Mary the Queen of Heaven

[TER]

All those verses only add more proof to my claim. Ignatius did not consider himself an apostle. Even when he uses analogies, he compares bishops (like himself) to God, and the presbytery to the apostles.

Yes, he was a leader in the church and expected those under his authority to respect it. Yes, he believed that he was carrying on the ministry of the apostles, just like he believed presbyters and other Christians were. But he was not an apostle and did not consider himself one.

I never claimed that Ignatius didn't believe he was carrying on the ministry of the apostles. I claimed that he didn't believe he was an apostle. And clearly he didn't. He unambiguously said that he was not one.

Erowe, he was not one of the Twelve. I agree with you, and have said that many times. The Twelve have a great honor and special place within the Kingdom of God, and St. Ignatius does not compare say to St. Peter in glory and honor. However, neither was St. Paul one of the Twelve (though in many ways surpassed many of the Twelve). But like St. Paul, St. Ignatius continued their ministry as leaders of the Church, defenders of the faith, and protectors and shephards to the flock. He was an Apostle in his ministry as St. Paul was. St. Ignatius didn't have to say "I have received apostolic succession therefore I am your leader", he was too humble for that. Instead, in meekness and in love, his words and actions revealed what he was, which was a loyal shepherd in the Church and faithful servant of God. For in the end, the Bishop is leader, but he is first of all a servant to God and those whom he has been appointed to shepherd.

 

[pcosmar]

And yet none of the authors of any of the books of the Old Testament quoted from or mentioned this ancient work from a prophet they revered who wrote prophecies about their times?

Did any of the Prophets quote other Prophets? (Not aware of any off hand)
But New Testament writers did quote the Prophets. Jude being one of them.

And of course Jesus quoted some as well.

Oh,, and Enoch was not about "their times".. but written for those in the Last days.

The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect ⌈⌈and⌉⌉ righteous, who will be living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked ⌈⌈and godless⌉⌉ are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said--Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, ⌈which⌉ the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come.

 

[erowe1]

I am choosing what others (namely the voice of the consensus of the Church)

No you aren't. The there is no voice of consensus in the Church that says that Ignatius was an apostle, or that he was appointed as bishop of Antioch by Peter, or that he succeeded some other bishop of Antioch named Euodius or anything else in the 60's AD. There are a few individual human beings here and there, the earliest of whom come from centuries after the time of Ignatius, who say those things, and many other Christians equally claiming a part in the Church who do not (and this is not only in the days since the 16 century, but in all centuries of Church history).

However, we can prove that those who say that Euodius was bishop of Antioch while Peter was still alive are wrong, since we know that monarchical bishops didn't exist yet. Whatever the basis these people have for either believing that mistake or making up that lie, it's not divine inspiration, and they do not speak for the Church. We have writings from the apostles themselves from the 60's AD that say this.

 

[erowe1]

Did any of the Prophets quote other Prophets?

Yes they did. Word-for-word quotes are rare. But clear allusions to earlier prophets writings are very common.

 

[erowe1]

Erowe, he was not one of the Twelve. I agree with you, and have said that many times. The Twelve have a great honor and special place within the Kingdom of God, and St. Ignatius does not compare say to St. Peter in glory and honor. However, neither was St. Paul one of the Twelve (though in many ways surpassed many of the Twelve). But like St. Paul, St. Ignatius continued their ministry as leaders of the Church, defenders of the faith, and protectors and shephards to the flock. He was an Apostle in his ministry as St. Paul was. St. Ignatius didn't have to say "I have received apostolic succession therefore I am your leader", he was too humble for that. Instead, in meekness and in love, his words and actions revealed what he was, which was a loyal shepherd in the Church and faithful servant of God. For in the end, the Bishop is leader, but he is first of all a servant to God and those whom he has been appointed to shepherd.

You are being slippery.

Yes or no, was Ignatius an apostle in the technical sense that Paul and the twelve were (i.e. the kind of apostle that I claimed no longer existed after the early Church)?

If the answer is no, then I don't see what you were disagreeing with me about. And if Ignatius wasn't an apostle, then in the centuries since the first generation of Christianity, have there been any other apostles? If so, whom? I don't see why we wasted all this time talking about Ignatius if you don't even consider him an example of an apostle.

 

[TER]

In the days of the apostles, bishops were not considered apostles (at least not apostles in the technical sense that Paul and the 12 were. And in the churches with which Ignatius was familiar 60 years later, bishops were still not considered apostles (in that technical sense).

