On the topic of Apostolic succesion. If the Apostles had put others in there offices (Linus the Pope would have excercised Peter's authority). Then what did the bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, mean when he said, "I do not wish to command you because I'm not an Apostle," in one of his 7 letters? I don't remember the excact words or which letter he said this in.

-- (lazarus23@hotmail.com), October 13, 2001

Answers

Jmj

Hello, Lazarus23.

I can't tell for sure, but it appears that you wish to argue against the doctrine of apostolic succession. If so, you will have to look for evidence other than what you have just mentioned. (If not, I beg your pardon!)
Ironically, the passage you have in mind is used to support apostolic succession, as well as to prove the presence of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome (a fact that some anti-Catholics deny).

The passage is in St. Ignatius's Epistle to the Romans. He was writing (around 105 A.D.) to several dioceses while in chains. He was being taken on a long journey to his martyrdom, from his own diocese of Antioch, where he was the bishop (perhaps ordained by St. Peter or a successor). St. Ignatius writes to the Romans:
"I do not issue orders to you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, but I am one condemned. They indeed were free, but I am a slave ..."

Rome was not St. Ignatius's diocese. Antioch was. Therefore he could not give commands to the Romans. He was not saying that he lacked all authority. He knew that he had the authority that every bishop has (as successor of an Apostle) -- in his own local church, Antioch.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 13, 2001.

Alright, so what you're saying is that Ignatius could not command the Romans because they were not in his diocese. That still doesn't make sense to me. Ignatius said that he couldn't command the Romans because he was not an Apostle like Peter and Paul were. I don't see anything about a diocese. I'm not arguing with you or whatever; I'm asking a question. I don't believe in Apostolic succesion and this is one of the reasons why. So I figured I might as well come here to see how Catholic's explain what Ignatius wrote. How are Ignatius' words used to prove Apostolic succesion?

-- (lazarus23@hotmail.com), October 14, 2001.

Jmj

Hello again, Lazarus23.

There is a good practice called "exegesis," in which one studies what is written and tries to interpret it correctly.
Then there is a bad practice called "eisegesis," in which a person has his mind made up about something, and he then "reads into" a passage that preconceived notion.

I fear that, without realizing it, you are practicing eisgesis here. The reason I say this is that:
(1) you are convinced, in advance, that apostolic succession is false, and
(2) you have combined two separate sentences from St. Ignatius, changed one phrase ("do not" to "could not"), and added one extra word ("because"), so that you can make his statement "say" something that he did not intend. Here's what I mean:

With my emphasis added, you wrote: "Ignatius said that he couldn't command the Romans because he was not an Apostle like Peter and Paul were."
Let's take another look at the passage I quoted. We will see that the saint did not say what you just did:
"I do not issue orders to you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, but I am one condemned. They indeed were free, but I am a slave ..."
So we see that you combined the sentences, changing "do not" to "could not," and adding the word, "because," to try to make a case against apostolic succession.
St. Ignatius did not say that he "couldn't" issue any orders at all. Instead, Ignatius said that he "did not" issue orders -- "I do not issue orders" [i.e., to you Romans].
And St. Ignatius did not say that he refrained from giving orders because he was not an apostle. A person who studies Christian history sees that St. Ignatius would not think of issuing orders to the Romans, because he was not a successor of St. Peter as bishop of Rome. Conversely, if Ignatius had been a pope (bishop of Rome), he most certainly would have issued orders to the Romans.

Now, having said all those things about the passage in St. Ignatius's "Epistle to the Romans," I think that it would be helpful to look at some other things that St. Ignatius wrote concerning the authority of bishops, an authority which is passed on from one generation to another.

(1) "Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to 'see' all of you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas, and in the persons of your worthy presbyters [elders/priests], Bassus and Apollonius, and in my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ"
(2) "Now it becomes you also not to despise the [youthful] age of your bishop, but to yield him all reverence, according to the will of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not having regard to the manifest youth [of their bishop], but to his knowledge in God ..."
(3) "Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore -- and such is your practice -- that you do nothing without the bishop and that you be subject also to the presbytery as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope, in whom we shall be found if we live in him." [The "presbytery" (priests/elders) are, so to speak, the visible deputies of a bishop throughout his diocese.]

Lazarus23, here is an essay on "apostolic succession" that you may find helpful. You will find that you can rely on both Scripture and Sacred Tradition as demonstrating apostolic succession. [Besides what is mentioned in the essay, a key passage is in Acts 1, wherein St. Matthias is succeeds Judas Iscariot.]

St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 14, 2001.

O.K. you've made an interesting point. Don't you think you could be trying to read into things a little though too. So Ignatius said to submit to the bishops as they would the Apostles. That was in a different time period when the gnostic herecy was going around and all bishops were true Christians. What proof do I have that this applies to me now? What if one of the bishops became a heretic? Would the faithful still have to submit to him? Doesn't it make sense only to submit to a bishop provided that he teaches the truth? I haven't read your essay yet because I haven't had time, but I'll look through it eventualy.

-- (lazarus23@hotmail.com), October 16, 2001.

Thanks, Lazarus23.

You wrote, "What proof do I have that this applies to me now?"
The answer is embedded in our (documented) knowledge that the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) bishops of our present time are in a direct line of ordination from the Apostles. Please do not put off reading that essay -- at least the short opening section and one or more of the quotations that follow. It can really help you get "over the hump" on this.

You also wrote, "What if one of the bishops became a heretic? Would the faithful still have to submit to him? Doesn't it make sense only to submit to a bishop provided that he teaches the truth?"
You are absolutely correct. Our obedience to lawful authority is rooted in the commandment to honor our fathers and mothers. But this is not an absolute command. We must never obey a parent, teacher, pastor, government official, etc., who is demanding that we sin. And teaching us to believe a falsehood (heresy) would be demanding that we sin. In this one thing, therefore, we could "disobey" a bishop, because he has no right to command us to sin. We must obey God before man.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 17, 2001.