Ignatius of Antioch on bishops' authority

Just more of the same:   George circling their episcopal wagons and refusing to acknowledge responsibility/accountability for the mess made and the trust lost...   and the endless whining because episcopal sin,   including enabling,   doesn't get a free pass with the laity.     'Guess he missed the teaching about contrition and reparation.
.
The day these bishops voted to exclude themselves from the scrutiny and sanctions of their own "charter" was the day I knew their credibility was gone.     Cardinal Law even got a promotion!     George's heavy-handed tactics prove that nothing has changed.     The sleazy sexual exploitation of women and children,   along with the cover-ups and payoffs,   continue to bubble up like a cesspool.     Teach morality and "what it means to be Catholic"?     You can't give what you haven't got.

St. Ignatius of Antioch was the overseer of a small Christian community - perhaps the size of today's medium-size parish at the end of the first century and beginning of the 2nd. He was not a Roman Catholic Monarchical Cardinal- Bishop of a huge US Archdiocese of the 21st Century dedicated more to the maintenance and enhancement needs of the arrogant dictatorial Roman Church of 'know-it-alls' who meet and crow as they purvey all the answers to hugely complex problems - forcing their 'wisdom' on everyone else as the 'Voluntas Dei'. Ah the advantages of such humble service! It's likely that St. Ignatius knew his own far better than C. George knows his (probably wasn't ignorant of presbyteral abuse around the diocese). Ignatius' martyrdom is a witness to Christ - something C. George is unlikely to pursue. Rather C. George will be known as a leader of self-sustaining worthies responsible to no one but themselves and their Head Episcopos at the Papalischereich. Their mighty witness should indeed sustain the Church in its bold pursuit of sect - like status. With brethren silently departing all the time these gentlemen might well end up playing with their pajama cords in the not-too-distant future. Oh how bold and relevant!

A little background on Ignatius with respect to this matter seems to be in order:

Ignatius (c35-c107) appears to be the first to argue for the “monarchical bishop” in the local congregation. He describes a three-tiered ministry of bishop, elders and deacons in each church. In Ignatius’ view the term bishop is reserved for a single member of the presbytery who is so exalted above the elders that he presides in the place of God himself. “Let the bishop preside in God’s place, and presbyters take the place of the apostolic council, and let the deacons...be entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ” (Epistle to the Magnesians 6.1).

Ignatius was partly motivated by his concern for unity in the church. There were factions and doctrines in Antioch that he had opposed as heretical. He thought having a single bishop presiding over a church and demanding obedience as if he were Jesus Christ would prevent divisions
This was not a prevalent view in the early second century, but rather was a new trend in the church. Although Ignatius addresses Polycarp as “bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans” (Epistle to Polycarp), Polycarp identifies himself simply as “Polycarp and those who are with him as presbyters” (Epistle to the Philippians). Polycarp was simply one of a plurality of overseers; there was no “monarchical” bishop at Philippi (Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak 175). Ignatius does not even mention a bishop in Rome, which supports evidence from Clement and Hermas that the church in Rome was governed by a plurality of elders at the beginning of the second century (Ferguson 174). The “monarchical bishop” eventually spread among the churches, as attested in the writings of Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, but not until later in the century. The authority of the bishop was apparently not being extended beyond the local congregation in Ignatius’ day (Ferguson 175).

http://www.lessonsonline.info/Ignatius.htm

On account of the great importance which the epistles of Ignatius have for the older church history, the question about their genuineness gave rise to a very lively debate, the more as a preliminary question about the authenticity of the versions had to be settled in advance.

It has also been alleged that the church constitution mirrored by the epistles, especially the episcopacy, belongs to a later time. It is true that the epistles (of Ignatius of Antioch) distinguish sharply between the bishop, the presbyter, and the deacon; that they represent the episcopate as superior to the presbytery; that they never weary of extolling the bishop, and exhorting the faithful to rally around him as the visible representative of the unity of the congregation, etc. But, though the epistles doubtless show an advance beyond Clemens Romanus and Hermas, they certainly fall behind Irenaeus (c115 – c202).

Ignatius knows nothing about an apostolic establishment of the episcopate, nor does he connect with it those ideas of a priesthood which afterwards were borrowed from the Old Testament. The episcopate is to him an office in the congregation, not an office in the church. The bishop is to him not the successor of the apostles, nor is he the bearer of the doctrinal tradition.

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/ignatius.php

The seven letters (of Ignatius) considered to be authentic are:
• To the Ephesians
• To the Magnesians
• Letter to the Trallians
• To the Romans
• To the Philadelphians
• To the Smyrnaeans
• To Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna
By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been enlarged by spurious letters, and some of the original letters had been changed with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age, while the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

Woe to the Church medieval
Though twenty-first century.
Oppressive, loveless, evil,
Staunch foe of liberty.
Obedience demanding,
It seeks to silence all
Who seek true understanding
And heed the Spirit's call.

Hail to the Lord's anointed,
Great David's greater Son!
Hail, in the time appointed,
His reign on earth begun!
He comes to break oppression,
To set the captives free;
To take away transgression,
And rule in equity.

