He's been discussed a lot lately by various Catholics. See this recent video by Cameron Bertuzzi, for example. And Ignatius has often been cited in support of Catholicism and against Protestantism for many years. It's not just a recent development. It's been popular for a long time in Catholic circles to cite Ignatius as a major problem for Protestants, because of comments he makes about issues like the monarchical episcopate and how the eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ.
But some Protestants believe in the monarchical episcopate and a bodily presence of Christ in the eucharist. And the sort of language Ignatius uses about the eucharist is also used by him in other contexts that aren't interpreted by anybody the way advocates of a bodily presence of Christ in the eucharist are interpreting his eucharistic comments. See my discussion here. And here are some other examples not discussed in that thread I just linked:
"Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Jesus Christ." (Letter To The Trallians 8)
"I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life." (Letter To The Romans 7)
Those passages have nothing to do with transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or anything of the sort. Faith, love, and eternal life aren't literally the flesh and blood of Christ. Ignatius frequently uses language that's highly metaphorical, poetic, and such, when he's discussing the eucharist and in other contexts.
He does have a lot of concern for church authority issues, and he advocates a monarchical episcopate. But that makes his never saying anything about apostolic succession or a papacy more significant accordingly. See here and here for some discussions of those aspects of his letters. Not only does he not mention either, but what he does say seems to go against apostolic succession as it's typically defined today and the papacy.
When he writes to the Roman church, he says much about the prominence of the Roman church for non-papal reasons (e.g., virtues like love and generosity), but he doesn't even mention the bishop of Rome, much less assign papal authority to him. (He does refer to other bishops.) Some of what he says in the process of writing to the Roman Christians makes more sense as anti-papal than as pro-papal or neutral. He opens the letter with a reference to how the Roman church "presides in the place of the region of the Romans" (preface), which makes the most sense as a reference to the church's regional rather than universal jurisdiction. Ignatius' other references to presiding specify the scope of the presiding nearby (the reference to presiding "over love" later in the preface of the same letter; Letter To The Magnesians 6). Elsewhere in the letter, he mentions Peter and Paul together as if they're equals, with no attempt to elevate Peter above Paul as a Pope (4). While a Roman Catholic could do that, it's significant as part of a cumulative case, as another example of a significant opportunity to refer to a papacy where he didn't do so. Furthermore, the pairing of Peter and Paul without any effort to refer to Peter as having had papal authority over Paul is found in other sources of the earliest generations as well. Those other sources don't seem to have believed in a papacy, and Ignatius likely didn't. He goes on, "Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love will also regard it." (9) He has no concept of the bishop of Rome being his church's (the Syrian church's) bishop, but instead denies that his church now has any bishop other than God. He refers to the love of the Roman church toward the Syrians, but seems to have no concept of the papal authority of the Roman bishop. The comment about the Roman church's love seems to be an afterthought, after he'd denied that any bishop other than God is involved, and his afterthought about Rome was about its love, not its bishop. When he had an afterthought about what contribution his audience could make, he didn't think they were contributing any personal bishop to the situation. Rather, their contribution was love. Keep in mind that Roman Catholics keep trying to get us to take Ignatius' comments on other subjects in what they claim is the simplest sense (e.g., his comments on the eucharist). How, then, should we take his denial that his church, in his absence, has any bishop other than God? What does that imply for the Roman Catholic claim that the bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction, is the bishop of bishops, etc.?
The concept of God being the bishop above the local bishop, with no mention of the bishop of Rome between the two, is likewise found in Ignatius' other letters:
"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 of their bishop, 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....Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed....Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever you do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God." (Letter To The Magnesians 3, 6, 13)
"And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience." (Letter To The Trallians 7)
"For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to the will of God." (Letter To The Philadelphians 4)
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: wishes abundance of happiness." (Letter To Polycarp, preface)
Notice that, over and over and over again, he keeps going from God to the local bishop, then to the presbyters and deacons. The best explanation for why he likens the bishop of the local church to God while likening the presbyters to the apostles (Letter To The Magnesians 6) is that he thought the local bishop was the highest church office, meaning that there's no papacy. In contexts in which he seems to be referring to a hierarchy of authority, he has the local bishop, not the bishop of Rome, at the top. There are other places in his letters, not just the passage I just cited in his Letter To The Magnesians, in which he again likens the local bishop to God (Letter To The Ephesians 6, Letter To The Magnesians 11, Letter To The Trallians 2-3, Letter To The Smyrnaeans 8). And he addresses a lot of other authority issues (the Old Testament scriptures, the apostles, etc.). A papacy never gets mentioned. Arguments from silence range across a spectrum, from no significance to being of great value. For somebody as concerned about issues of church authority and church order as Ignatius was, who wrote so much about such subjects across so many contexts, to show no awareness of a papacy is significant. And he seems to contradict the concept of a papacy at times, in the ways I've discussed above, which goes beyond silence.
Sometimes Ignatius' highly positive comments about the Roman church (referring to its purity, etc.) will be cited, but none of those comments imply a papacy. And he makes similar comments about other sources. Consider some of his comments to the Ephesians. Imagine if these comments written to the church of Ephesus had been written to the Roman church instead:
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory...trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome...As to my fellow-servant Burrhus, your deacon in regard to God and blessed in all things, I beg that he may continue longer, both for your honour and that of your bishop....May I always have joy of you, if indeed I be worthy of it. It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who hath glorified you...I do not issue orders to you, as if I were some great person....For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop - I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature - how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity!...I am far inferior to you, and require to be sanctified by your Church of Ephesus, so renowned throughout the world....Ye, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travellers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, in whom also I exult that I have been thought worthy, by means of this Epistle, to converse and rejoice with you...may I arise through your prayers, of which I entreat I may always be a partaker, that I may be found in the lot of the Christians of Ephesus, who have always been of the same mind with the apostles through the power of Jesus Christ....Ye are the persons through whom those pass that are cut off for the sake of God...when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith." (preface, 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-13)
Or his comments to the Smyrnaeans:
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ, which has through mercy obtained every kind of gift, which is filled with faith and love, and is deficient in no gift, most worthy of God, and adorned with holiness: the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia, wishes abundance of happiness, through the immaculate Spirit and word of God. I glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that you are perfected in an immoveable faith" (preface, 1)
If Ignatius had written those things to the Romans rather than the Ephesians and Smyrnaeans, we'd probably be hearing about how his comments allegedly are evidence of a papacy, infallibility, etc.
For a discussion of how problematic Ignatius' comments on justification are for Catholicism, go here. But in Cameron Bertuzzi's video I referred to earlier, Stephen Boyce argues that baptismal regeneration is found in the following passage in Ignatius:
"My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that lives and speaks, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life." (Letter To The Romans 7)
Stephen argued that Ignatius is referring to two sacraments, baptism and the eucharist. The reference to living water is about baptism, and the reference to bread and drink is about the eucharist. According to Stephen, Ignatius is drawing material from the gospel of John, the references to living water in John 4 and John 7 and Jesus' comments on the bread of life and his flesh and blood in John 6.
However, here are the two sentences just before and just after what's quoted above:
"For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die....I no longer wish to live after the manner of men, and my desire shall be fulfilled if you consent." (Letter To The Romans 7-8)
He was asking the Roman Christians to not interfere with his upcoming death, to not attempt to prevent his martyrdom. What he seems to be desiring is that martyrdom, not an upcoming participation in the eucharist. He seems to be thinking of participating in the giving of his life, similar to Jesus' references to giving his flesh and blood at the cross in John 6. Elsewhere in the same letter Stephen is appealing to, Ignatius writes, "I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ." (4) The concept Ignatius has in mind has some similarity to the eucharist, but it's not the same.
The living waters passages in John 4 and John 7 don't make any reference to baptismal regeneration, and John 7:39 identifies the water as the Holy Spirit. In John 4, Jesus refers to a well of water that springs up (verse 14). That's not the sort of water in which baptisms occur. Baptismal water is outside us, not within us, and it isn't the type of water Jesus refers to (a well springing up). And he says that he could have given the woman he was talking to that living water already if she'd asked (4:10). But they weren't in the normal setting for baptism in the context of Jesus' public ministry, a setting allowing immersion, and there's no reference to any water having been drawn from the well yet. The living water is something already available (John 4:10). Yet, advocates of baptismal regeneration frequently claim that baptismal regeneration didn't go into effect until later. Some claim that it went into effect after the crucifixion, others claim that it went into effect after the resurrection, others allege that it went into effect at the time of the Great Commission, etc. Since nobody in the gospels is justified at the time of baptism, and the gospels keep referring to people being justified apart from baptism (e.g., the examples discussed here), advocates of baptismal regeneration frequently follow Tertullian's lead: "Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and has become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added to the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed" (On Baptism 13). John 7 refers to a future coming of the Spirit, but also tells those present at the time to come to him (verse 37). The Spirit will be given to those who believe (verses 38-39), something referred to twice with no reference to baptism either time. The most sensible way to take the passage is that Jesus is calling people to come to him, whether before the anticipated coming of the Spirit or later, with the means of justification being faith, not faith combined with baptism. Baptism would be a part of their lives, but not the means of receiving the living water.
The evidence that Ignatius didn't believe in baptismal regeneration is far more numerous and weighty than the alleged affirmation of baptismal regeneration in his reference to living water. See my thread linked above for a discussion of that evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment