirit in common liturgical worship of God and partaking of His heavenly Gifts. The very image and concelebration of the worship in Heaven, as hinted at in the Book of Revelation..

Paul acknowledges himself as an exceptional case and not a new norm. The norm is what all the other apostles were.

The norm for the Twelve is the Twelve. St. Paul is the norm for those apostles who were not of the Twelve. He is biblical proof that one does not have to be one of the Twelve in order to be an apostle and teach with authority through the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[TER]

Also, for me there's an important theological concept related to this, which is that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and not the New Testament, which came after Him, is God's final revelation. What God accomplished through the apostles was not to add something more to that, but to propagate that final revelation of God in the life, death, and resurrection of His Son, and to found the Church as the outworking of that revelation. Even their ministry was essentially a conservative, traditional one, passing on what they had received from Jesus. Innovating was not their commission. The developments and changes that occurred under their leadership, such as we read in Acts 15 and elsewhere, were born out of what God had already revealed through Jesus, sometimes as their recognition of natural consequences of that revelation which they had not previously understood, but that once they understood it, it was clear that it comported with the way of the Lord. The Church's understanding of theology will continue to develop in a way like this even today, as we reflect on what God revealed to us in His Son, and apply the truths revealed to new circumstances and questions previously not asked or adequately considered. But for us today to be able to do this, we are not in the position the apostles were in, having experienced firsthand the incarnation, life, teachings, miracles, deeds of compassion, death, and resurrection, of Jesus. For us, when we want to appeal to that standard of God's final revelation through His Son, we must go to the writings left by that first generation, and what they tell us that revelation was. We cannot trust a person who comes to us today and claims to be an untimely born apostle like Paul, with some new knowledge about what God revealed 2000 years ago in His Son, which was only now revealed to him.

There is much I would like to discuss with you with the rest of your post above. But I am dead tired and must go to bed! Talk to you soon.

 

[erowe1]

The norm for the Twelve is the Twelve. St. Paul is the norm for those apostles who were not of the Twelve. He is biblical proof that one does not have to be one of the Twelve in order to be an apostle and teach with authority through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, and I said the same.

But he is not biblical proof that someone today can still be an apostle of the sort that both he and the 12 were.

1 Corinthians 15:8

8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

Ephesians 2:19-22

19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Notice also that, especially in the pastoral epistles, the apostles have a lot to say about the passing of the baton from their generation to the next, and they do not include future apostles in that.

What future generations of believers must do is:

be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior

2 Peter 3:2

and,

contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints

Jude 3

The apostles do, however, warn of ministers of Satan falsely adopting the title of apostle (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

Finally, one of the ministries (not the only one) that some of the apostles (not all of them) had was to write divinely inspired Scripture. Has anybody done that since their day? If not, then at least one miraculous ministry has ceased.

 

[TER]

Also, for me there's an important theological concept related to this, which is that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and not the New Testament, which came after Him, is God's final revelation. Also, for me there's an important theological concept related to this, which is that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and not the New Testament, which came after Him, is God's final revelation. What God accomplished through the apostles was not to add something more to that, but to propagate that final revelation of God in the life, death, and resurrection of His Son, and to found the Church as the outworking of that revelation. Even their ministry was essentially a conservative, traditional one, passing on what they had received from Jesus. Innovating was not their commission. The developments and changes that occurred under their leadership, such as we read in Acts 15 and elsewhere, were born out of what God had already revealed through Jesus, sometimes as their recognition of natural consequences of that revelation which they had not previously understood, but that once they understood it, it was clear that it comported with the way of the Lord. The Church's understanding of theology will continue to develop in a way like this even today, as we reflect on what God revealed to us in His Son, and apply the truths revealed to new circumstances and questions previously not asked or adequately considered. But for us today to be able to do this, we are not in the position the apostles were in, having experienced firsthand the incarnation, life, teachings, miracles, deeds of compassion, death, and resurrection, of Jesus. For us, when we want to appeal to that standard of God's final revelation through His Son, we must go to the writings left by that first generation, and what they tell us that revelation was. We cannot trust a person who comes to us today and claims to be an untimely born apostle like Paul, with some new knowledge about what God revealed 2000 years ago in His Son, which was only now revealed to him.

I highlighted your first sentence because in it you make an error my friend. And this error is what renders the rest of what you have said in the post into error, and you not grasping that which you have yet failed to understand about the faith in Christ.

There is still much we have not seen and not learned yet about God. God continues to reveal Himself, not only to the world but to every human soul. Christ is the Lord and Savior in truth, and the greatest revelation of God in the history of mankind. The story, however, has not yet ended. Christ has been preparing His Kingdom and assigning His saints. Indeed, the story of the Church just begins even though the Book of Acts abruptly ends. (It's abruptness, by the way, should be a big hint).