Jesus, I trust in you. Cardinal George, get with the program!

The bishops have themselves to blame for the crisis of governance. They created the crisis. While Cardinal George pats himself on the back for the Church taking unprecedented means to protect children, he forgets that he and other bishops were forced by public pressure to deal with the problem. Specifically, George did not take the advice of his own review board and allowed a predator priest to continue his ministry—and to continue his sexual abuse of children—even after the 2002 Dallas bishops’ meeting when the norms for protecting children were passed.

Were it not for the heroic investigative reporters and the district attorneys, many of them Catholic, the bishops would have continued to cover up for predator priests. The bishops can leave their prison of the sexual abuse scandal when they take responsibility for their part in criminal acts. Their pathetic "We made mistakes" doesn't cut it. Where is zero tolerance for the bishop-enablers? Yes, trust has been lost, and it will not be recovered until the bishops prove themselves worthy of it.

George wants us to submit to our bishops. Cardinal, those days are finished. At least for those of us who have a few brain cells left!

The cardinal proposes three committees to explore Catholic identity for universities/colleges, the media, and other organizations. Thomas Jefferson observed that without a free press, we are domed to tyrany; without a free Catholic press, we are equally domed as Catholics. Without America, Commonweal, and the NCR—to name but a few independent publications—our Catholic news is only filtered through diocesan papers controlled by the bishops-publishers. And incidentally, I doubt that the media committee will go after the Wander and other papers of their persuasion.

We do have a crisis of governance, Cardinal. And it will not be fixed by the Conference of Catholic Bishops. Too many parish councils, which the Cardinal refers to, are merely “rubber stamps,” and those priest-pastors who take seriously Vatican II are few, and, unfortunately, are dying out. The JP II priests are ready to return the church to the pre-1950’s, while the majority of Vatican II Catholics are deaf to them or ready to leave the church.
If the bishops are serious, they need to get out to all the people, listen to them, and stop making pronouncements which continually show they are out of touch with real Catholic people. That does not mean they should refrain from speaking out about the evils in society: the exploitation of the poor, illegal immigration, the dead penalty, abortion, etc. That also does not mean they abandon the beliefs of our faith.

The present crop of bishops owes their appointments and promotions to intellectual dishonesty. While remaining loyal to and respectful of the Holy Father, when will our American bishops address the absurdities which Rome places on them and us, the Catholic people of the United States? The literal translations of the Mass are but one example. “We” “I” believe. Who cares as long as I, an individual, and we, a community, believe in the Trinity, the Son who became man, and the Spirit who continues to give life to our church?

Yes, Yes, yes. Her again we have the idiocy of the Bishops who insist that they are responsible to no one on any level---that they are free to say and do whatever---even to telling us lay Catholics that we can't talk about something---like women priests---claiming that Jesus would not have them. Their stupidity and obvious relentless need for absolute authority has clearly blinded them from today's realities. It is sad that many of them who have some semblance of an education believe the same---like Georgie boy! What Georgie boy and company need to remember is that they are human, born of a WOMAN and that they will die, rot and stink like everyone else---and--as Dante said---the roads of hell will be paved by many of them! Did anyone tell the Bishops that the Trinity is only three persons? They can't be the fourth member!!!! GAWD it is too sad for further comments.

ON THE OTHER HAND: Assuming a dysfunctional monarchical episcopacy, would we rather be tyrannized from Rome or locally? Lets get Rome off our backs first. Then we can vote locally with our pocketbooks. But then who speaks for the poor? (Didn't Hamilton and Jefferson have this debate a while back?) ON THE OTHER HAND: If we DON'T assume a dysfunctional monarchical episcopacy, what DO we assume? Congregationalism?...where like-minded bigots clot into holier-than-thou suburban ghettos? You gotta have a polity, people. They're all awful. Local Episcopacy, subject to local pressure groups, might be least awful. I dunno. Come, Lord Jesus!

The good Cardinal left out that bishops in the day of Ignatius were not imposed on the people by some secret bureaucratic process. The people and presbyters elected their bishop.

The hierarchy need to learn from the children's nursery rhyme--Humpty Dumpty.
"All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again."

No matter how hard they try, the hierarchy cannot turn back the effects of the French Revolution nor can they control the new technologies especially the internet.

If the hierarchy continues in this direction it will be a very small and sad church. Trying to reverse what happened at Vatican II is like trying to restore the monarchy. They sound a lot like European royalty who carry titles to positions that no longer exist. It would be silly if it was not so sad!

If one studies the history of the Catholic Church, throughout the centuries, we see the gradual increased centralization of the church. It really only became solidified in the earlier part of the 20th century, Pope Leo XIII or so. Rome was for so long, the place to appeal for decisions when differences occurred regarding church issues. Fortunately church membership is voluntary, and when decisions do NOT make philosophical or religious sense, we are obligated to question it. These are not matters of faith but hierarchical issues of power and selfishness. Look at the lifestyles of the priests and bishops, do they really resemble, in any way, the life of Jesus? they are more like the pharisees Jesus came to challenge...