Replies

This is going to sound like nitpicking, but the facts are important. The last two paragraphs of the Nicene Creed (including "One holy, catholic and apostolic church) weren't added until the Council of Constantinople in 381. The concept of a single, unified apostolic church didn't really exist in the early part of the fourth century (during the Council of Nicea), as each of the churches founded by an Apostle was known as an "Apostolic Church". Being an "Apostolic Church" provided that church a measure of additional importance. It is important to note that almost all of the Apostolic churches were in the West. But, by the time of the Council of Constantinople (which was in the East), some of the original Apostolic churches had begun to reject the orthodox faith. The importance attached to being an Apostolic Church was in decline, (although the Church in Rome still tried to claim the title of being "First" among Apostolic churches). But with no Bishops from the West attending the Council of Constantinople, and no churches in the East holding the title of Apostolic church, the Eastern Bishops no doubt recognized a good opportunity to give the term "Apostolic" a more universal meaning. Thus, from many separate Apostolic churches came one, universal, apostolic church.

Finally, the statement you reference from St. Ignatius is not accurate as you describe it. His quote is, "Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." In other words, the church is where Christ is, which is a little different than saying Christ is where the Bishop is.

With all due respect, the Nicene Creed was amplified at the Council of Constantinople (381) into its present form, or at least that is what the Fathers at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 say. I can't imagine where you got the idea that there were fewer bishops in the East in 381 than in the barbarian West. Four of the five Patriarchates were there and since the East was fully civilized then, and the West wasn't it seems likely there were far more bishops in the East than in the West, but a few minutes of research can probably tell us the answer to that one. If you know of any Churches in the East which by 381 did not claim to be headed by a bishop in the Apostolic succession, please let me know. There were bishops who, with hindsight appear to have been teaching various Heresies, monophysitism springs to mind and of course, arianism and appolonarianism, but they all claimed apostolic succession. Perhaps you are confusing the declaration of the bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) as second in honor to the Patriarch of Rome. That Patriarchate was not one of the original four and Rome for some time didn't like that declaration.

As for +Ignatius, what he wrote in his letter to the Church at Smyrna (interestingly, it is addressed to "to all the congregations of the Holy Catholic Church in every place") in relevant part was:

VIII. Avoid divisions,as the beginning of evil. Follow, all of you, the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father; and follow the presbytery as the Apostles. Moreover reverence the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no man do aught pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that eucharist be considered valid which is under the bishop or him to whom he commits it. Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast. But whatsoever he approves, that also is well-pleasing to God, that everything which you do may be secure and valid.

IX. It is reasonable that henceforth we should awake and live soberly, while we have opportunity to repent and turn to God. It is good to acknowledge God and the bishop. He that honours the bishop is honoured of God. He that does anything without the knowledge of the bishop serves the Devil. Let all things then abound unto you in grace, for you are worthy. In every way you have refreshed me, and Jesus Christ shall refresh you. Alike in my absence and presence you have cherished me. May God reward you, and as you endure for His sake, so shall you attain unto Him.

Here St. Ignatius is making a comparison of the local Church around a bishop (who is absolutely necessary for a Church to be worthy of its name, see his letter to the Trallians 3) to the universal or "catholic" (the word he uses is katholicos) Church. Orthodox theologians have always asserted that the fullness of the Church is found in a single diocese, the bishop surrounded by his people. Fr. John Romanides, who has some great partisans on FR, wrote:

"Since for Ignatius the Eucharist is the formative and manifest center of corporate love unto immortality, and at the same time the weapon which insures the continues defeat of the devil, it is quite clear that the corporate liturgy is the very pivotal point of faith in action, the participation of which is the only sure sign of continuous communion with God and neighbor unto salvation. This unity of selfless love in Christ with each other and the saints is an end in itself - not a means to another end. The existence of any other utilitarian and eudaimonistic motive other than unconditional selfless love for God and neighbor in Christ simply means slavery to the powers of Satan. "... love nothing except God." (Ign. Eph. 9, 11; Mag. 1.)

"In the Eucharistic life of selfless love is thus understood as an end in itself and the only condition for continual membership in the Church, it follows that the relationship of one community to another cannot be one of inferiority or superiority. Nor can one community be considered a part to another community because the fullness of Christ is to be found in the Eucharist which itself is the highest and only possible center and consummation of the life of unity and love. " ...whether Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Ign. Smyr. 8.) [ 13 ] Besides, the devil is not destroyed by an abstract idea of unity and love. He can be defeated only locally by the unity of faith and love of real people living together their life in Christ. An abstract federation of communities whereby each body is a member of a more general body reduces the Eucharist to a secondary position and makes possible the heretical idea that there is a membership in the body of Christ higher and more profound than the corporate life of local love for real people and thus the whole meaning of the incarnation of God and the destruction of the Satan in a certain place and at a certain time in history is destroyed. Each individual becomes a member of the body of Christ spiritually and physically at a special time and in a certain place in the presence of those to whom he is about to be joined. [ 14 ] Those who share in one bread are one body. (I Cor. 10:17.) This sharing in one bread cannot happen in general, but only locally. There, are, however, many liturgical centers each breaking one bread, but together totaling many breads. Nevertheless there are not many bodies of Christ, but one. Therefore each community having the fullness of Eucharistic life is related to other communities not by a common participation in something greater than the local life in the Eucharist, but by an identity of existence in Christ. "...wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church." (Ign. Smyr. 8.) [ 15 ]"

Romanides also writes: "According to the thought of Ignatius there exists an inseparable relationship between the bishop and the Eucharist. Unity with the bishop and unity with each other in the one bread within the altar is precisely one identical reality. There is one flesh of the Lord, one cup, one altar, as there is one bishop. "Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup unto unity of His blood, one altar, as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery, and deacons, my fellow-servants, so that whatever you do, you may do it according to God." (Ign. Phil. 4; also to be interpreted in the light of this passage: Eph. 20; Mag. 7; Tral. 7; Phil. sal.) The liturgy is a distinctive characteristic of the office of the bishop under whose personal surveillance all mysteries must be performed. "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a firm Eucharist which is under the bishop, or one to whom he has entrusted it." (Smyr. 8.) Only in case of necessity could the Eucharist be administered under the surveillance of a presbyter. This is clearly indicated by the fact that, "It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate an agape." (Ibid.) Such a claim that even the agape cannot be held without the bishop would be incomprehensible and extremely fantastic if it were not presupposed that in the thought and experience of St. Ignatius each liturgical center necessitated the existence of a bishop-that the relationship of one bishop to each liturgical center was an inseparable reality.

For a further clarification of the essential relationship of the office of one bishop to one Eucharistic center, St. Ignatius offers up the fact that the local unity of Christians in Christ epi to auto is clearly and visibly imaged by unity in the person, or office, of the bishop. Unity in the bishop is a living image of unity in Christ. "It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself." (Ign. Eph. 6.) "... take heed to do all things in the harmony of God with the bishop presiding in the place of God." (Mag. 6) " For when you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ you appear to me to live not after the manner of men but according to Jesus Christ... " (Tral. 2.) "... let all reverence ... the bishop as Jesus Christ." (Ibid. 3.) "Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Smyr. 8.) It is obvious beyond any doubt that St. Ignatius is here borrowing the concept of the bishop as the image of Christ from the liturgical practise of the Church. He never refers to the presbyters as icons of Christ or in the place of God as he no doubt would have had they been in communities without bishops the regular and proper administrators of the mysteries and the center of local life in Christ epi to auto. On the contrary he always refers to them corporately in the plural as "presbyters" or "presbytery" in the place of the apostles (Mag. 6; Tral. 2, 3: Phil. 5; Smyr. 8.) and as a "council of God." (Tral. 3.) It would have been complete nonsense for Ignatius to compare the presence of the Catholic Church in Christ with the presence of the multitude in the bishop (Smyr. 8) if each local community did not possess a bishop. Is it possible that Ignatius believed that Christ is not present in all His glory in the Eucharist administered under a presbyter? This is hardly the case since he insists that "wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church." (Smyr. 8.)"

Rokke, the point of all this is to demonstrate that even in the earliest days of the Church, bishops were present, functioning and absolutely necessary persons in the Church. They represent Christ. And as Romanides points out, the multitudes with the bishop are as the Catholic Church with Christ. Thus, without bishops in the Apostolic succession, there simply is no Church.

It is important to note that almost all of the Apostolic churches were in the West.

Frankly, I'm not sure where you're getting this. St. James was in the East (Jerusalem). St. John was in the East (Asia Minor). St. Thomas was in the East (India). I'm sure there were others. Around 190 or thereabouts, during the famous "Easter controversy" Pope Victor almost excommunicated all of Asia for not keeping Easter strictly on a Sunday, as the rest of the Church did. The problem was, St. Polycarp maintained that the tradition in Asia WAS Apostolic--that he had gotten the tradition from St. John himself.

St. Irenaeus was the one who convinced Victor he was wrong to cut off a whole branch of the Church because of this, and that they should (as his predecessor Anicetus did) just agree to their respective practices on this point "not caring to quarrel over this matter".