The truth is that even as the Holy Canon of Scripture are sufficient in defining the dogmas of the faith, they were never considered to be the only or last works of God in creation or only source of authority in teachings and instructions. For it was advantageous that Christ would go as He said so that we might receive the Holy Spirit. For it is in the Holy Spirit as members of His Church which we will know and enter the Kingdom of God. The Church relies not on the mere works of men, but Him Who give the gifts of His grace and deifies a man by the Holy Spirit. God being in the man, abiding in him, to the fullness and stature of Jesus Christ Who has made this possible in ways which men could barely begin to count.

And similar to Jesus Christ, the works of the Holy Spirit is not limited or definable in any book written by men, for God is not a collection of books but the Uncreated God beyond the mind of men and the eternal and uncreated Source of all being.

However some seem to do this. To idolize the Scriptures and hold it above God by putting limits upon Him and His great wisdom. The Apostles sure as heck could not be accused of such a thing. For none of the writers or people in the New Testaments say "you must only read these four Gospels, and these selected letters." Nor does it say 'at the end of the Scriptures, the ministry of apostolicity has ceased and there is nothing more to reveal'. Nowhere does the Holy Bible prophecize or even imply some kind of book written by the hands of men which would contain the sum total of God's revelations and workings in the world through His Holy Spirit. There is only one Book of Life, and no one knows it but God and to those to whom He wishes to reveal it to.

As an aside, I would like to say that as a historical investigator, one can have much knowledge of things. But to limit oneself to one collection of witnesses of God's revelations and place limits on the Holy Spirit and ignore the vast remaining wondrous and grace filled workings of the Holy Spirit within the life of the Church (which is the guardian and foundation for the truths because of the same Holy Spirit quickening it and guiding it), is to miss out on much of the beauty, wonder, and joy of what it means to live a life in Christ, in real holy communion with Him and His saints within the Church.

The wonders within the canonical Bible are the (incomplete) records of the wonders of the Holy Spirit in the history and life of the Church, a collection of writings until only the middle to end of the first century. It begins the story of which the Church bears witness to and gives meaning to, and continues to through blood and flesh and in the Holy Spirit.

By the grace of God in the Holy Spirit, this Church survives.

I would implore you erowe to read St. Basil's "On the Holy Spirit" in order to understand God's active and continuing works and revelations of Himself within the world and the people in the word. Christ has not gone to sleep, and the Holy Spirit did not have a timer.

St. Ignatius spoke the Apostolic faith not merely because he was the apostle in which they sent out, but because he had Christ abiding in Him, and he became a temple of the Holy Spirit. His authority did not just fulfill the ministry of man, in the actual touching and laying of hands, but fulfilled as apostolic by the very life-giving Spirit of God and in the mysteries of grace.

And the Spirit was graced upon him according to the love he had for God and for those he was anointed to care for. He was given much by God because he loved much, and that is the greatest legacy of St. Ignatius and not his ecclesiological exhortations. His letters demonstrate so much love, that one can see the image of Christ imprinted within them. This holy man was indeed holy and full of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and his faithful flock loved him and collected his martyred bones and buried them, and remember him to this day in the eternal Kingdom of God.

Jesus said:

If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.​

St. Ignatius' apostolic authority is not only through apostolic succession in a human, material, created, and historical way, but in the mystical way, the spiritual way, in holy communion through Christ, partaking of His divine nature, and abiding in Him in the Holy Spirit.

When we doubt St. Ignatius, let us be careful we do not doubt the Holy Spirit working in him.

Christ is the greatest revelation, but not the final one. For there is much we have yet seen, and the story of mankind has not ended by a long shot. When we limit ourselves to a collection of books as the final and end of God's truths and revelations, we have done what no Apostle or Evangelist of Church Father ever said nor implied. Yes, the Scriptures are sufficient in establishing dogma about who Christ is, but not as the complete revelation of all God's truths and to be held above the authority of the living Church, the Bride of Christ, the one to whom Christ has prepared the Kingdom of Heaven for. This is the simple truth which keeps getting ignored or cannot seem to be understood. We cannot create a dogmatic assertion that the Scriptures shall be the ultimate and final authority and source of all truth, when it is not even dogmatically stated in it's very pages. To do so would be absurd and illogical. It should and would have been on every other page if that was the true apostolic understanding. But it wasn't then, just as it has never been, for in that same book it clearly explains where the pillar and foundation for truths are, and that is not in a 4th century collection of early Church writings, as holy as they are. Instead, it is the living, breathing, and contending Church, made of its members who are His faithful and obedient workers. The holy inspired letters and sermons and other patristic writings provides the voice of the Holy Spirit in the world, as revealed through the very lives, words, and actions and these saints. Until you can understand that the Church, which are the saints, is the pillar and foundation of the faith and not the Holy Bible which is one part of the Holy Tradition of the Church, then you will greater understand the power and authority of those who are called saints, and their place and purpose within it in God's continuing revelation to mankind.

 

[erowe1]

St. Ignatius' apostolic authority is not only through apostolic succession in a human, material, created, and historical way, but in the mystical way, the spiritual way, in holy communion through Christ, partaking of His divine nature, and abiding in Him in the Holy Spirit.

When we doubt St. Ignatius, let us be careful we do not doubt the Holy Spirit working in him.

But St. Ignatius was not an apostle.