"My Translation" has noo such designs. It IS curious, though, that what they are saying is very similar to "yours". I see no such inference of an Apostolic Succession from this, though, only that their teachings as with the other scripture were a sure basis of authority, designed so by God.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, not Irenaeus. If you read the letter, sounds a lot like the Church today though. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. One Catholic distinctive that St. Ignatius points out is obedience to the bishops. The other is the belief inthe Holy Eucharist. Sounds familiar?
Thanks for the correction, I knew the guy's name started with an "I". I also agree that he encouraged the Smyrnaeans to "obey" their own bishop in matters of faith, just as he expected those in Antioch (his own area) to obey him. I have no argument that there were overseers/bishops who bore responsibility to train the people in the faith and anoint pastors, just that he was NOT speaking of one, primal overseer to the entire, universal church. Certainly you can see that that idea NEVER worked very well when it was first decided in the fourth century - way after Ignatius was dead and gone.
Finally, I don't think Ignatius was speaking of the "Eucharist" in any way that you imply he did. He wrote the letter to counter the heresy of Docetism which denied that Jesus was God in the flesh. He wanted them to understand that the very purpose of the "Lord's Supper" was the remembrance that Jesus very much was in the flesh, that he gave this flesh and blood for the sacrifice for our sins just as the sacrifices of old were of real flesh and blood creatures for a covering for sins. He reiterated Jesus' own words that the bread was "his body" and the wine, "his blood" therefore proving that Christ was a real human being and not just a spirit.
"I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things".
he was NOT speaking of one, primal overseer to the entire, universal church
St. Ignatius does not speak of the Papacy in that letter, but he does speak of episcopacy. He did leave some remarks about the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as well, but not in that letter. If you are interested, I can dig them up for you.
I don't think Ignatius was speaking of the "Eucharist" in any way that you imply he did. [... ] He wanted them to understand that the very purpose of the "Lord's Supper" was the remembrance that Jesus very much was in the flesh, that he gave this flesh and blood for the sacrifice for our sins just as the sacrifices of old were of real flesh and blood creatures for a covering for sins. He reiterated Jesus' own words that the bread was "his body" and the wine
In chapter 5, perhaps. But then we read, in Chapter 7 "They [the heretics we Catholics should stay away from] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ". It does not get more C-C-Catholic than that.