St. Patrick is called by the Church as the Apostle to Ireland.
St. Mary Magdalene is called in the Church as 'The Apostle to the Apostles' for she went and told them that Christ had resurrected.
There are many Saints in the Church who are called Apostles. This does not mean that they were part of the original Twelve, but that they served in an apostolic ministry to spread the good news. In fact, we are all called to be apostles to Christ! Since the days of the early centuries, when the original twelve had died and passed on the leadership of the Church to the Bishops, these Bishops have become the image of them by their ministry to continue the good work of spreading the good news and defending the faith. Only few ever become Bishops, but we are all called to be apostles.

 

[TER]

No you aren't. The there is no voice of consensus in the Church that says that Ignatius was an apostle, or that he was appointed as bishop of Antioch by Peter, or that he succeeded some other bishop of Antioch named Euodius or anything else in the 60's AD. There are a few individual human beings here and there, the earliest of whom come from centuries after the time of Ignatius, who say those things, and many other Christians equally claiming a part in the Church who do not (and this is not only in the days since the 16 century, but in all centuries of Church history).

However, we can prove that those who say that Euodius was bishop of Antioch while Peter was still alive are wrong, since we know that monarchical bishops didn't exist yet. Whatever the basis these people have for either believing that mistake or making up that lie, it's not divine inspiration, and they do not speak for the Church. We have writings from the apostles themselves from the 60's AD that say this.

According to the Eastern Orthodox Church which traces itself sacramentally and historically back to the Twelve, there is indeed a consensus that St. Ignatius was a great Saint, had been all those things I mentioned, and had assumed the ministry of the Apostles as the Bishop of Antioch. That is the consensus I want to share in unity in mind and faith in.

 

[erowe1]

St. Patrick is called by the Church as the Apostle of Ireland.
St. Mary Magdalene is called in the Church as 'The Apostle to the Apostles' for she went and told them about that Christ had resurrected.
There are many Saints in the Church who are called Apostles. This does not mean that they were part of the original Twelve, but that they served in an apostolic ministry to spread the good news. In fact, we are all called to be apostles to Christ! Since the days of the early centuries, when the original twelve had died and passed on the leadership of the Church to the Bishops, these Bishops have become the image of them by their ministry to continue the good work of spreading the good news and defending the faith. Only few ever become Bishop, but we are all called to be apostles.

Are those usages of the word "apostle" intended in the technical sense, which the New Testament applies to Paul and the 12? Or is it meant in a less technical sense, meaning a sent one?

Calling bishops the image of the apostles ministry (which is conspicuously different than what Ignatius says, who instead makes that comparison only with presbyters, not bishops), is not the same thing as them being apostles in that technical sense.

 

[erowe1]

According to the Eastern Orthodox Church which traces itself sacramentally and historically back to the Twelve, there is indeed a consensus that St. Ignatius was a great Saint, had been all those things I mentioned, and had assumed the ministry of the Apostles as the Bishop of Antioch. That is the consensus I want to share in unity in mind and faith in.

All believers in Jesus everywhere trace themselves sacramentally and historically back to the 12.

At what point in the history of the EOC did those believes become the consensus of the EOC? The 8th century? Later? They certainly weren't the consensus view of the Church Fathers that you believe to have belonged to the EOC.

 

[TER]

All believers in Jesus everywhere trace themselves sacramentally and historically back to the 12.

And before you get to the 12, you must go through the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is true historically and sacramentally.

At what point in the history of the EOC did those believes become the consensus of the EOC? The 8th century? Later? They certainly weren't the consensus view of the Church Fathers that you believe to have belonged to the EOC.

The very act of sacramental communion denotes a striving and struggle for unity of faith. A person who rejects the very Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist may think they are in sacramental communion with the early Church, but they are not. Likewise with the dogmas of the faith. One rejecting the essential dogmas which have been professed by the Church (and in number, there are actually few and delineated in the Ecumenical Councils) expel themselves from the unity of faith and mind, having put their own mind above the mind of the Church which is born from the consensus of the Fathers in and through time.

 

[TER]

Are those usages of the word "apostle" intended in the technical sense, which the New Testament applies to Paul and the 12? Or is it meant in a less technical sense, meaning a sent one?

My point is that the term can have different uses, as you have stated.

Calling bishops the image of the apostles ministry (which is conspicuously different than what Ignatius says, who instead makes that comparison only with presbyters, not bishops), is not the same thing as them being apostles in that technical sense.

St. Ignatius calls the bishops the image of God, Christ Himself, and the presbyters the image of the Apostles. In this he is explaining the hierarchy of the Church in its ecclesiastical formation, for just as Christ is the head of the Apostles, likewise the Bishop is the head of the presbyters.

