Replies

Then the great St. Ignatius comes along and powerfully argues for the monarchical episcopacy.

Actually, no.

Given all the evidence it is more clear that he (if the quotation attributed to him could be trusted) was saying church membership should follow the lead of bishops (those guardians of Liturgy?) wherever those may be found. Not just one monarchical type, who then in turn presided over other bishops, etc.

He wasn't speaking of the bishop "of" Rome at that point.

The RC view of the quotation is more purely an anachronistic imposition of later developing concept (in Rome, Alone) such as you asserted was the case --- than anything else.

So let’s suppose our friends are correct, and that this was indeed the model of early Church governance.

As the Greeks are our witnesses, your "friends" are correct, enough as for this one consideration, and more than a few others. But this one is easy to see proof of.

See how far off the real reservation, RC apologetic can be?

It's a thing of wonder to behold, and in this regard (the issue of "papacy" as that developed in the Church of Rome) is reverse-engineerable through study of history, theological developments, and today's practices --- all in light of Scripture too, one should add.

No singular popey-dopey in the first many centuries...period, dot.

I agree that +Ignatius most certainly was not talking about a single, monarchial bishop, but rather bishops, plural. For us, +Ignatius is describing what became dioceses. We believe the fullness of The Church is found within a single diocese. The Latin view for some centuries now has been that the fullness of The Church is found only in the worldwide grouping of the dioceses in communion with the Bishop of Rome. In other words, for the Latins, the fullness of The Church is not found in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston but for the Orthodox it is found in the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston.

I wish I could say that this is a distiction without a difference, but I can’t.

I'm confused. Are we still talking about a bishop alone? Because when I said the monarchical episcopacy I meant the bishop was a monarch in his diocese. I was not referring to metropolitans or patriarchs/popes or anything like that.

Here's St. Ignatius, from the Epistle to the Magnesians:

Chapter 3. Honour your youthful bishop
Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance, but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. It is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey, in honour of Him who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets.

This is what I'm talking about. Ignatius doesn't give us any ground for believing that a council of elders was running the show. He makes the presbytery subject to the bishop. Kruger (the author) acknowledges this...he just thinks it's unique to St. Ignatius.