Featured True Christianity...

It really makes no difference if the start date is 110 or 400, the end product is the same. The RCC stands for everything the Bible does not. There is nothing in common between Scripture and the RCC. The RCC does not recognize the Christ of the Bible. They have no idea how to administer basic Christian functions such as the Lord's Supper, Baptism, or for that matter, the way the Lord gave us for confessing sin. They have no idea what the first and second commandments of the ten mean. Worshiping God alone is out of the question. There is no concept of the difference between the created and the Creator.

They have as the head of their "church" a "Pope" whom they claim to be sinless, when in fact, he not only sins, there is a 99% chance he is on a track to split hell wide open.

They claim to have preserved the true NT church of Jesus Christ, when in fact they opposed that preservation for over 2000 years.

These are their good points. Notice I did not say Catholics are lost.

 

The fact is that by the time of Ignatius, which was shortly after the writing of the last NT book, not nearly enough time had passed for the development to take place which you imagine. That took another 75 years.

And what do you mean, "Even in the NT deacon wasn't the same as Bishop or Presbyter." In the NT, deacon was never the same as Bishop or Presbyter; deacon was a separate office, one of the only two offices, with bishop/presbyter/overseer/elder/pastor being the other one, these being synonymous terms for one and the same office.

And Ignatius was not using the term "catholic" to refer to the institution that became the church of which you are now a part. That is reading back something into his writings and ideas which was not there because it also had not developed into what you want to make it. The catholic church of the early church fathers was not the institution that developed later. It was simply the universal church, or the community of orthodox churches, not what became the Catholic institution.

 

Again not quite. For the first point notice Ignatius doesn't use Bishop and Presbyter interchangeably in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. For the second point we see in his letter a distinction between the two offices.

Clearly the development I mentioned didn't have to wait another 75 years as you put it.

Maybe I misunderstood you but you seem to say there was no distinction between Bishop, presbyter, and deacon.

I agree the deaconate was not the same as the Bishop or the presbyters. However, it is clear by the time of Ignatius the churches had grown to the extent where the Bishop's role became distinct from the Presbyter's.

I think you have institution on the brain. Note, not once did I mention "institution". I simply said that Ignatius meant Catholic in the sense of Universal or Universal belief. And it was these same Catholics which when the schism occurred maintained the name Catholic but the word Roman became applied to distinguish between the East and West for the most part. And when modern Catholics read Ignatius they understand him to mean universal.

Unfortunately, for you, I'm not reading Roman Catholic back into Ignatius writing. I read Catholic meaning universal. It was a time long before the schism separating east and west and additional monikers were not necessary to identify the two groups. But that still doesn't change the fact that Catholics never ceased to call themselves Catholics.

As can be seen in Ignatius writings the Church of his day shortly after the Apostles was different than how it was in Acts. The church developed some. As I have shown you with the development with the role regarding the bishops.

Well yes to the first part and it did become the modern Catholic and Orthodox churches.

 

wasn't per the bible overseer/elder/pastor/same position though?

that MAN vested bishops and other titles with meanings outside and beyond what God intended for them to mean?

 

If a tribe of people, steeped in idolatry, turned from their paganism and trusted the Lord as their Savior due to a short stay of evangelical missionaries, what would they do under extreme persecution. The only thing in their possession was the gospel of Mark. From reading the Gospel of Mark would they follow teachings that were more Catholic or more Baptist, since they would have to disciple themselves and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. Missionaries had to quickly return because of the conditions in the nation. They were new believers. Which direction would they go?
What would be the influence of the RCC that was already nearby when they would come in contact with them later on?

Here is what recently happened in Ethiopia to such Christians, still in the latter half of the 20th Century.

Read more of their story here:
http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1901-2000/ethiopian-church-did-more-than-survive-11630760.html?utm_source=Christian%20Living%20Connection%20-%20Christianity.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=05/07/2013

 

See the bolded part, as I will comment on that specifically:

Development, by the very meaning of the word, implies gradualness. The development that you wish was there in the time of Ignatius was not fully in place until the late second century. There was not enough time between the NT writings where there were only two orders until Ignatius where you propose the monarchial bishopric was in place. It could not have and did not happen this quickly. The monarchial episcopate was a gradual development that was not the general rule everywhere until the late second century.

 

Yes some progressions happen quickly such as the disciples of Jesus gradually became known as the Way and later as Christian which first occurred in Antioch. Others take longer. It is clear in Ignatius writing that the role of the Bishop became distinct from the Presbyters during his life time which is why he address them as separate entities though one in faith. Note He hails the Bishop (singular) and then hails the council of Presbyters (multiple) at the one city of Smyrnaea. Indicating two distinct offices of which one is singular and the other multiple. But that is to be expected as all living things develop over time though maintaining their fundamental properties. So it is with the Church.

 

That is simply not so and reading into it something that wasn't there. The distinction in Ignatius' time was that of a senior pastor and other pastors (the council). The monarchial bishopric as a third order of ministry was not in place until the late second century. Such is unknown in the writings of Ignatius.

We have gone 'round and 'round the mulberry bush about all this before, and to tell you the truth, I can't remember why we got off on it again this time.

 

Even you suggest that there is a distinction between the Bishop and the council of presbyters. Indicating one was the Senior Pastor and the others were associate Pastors which indicates difference in administrative rolls. And look at the deference given to the bishop over the presbyters in his letter. Note he doesn't say of the presbyters

or

Had Ignatius considered the rolls and the offices exactly the same between the Bishops and the Presbyters he wouldn't have singled out the Bishop as he did. Also note he also singles out the Bishop for Eucharistic authority.

This is key in the argument. Note he doesn't include the Presbyters with this authority but only the Bishop. Had he considered the offices the same there would have been no need for this distinction. Therefore Following what Ignatius said any Presbyter could not therefore perform communion on his own of his own authority because it would be considered invalid. Distinction is made. And since the Eucharist was central to the practice of the Christian faith it would seem that this stems from an earlier distinction of office of the Bishop from the Presbyter. So there is indeed significant difference at the time of Ignatius between the Bishop and the Presbyters. And the natural development therefore is as the Christian populace grows so does the duties related to the Bishop. But it is quite clear by Ignatius time we see the authority of the Bishop over the Presbyters. Thus two different rolls. However, it is only from the body of Presbyters from which an bishop can be appointed.