But the ministry he provided and all bishops provide are in the image of the Apostles who have been graced by the Holy Spirit via apostolic succession to lead the Church and feed the flock. That is why in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the presbyters who perform the duties of serving the Divine Liturgy and the Holy Eucharist do it under the auspices and authority of the Bishops who are their heads (indeed, in their place), just as it has been done since the early Church. Whereas it was the Apostles who performed these duties when they were present, when they weren't, it was done under those with whom they had appointed as 'elders/bishops' and presbyters.

 

[robert68]

It’s fitting that a religion produced and allied with the tyrannical and often warring eastern Roman Empire regards Mary, a mother, as a Queen.

 

[erowe1]

And before you get to the 12, you must go through the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is true historically and sacramentally.

Unless you just define the EOC as everyone who believes in Jesus, regardless of where they go to church or whether any particular bishops are over them, then we can conclusively and indisputably prove that that's not true. And I would wager that any good Eastern Orthodox scholars of Church history will back me up on that.

 

[erowe1]

But the ministry he provided and all bishops provide are in the image of the Apostles who have been graced by the Holy Spirit via apostolic succession to lead the Church and feed the flock.

But Ignatius does not say that, or anything remotely close to it.

And, more to the point, when it comes to the simple question, "Was Ignatius an apostle?" he says unambiguously that he was not one.

 

[erowe1]

My point is that the term can have different uses, as you have stated.

If that is your point, then we can return to the issue that brought that point up, which was my claim that there is at least one spiritual gift that was only given in the early church and has not been given to any believers since that time, namely apostleship, when "apostle" is defined in that limited technical sense that applied to Paul and the 12, as eyewitnesses of the risen Christ who provided the foundation for the Church.

If the only kind of apostles that you think have existed since that time are people who can be called "apostle" in some other sense of the word, but not in that limited technical sense of the word, then you agree with me about the cessation of at least that one spiritual gift.

On the other hand, if you disagree with me about the cessation of that one spiritual gift, then bringing up these alleged counterexamples that only end up being people who could be called "apostle" in some other sense but not in the sense I was talking about, then all you're doing is obfuscating the issue, rather than supporting your position.

 

[TER]

I will answer your questions tomorrow as I have to get to bed. In the meantime, you should read the seven epistles of St. Ignatius tonight (they are not long and can be finished in less than a half an hour) so that we can have a better understanding and discussion tomorrow of the new topic of this thread which is the unity of the faith under obedience to the Bishop in sacramental communion around the Holy Eucharist, which has been the apostolic teachings of the Apostolic fathers of the Chuch and has continued to this day by the grace of God.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It’s fitting that a religion produced and allied with the tyrannical and often warring eastern Roman Empire regards Mary, a mother, as a Queen.

How so? None of the Patriarchates were "produced" by Rome. Only the Roman Church was "allied" (I don't consider this to be a totally accurate term) with Rome, and even then not until Constantine.

 

[TER]

Unless you just define the EOC as everyone who believes in Jesus, regardless of where they go to church or whether any particular bishops are over them, then we can conclusively and indisputably prove that that's not true. And I would wager that any good Eastern Orthodox scholars of Church history will back me up on that.

I don't think you will find one.

But Ignatius does not say that, or anything remotely close to it.

And, more to the point, when it comes to the simple question, "Was Ignatius an apostle?" he says unambiguously that he was not one.

St. Ignatius humbly acknowledges he is not one of the Twelve. As for continuing their apostolic ministry to lead the Church in love and service, he affirmed it by his title and ministry as the first century Bishop of Antioch and by being a beloved Saint of God in Christ.

If that is your point, then we can return to the issue that brought that point up, which was my claim that there is at least one spiritual gift that was only given in the early church and has not been given to any believers since that time, namely apostleship, when "apostle" is defined in that limited technical sense that applied to Paul and the 12, as eyewitnesses of the risen Christ who provided the foundation for the Church.

If the only kind of apostles that you think have existed since that time are people who can be called "apostle" in some other sense of the word, but not in that limited technical sense of the word, then you agree with me about the cessation of at least that one spiritual gift.

On the other hand, if you disagree with me about the cessation of that one spiritual gift, then bringing up these alleged counterexamples that only end up being people who could be called "apostle" in some other sense but not in the sense I was talking about, then all you're doing is obfuscating the issue, rather than supporting your position.

There was no cessation of the Twelve, and neither their special place in the story of our salvation. For even now they pray for the Church. Neither are their gifts gone, for the same Holy Spirit which gifted them also gifts St. Ignatius and all the saints. Their special and unique role as Twelve Apostles puts them in a special place, I do not disagree. There will never be another Twelve. But the Holy Spirit did not abandon the Church when they died. Indeed, their apostolic ministry was to literally hand down the Holy Spirit unto the trusted leaders and clergy of the Church so that these teachers and leaders would continue what they first started which was to spread the gospel and to feed the flock. The special place and spiritual gifts of the Apostles never has ended, instead, the Church has developed in order to keep pure and undefiled the fundamental teachings of the saints and to share in the right worship of God around the Holy Eucharist. How they did this, we see in a small part in Acts. But the story did not end in Acts. That was just the beginning of the life and development of the Church which was contending in the world. Much happened while the Apostles were alive and not recorded in the NT. The limited history recorded explain some of their acts while displaying the birth of the Church. The maturation was only beginning and the work of the Holy Spirit in the world just starting.

The very reason why the truths of Christ have endured is because of the Holy Spirit and the humility and obedience of men. The establishment and survival of the Church has been on account of lives borne in such obedience and humility, and St. Ignatius was one such man.

In order to make the certain modern Western Christian perspectives true, we must ignore any developed Church in the end of the first century, ignore all the writings of the Church Fathers, call all the early Saints liars (including Apostolic Fathers), make Apostles fools for creating the conditions and choosing the men who would fall within a generation, and worst of all consider the Holy Spirit impotent in protecting and guiding the Church. I cannot accept this and neither should any logical man of true faith.

The alternative which is the way of Christ is to humble ourselves before God and man, to see ourselves fallible and in need of instruction and guidance, and to stop fighting against the Holy Spirit and the Church thinking we are some greater authority regarding the will of God in the life of the Church over a beloved Bishop and Saint of the first century. Are we so sure of ourselves that we put ourselves above him, thinking us more knowledgable, experienced, spiritually illuminated and full of love and the Holy Spirit? But humility is a hard virtue because pride is such a strong and powerful vice. Our faith is not made true by our minds, but given to us through humility.

The question in the end is whom do we consider to be more authoritative, our mind's opinion and interpretations based on sparse and limited information, or the witness of the Church which has always been the pillar and foundation of the truth. We should not conform the Church into an image of what we think, stopping at a certain time in history as if God disappeared, but rather conform our own beliefs and add to our own witness that which the Church is, the living Body of Christ, which seeks communion as one body, meaning

• one mind (similar conclusions and interpretations),
• one faith (similar fundamental beliefs and doctrines),
• one spirit (the spirit of love and self giving, that is the Holy Spirit),
• partaking of the One Bread (the Body and Blood of Christ, that is the Holy Eucharist)
• as one flesh (as the Bride of the Bridegroom and through the Body and Blood of Christ)
• in mystical communion and worship of God and His Body the Church

Such oneness of Church and unity exists now and has existed since the Day of Pentecost, and St. Ignatius is such a member of this unity, as well as the Apostles who loved him, taught him, and shared in sacramental communion. Instead of trying to look for some hidden branches which do not exist or which withered away into heresies long ago such as the Docetists whom St. Ignatius fought against in the first century, look and see that the Church of Christ did not end at the last page of Acts but has overcome by the grace of God and has continued to bring light to the world through our Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[Terry1]

Last time I checked--the title of Apostle was not limited to just the twelve and can apply to those sent by our Lord to teach and minister the word of God. And since the Apostle Paul called all saints to the ministry--it's not out of line to understand that there are many other Apostles of the Lord who do His will. How do we know? Because the ancient church history confirms it and reconciles with their teaching.

2 Corinthians 6:4

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,

Acts 1:

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.




Aren't there something like seventy other confirmed Apostles in the Gospel?




Strong's Concordance

apostolos: a messenger, one sent on a mission, an apostle
Original Word: ἀπόστολος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: apostolos
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os'-tol-os)
Short Definition: an apostle, a messenger, an envoy, a delegate
Definition: a messenger, envoy, delegate, one commissioned by another to represent him in some way, especially a man sent out by Jesus Christ Himself to preach the Gospel; an apostle.
HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 652 apóstolos (from 649 /apostéllō, "to commission, send forth") – properly, someone sent (commissioned), focusing back on the authority (commissioning) of the sender (note the prefix, apo); apostle.

 

[robert68]

How so? None of the Patriarchates were "produced" by Rome. Only the Roman Church was "allied" (I don't consider this to be a totally accurate term) with Rome, and even then not until Constantine.

"Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople"