Does St. Ignatius Disprove the Papacy?

[@kerry8506]

Wow, I never made the connection between Ignatius saying you have to have a bishop to have a church and him calling Rome a church. That’s a great point.

[@paulmualdeave5063]

Vatican I states that without the pope there is no Catholic Church

[@po18guy-s4s]

1 + 1 = (argumentation)

[@katholischetheologiegeschi1319]

So?​@@paulmualdeave5063

[@borneandayak6725]

​@@paulmualdeave5063 Pope is the term for Bishop of Rome.

[@ironnick1356]

Nice short one but well worth the watch. You’ve been the biggest influence for me over the last few months in choosing Catholicism. I’ve started the OCIA process and will be baptised next month Thanks so much, please keep making this content.

[@andrefouche9682]

I am also a convert. Joe is really my favorite apologist. To the point and very logical in his arguments.

[@po18guy-s4s]

“IF” you have not already, please consider going to Adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament (also known as “Holy Hour”). Call your local parish and find out when they offer it. Then, just go and sit in silence in Christ’s Presence. Take your bible. Read scripture, pray, contemplate. Tell the Lord of your search for truth, of your doubts, worries, even fears. Then, be as patient with Him as He has been with you. When you receive the grace to know that HE IS THERE, you will be forever changed. Miracles occur in Christ’s presence - of that I can personally attest.

[@stevenkent1979]

Welcome home to the Catholic faith 🙏 I myself was baptized and confirmed this past Easter vigil. You’ve embarked on a great journey of spiritual transformation and discover, stay close to the sacraments our lord gave us. God bless

[@ThornyCrown-l5d]

So your sins will not be forgiven until next month, eh? That's not Christianity if you ask me.

[@billie5057]

Good for you! My advice if use your convert fever to develop some good prayer habits to serve you when things rightly balance out down the road. Dude, I'm so happy for you. Congratulations.

[@vtaylor21]

Ignatius didn't recognize a church to be valid if they didn't have a bishop. Ignatius's letter to the Romans is different than the other letters. How he speaks so highly of the Roman Church shows he knew there was a Roman bishop.

[@Vigula]

Exactly, it's a no brainer it's so obvious.

[@apo.7898]

And what does that mean?

[@vtaylor21]

@ What do you mean by “what does that mean?” What are your exactly asking?

[@apo.7898]

@@vtaylor21 Having a Roman bishop is not 'Papacy', so the title of the video is misleading, unless the term papacy means 'having a bishop'.

[@matthewoburke7202]

@@apo.7898 Ignatius strongly implies that the Roman See presides over the entire Church. "Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God... 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." Breakdown: The Roman Church presides "over love" and now that the Church of Antioch has no bishop, it has for it's bishop God, Jesus Christ himself, AND "your love" which is just a way of saying "you" the Church of Rome. This only makes sense if the Roman Church presides over the Church as a whole.

[@HighKingTurgon]

7 am upload. Got it. Have a wonderful week, Joe!

[@aaronking9332]

Love it! God bless Joe and all who listen

[@cheryl0327]

9pm in Perth Western Australia

[@samuelmachado7791]

1 pm in Portugal 🇵🇹

[@HighKingTurgon]

@samuelmachado7791 : D bom dia!

[@marcondespaulo]

It's already 10am here.

[@chilenobarrucia]

If we consider that Babylon was used for Rome in Christian letters to protect the life of roman Christians, it's likely that they also avoided to mention the Bishop of Rome in letters to avoid endangering his life. The fact that Peter himself appointed Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch before going to Rome indicates that Ignatius knew Rome had a Bishop.

[@alessandroarsuffi9227]

Good point, exactly my thoughts. While in the other areas the churches grew up far away from central power, the Church of Rome had been persecuted twice in a row under Nero and Domitian. At the time Ignatius was martyred, Trajan was emperor and, had the letter ended in the wrong hands, it could have exposed the name of the leaders of the Roman Church, including its bishop. Why would Ignatius risk to cause the extinction of the church that presides in love, the touchstone of the Catholic Faith?

[@po18guy-s4s]

How did Peter's bones get to Rome?

[@alessandroarsuffi9227]

@@po18guy-s4s i don't get the meaning of this question. Whose side are you on?

[@matthewoburke7202]

@@po18guy-s4s He died there they weren't brought there. Multiple independent sources attest to this.

[@kentadamson6992]

Good video Joe, in addition, Ignatius also refers to the Roman church as the church that holds the "presidency" not only does he define the Roman church as a church like you mentioned, he also says this church holds a special position to teach in the Catholic church as well. “Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110])

[@Zamalandre]

Thanks a lot, this is precious! I didn’t about all of this argument-doubt against papacy, bishop in Rome, etc… Now that I know what you shared, I don’t even understand why there is a debate about whether there was a bishop in Rome at that time, or not! 🤷🏻‍♂️ God bless you! 🙏🏻🕊️

[@matthewoburke7202]

Also, if you read further in his letter, he makes a striking statement: "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." Other translations render: "Remember in your prayers the church in Syria, that God needs shepherds instead of me. let Jesus Christ watch over her and your love." So now that Antioch has no bishop, it has as it's shepherd Jesus Christ, and "your love" which is just a way of saying "You". This only makes sense if Rome presides over all of the Churches.

[@henrytucker7189]

Excellent. These are all good points but the mere fact that we have a papal list from Irenaeus in the 100s which goes back to Peter as the first bishop of Rome should close the debate. It’s ridiculous that this is even an issue.

[@josh39684]

Beat me to it. This is really a dumb argument

[@Maranatha99]

Peter was not a bishop; he was an appstle.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@Maranatha99Why can't apostles be bishops?

[@po18guy-s4s]

Division demands justification.

[@RedWolf5]

What some prots use to argue this is that Iraneaus was wrong about the Christ age therefore he’s wrong about that too, silly and disingenuous.

[@tarminas6805]

The phrase 'it goes without saying' springs to mind. Nice work again JH 🙏🏻

[@seether99]

Another fantastic video Joe! Have you considered doing something on the 4th Crusade and the Great Schism? I haven’t been able to find any videos that go too deep into it from the Catholic perspective. The most recent video I watched on it was sent to me from a Protestant family member and it basically presented the Church and the Pope in a bad light. I’m aware of the actual history but it would be good to have some video content out there to share on it.

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

This is excellent. Thank you.

[@SECPETE1]

As Joe points out, the very fact that St. Ignatius knew that in order for there to be a "Church", there must be a Bishop present in that See. And the very fact that Ignatius clearly makes reference to the "Church" in Rome also means that for the Eucharist to be present there - there must be a Church which means there must be a Bishop already present there. We can clearly see that Ignatius already understood this in his Epistle Letter to the Smyrnaeans: The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (8) See that you all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as if it were the Apostles. And reverence the deacons as the command of God. Let no one do any of the things appertaining to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Clement I, P., Ignatius, S., Bishop of Antioch, Polycarp, S., Bishop of Smyrna, & Lake, K. (1912-1913). The Apostolic fathers (K. Lake, Ed.; Vol. 1, p. 261). Also, Ignatius had clear knowledge of who Peter was as the head of all Bishops given the fact that he was the third Bishop of the See at Antioch that Peter himself established. And add to that the irrefutable fact that Peter was clearly in Rome (even if Ignatius did not know it) and was martyred there makes the argument by these protestants even more ridiculous.

[@matthewoburke7202]

It's honestly one of the worst arguments I have ever heard in my life. It really is basically, "This letter addressed to this group of people doesn't say anything about this things so this thing must never have existed". While at the same time dismissing any positive evidence which does mention it, such as Irenaeus in Book 3 Chapter 3, listing the succession of the bishop of Rome. But on what grounds should we dismiss this? "well it's written in the second century", ignoring the fact that Irenaeus is a second hand witness, being a disciple of Polycarp, a fellow minister with the Apostles and disciple of John.

[@Rogue0572]

When a new Pope is chosen, the modern world knows about it within a few hours (if not minutes). There is a possibility that the Roman seat was "empty" during Ignatius' imprisonment and that word had not spread to him in time for him to know who the new bishop of Rome was. Also, Ignatius' salutation to the Romans is extremely flattering, to say the least. Compare his salutation to the other churches and you'll see a huge difference.

[@alfredocabral3518]

Great video

[@TheCatholicNerd]

That comment the guy says about not greeting the bishop of bishops, I could totally see Ignatius not being sure who the bishop was in Rome because he hadn't been there yet and they didn't really have mass communication. And Roman popes had a tendency to be martyred.

[@alessandroarsuffi9227]

That's right. Under the direct control of Trajan, exposing the name of church leaders would have destroyed the presiding church...

[@donny10000]

Ignatius’ letter to the Roman is completely different from his other letters. In his other letters he exhorts as a bishop, equal in authority to the other bishops, telling them to obey their bishop. But in his letter to the Romans he doesn’t exhort or teach, he begs them not to interfere with his martyrdom. He doesn’t teach or exhort them because he doesn’t feel he has that authority. He recognizes the Roman Church to be the presiding Church, and it would be improper for him to give commands as a bishop to them. This can only be if he recognized the Roman Church to have the greatest authority, with the greatest bishop. But since the letter could be intercepted in Rome by Roman authorities, he is very careful not to even mention who that authority in Rome is, so as not to incur Roman action against it.

[@matthewoburke7202]

That's exactly right. It would be foolish for Ignatius to address the bishop of Rome, because Rome was a very dangerous place to be Christian at this time.

[@33bravo14]

In the military you never salute an Officer in the field, the early church was under persecution , you don’t show the enemy who’s in charge!

[@33bravo14]

That’s why it wasn’t told publicly , it was UNDERSTOOD ! and only understood amongst the church and their early writings.

[@ji8044]

That's pretty funny.

[@33bravo14]

@@ji8044 the early church persecution?

[@po18guy-s4s]

Note: Protestants must define themselves by what they are NOT. Isn't that curious?

[@matthewoburke7202]

LOL

[@andreeattieh2963]

The papacy is a gift from God

[@BensWorkshop]

Fact Check: True. For proof see how many theologicaly different churches in the Protestant World.

[@smeatonlighthouse4384]

Yes, a gift from the god of this world, who is Satan. 2 Corinthians ch. 4.

[@BensWorkshop]

@@smeatonlighthouse4384 You can see the fruits of Sola Scritura in the division in the protestant sects which can't even agree on what you have to do to be saved.

[@linsodtf2645]

​​@@smeatonlighthouse4384so Jesus was Satan in Mattew 16 and John 21

[@borneandayak6725]

​@@smeatonlighthouse4384 so Jesus is Satan when He institute St. Peter as the first pope? Dude, you are flat evil demonic Protestant. You need to repent and convert to Catholicism.

[@AsRolfes]

Once again, your sober and charitable presentation of the facts of the argument are unassailable. Thank you for your defense of the faith, and attacks against Holy Mother Church. May God bless you.

[@geraldhill7547]

Rome was Exterminating Christians more than anyone, would he really publish the name of the Roman Bishop?

[@borneandayak6725]

The funny thing is, there is nothing Protestant in all St. Ignatius letters, yet Protestant want to use it as their arguments? What a joke.

[@matthewoburke7202]

Yeah it's a FAT meme

[@sapientia178]

Joe makes everyone else sound so stupid in comparison! God bless brother

[@Krehfish534]

I mean hey it isn't his fault most people make bad arguments 😂

[@BensWorkshop]

Worth pointing out that Timoty and Titus seem to have the authority of Bishops from the letters written to them by Saint Paul. Also Ignatus was a deciple of John (we believe) and would have had to have had a reason for instituting the office before 107 AD. Also, if you have The Bishop of Rome, why would you need the Bishop of Syria to tell you to obey your Bishop? Great work Joe!

[@lanmarknetworking3034]

Maybe either he assumed the letter would end up in the hands of the Pope OR he didn't want to name the leader in a letter the Roman authorities might use to target someone?

[@RedRoosterRoman]

It may be an argument for Apostolic succession/bishop priest distinction that St Ignatius left his seat vacant. Either: 1) he did leave a successor and he is simply not mentioning this to protect the existence/identity of his successor secret 2) he was taken before appointing a new bishop. And priests cannot ordain a bishop so the seat is empty until a bishop can lay hands on a replacement

[@gabrielklautau167]

The biggest problem with the aforementioned protestant argument from silence against the papacy is that it can also be used by skeptics against the apostolic authorship of the Gospels of John and Luke. After all, no document prior to the time of Saint Irenaeus makes mention of the apostolic authorship of these two texts. If the authority of Irenaeus and the authors of his time are sufficient to historically consolidate the apostolic authorship of the aforementioned Gospels, it should also be the case with regard to the early Roman monoepiscopate (which at the end of the 2nd century is already attested by Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.). Furthermore, in his Letters, St. Ignatius states that in his time there were already bishops all over the world (which includes Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire, the most politically important city of that time): “For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, c. 3)

[@Maranatha99]

Peter already "canonizes" Paul in his 2nd letter & recognizes his authority.

[@alessandroarsuffi9227]

​@@Maranatha99and who canonized Peter's letters? That's a fascinating subject of debate with Protestants.

[@Maranatha99]

@alessandroarsuffi9227 The 1st letter was recognized right away by everyone as being from Peter & thus, apostolic. Apostolicity was the litmus test for the NT canon. The 2nd letter took longer, but the early medieval church ended up acknowledging it was from Peter, too.

[@gabrielklautau167]

@@Maranatha99 - The first person to attribute the 2nd Epistle of Peter to the apostle on record was Origen of Alexandria, who described the work as “contested” (αμφιβαλλεται) in his Commentary on the Gospel of John (quoted by Eusebius). So, although I, as a Catholic, believe in the Petrine authorship of this letter based on the unanimity of the canonical tradition of later centuries, no skeptic scholar will concede your point that St. Peter canonized St. Paul’s writings as early as the first century. In effect, they interpret the incident at Antioch as a “proof” that Peter and Paul did not get along, while James, in their skeptical view, was even more directly opposed to Paul’s theology. The problem is that if the Tradition of the Church of the 4th century was corrupt, as Protestants claim, there is no guarantee that Peter actually wrote this 2nd epistle, and therefore that some of the 12 apostles actually canonized Paul's writings in the first century (and, without Paul, his disciple’s writings, like Luke and Acts).

[@Maranatha99]

@gabrielklautau167 I've never heard any Protestant say that the canonization of the IV century by the church was corrupt. In his 2nd epistle, Peter clearly acknowledges the doctrinal authority of Paul.

[@JonCrs10]

Well thats...an interesting thumbnail art choice

[@mannyfit75]

St. Clement I reign of Papacy was from 88-97 A.D, then St. Evaristus (88-97 A.D), St. Alexander I (105-115 A.D). St. Ignatius was born around 35 A.D in Syria, and died in Rome between 107 and 110 A.D.

[@charlesudoh6034]

Ignatius took for granted that a Church must have a Bishop, therefore if he referred to the Church in Rome as Church, then he took for granted that there is a Bishop in Rome. Beautiful and simple argument.

[@anthonymarimpietri8409]

St Irenaeus lists Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome, around the mid-second century.

[@marknovetske4738]

Your logic is flawless and your arguments powerful.... But then again you have truth on your side. Protestantism is always looking for reasons to justify their schism. When you look at the writings of the entire church fathers and everyone else all the way up to the reformation....you see nothing but the Catholic Church! And it's consistency of teaching and dogma.... Trying to shoehorn in some mythical independent local house church structure with a plurality of governing"elders" leading and teaching different doctrines that they figured out from reading the non existent (at that time)new testament....that's the protestant fable....or it was Constantine! Take your pick! 😅

[@michaelmarcus509]

Great and we’ll done

[@tonyl3762]

Didn't even need to go outside of Ignatius' letters to demolish that argument 😅 However, others might argue it would still be odd for him to not know who the bishop of Rome was despite the distance, if that bishop was preeminent. Other theories like the danger to the bishop of Rome or a vacant seat then could be appealed to.

[@RedWolf5]

Next please do an episode on Ignatius letters to the Protestants. Gotcha papist!

[@33bravo14]

If the ones that try and disprove the papacy with ignatious , do the same with the Eucharist.

[@mbberry135]

Dear Jie; Definitely correct me! What if Rome had no Bishop? I am bringing up Interregnum*, a period between two different rulers. Is there a gab or a recent execution of a Roman Bishop, leaving Ignatius with no one to write to? Please fill in my conspiracy theory. Sincerely in Xto Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A. P.S. *props and a Shout out to my KZbin autocorrect for spelling Interregnum for me, Twice!

[@marksteo6178]

I would like to know why these highly respected and seeming intelligent critics of the Catholic Church cannot reason well enough to stop pointing out support for the strawman? A very good expose. m

[@kainosktisis777]

I know that people sometimes say knowledge of the ancient languages isn’t necessary to understand Scripture - same for history - sometimes other things like archaeology or corroborating other history & culture - but all of these support the Catholic position. For me though, the lengths that people will go to deny the evidence is astounding - especially from those who make faith claim to follow the Truth. It’s just mind-boggling…

[@frederickanderson1860]

The first church was the Messiah and his Jewish disciples. No other foundation can be laid.

[@charlesjoyce982]

And then those disciples who were given authority appointed successors.

[@frederickanderson1860]

@charlesjoyce982 to the Jews first then the gentiles. Messiah was for his own people.he still same. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the tanakh. He did not annull their importance.

[@charlesjoyce982]

​​@@frederickanderson1860 True. And the prophecies already contained gentile inclusion in the messianic kindgom.

[@UrielAngeli147]

the completely idiotic takes by Prot bots? NPCs? They're absolutely unbelievable. Just wow. Imagine looking at an early Christian martyr who learned from the apostles, served Christ all his life, was eager to die for Christ, and concluding, *cough*: "Is St Ignatius in heaven?...Not according to Jesus. John 3:13." "The bible is the final arbiter about the pope, and it has concluded that, there is no popery? The pope being a catholic myth!" "St Ignatius ...😂😂😂😂😂😂Who on Earth is, was, he? Who made St Ignatius a Saint, was it God, or the Devil?"

[@JadeLunaraDCUOGaming]

What if he withheld mentioning a bishop purposely for safety reasons, so as to not put him out there and get him killed?

[@michaelharden231]

Nice hair cut

[@benabaxter]

Rome was the largest city in the empire. Bishops handled groups the size of an undergrad lecture hall. Seems to me like it would have required multiple bishops. This does not mean there wasn't one of them with at least a primacy of honor, descended from St. Peter. Today we have defunct sees all over the place. Perhaps Roman neighborhoods had some of those, lost to history.

[@qanaqa33174]

Edifying 🎉

[@tomgervasi4653]

The Papacy is in Exodus 18.

[@Mason_O]

Where is it in Ex 18?

[@ji8044]

@@Mason_O it's not, entirely his imagination.

[@V14-x6n]

Thanks, Joe - as always, well done. I don’t think heretics or even some catholics in the comfort and safety of their modern-day lives appreciate the circumstances in which St. Ignatius or the recipients in Rome were at the time, i.e. being under arrest and transported to his death by Roman soldiers to a place were many other christians were also being sought out, captured and slaughtered or how difficult it was to keep up to date with events in a distant land without telephones, radio, TV or newspapers. Maybe they should talk to survivors of underground anti-Nazi resistance in Germany or occupied France to learn about things one would do and things one would never do. But first, another point. We can assume with certainty that St Ignatius knew that the Church in Rome was the most persecuted church - scores of Christians arrested and executed on a regular basis in the capital. If you had to write a letter to a large extended family - let’s call them the Jones’ - many hundreds of miles and several months of journey from you, of whom you were almost certain many have died horrible deaths since you last heard of them a while ago and some new family members may have been born that you have not heard of, would you address them by their names (known to you) or by their relationships to you or address the head of the family? Or would you rather address them as “my beloved Jones’ family”? Was St. Ignatius certain of who was the bishop in Rome when the letter arrived or even if the bishop’s seat was vacant due to another persecution or untimely death? If he was martyred in 107/108, as is believed, that would put St. Evaristus (5th pope) in the scene who was executed by the Romans in the years between 106 and 108 .The next Pope, St. Alexander, was elected in 108/109. Hm, interesting.... We can be pretty sure the election would not happen soon after the martyrs death either, due to the ongoing persecutions. How much did St. Ignatius knew the specifics? Back to the first point. Suppose Ignatius mentions the bishop of Rome by name or even just by title and the christian man, smuggling the letter, gets captured (which may not be that uncommon), what happens next? The Romans wait for the valued prisoner to arrive in Rome and torture him. If that doesn’t work, they can always bring dozens of christian babies and their mothers to torture them in front St. Ignatius to find out the name of the bishop. Were the Romans sure they stomped out this “disgusting religion of atheists and cannibals” that call themselves christians once and for all or was their a new man these christians elected they called episkopos. Well, let’s do everything we can to let the Romans know that, yes, there’s a new episkopos in Rome.... well, you get the point. But my most important point is: Christianity is not some purely mental religion of some sacred book that fell from Heaven where everything starts and ends with the same book allowing all manner of mental gymnastics like it is for protestants - it is a religion of real people living in the real world and being tortured and killed for real - who gladly accepted their martyrdom and died to preserve and pass on the apostolic tradition (including the book, by the way which is 100% catholic) so that people 2000 years later can believe and be saved.

[@macbride33]

💯🔥

[@dave_ecclectic]

And why was Iggy going to Rome? Was it because he thought that the emperor was a wise and educated man that would understand Christianity if someone explained it to him? He found out that wasn't' true. So, Iggy while going to Rome to be executed for being a Christian should be naming other Christians, especially the Pope. Then there is Pope Clements I letter predating Iggy. What always amazed me is the emperor never thought it would be a good idea to silence Iggy, and he was allowed to write all those letters and meet all those people. Can you imagine this being done today with a criminal of the state? Unfortunately for these detractors is all the witnessing Iggy does for the Church. It existed at least as early as 107 AD (not with Conny 200 years later) and was called Catholic just to name two. Really, they shouldn't use him as a witness in their arguments against the Church because then they have to accept all the rest he has to say.

[@RobertWCornell]

I think the Orthodox Catholic Church has it right!

[@fotisvon9943]

these comments are hurting me

[@emilyzlockard]

Sounds like an argument FOR papal primacy. Rome is the only church that he doesn’t tell to “obey your bishop” because it’s Rome

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Peter was an elder (probably of a church in Rome). 1 Peter 5:1-3 - The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [Gk. episkopountes] thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. (Elders are overseers (bishops).) I say that he was probably an elder in the Roman church because of the salutation he uses at the end of this epistle: 1 Peter 5:13 - The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. (Babylon being a euphemism for Rome.)

[@MotherLovingChristian]

Since this comment is not listed as top comment on this video, there most be no comments on the video.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

Excellent points

[@atgred]

Ignatius recognizes the authority, or “presidency,” in particular of the Church at Rome: “Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church wich also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.” -Letter to the Romans, Intro Ignatius indicates that the Church at Rome possessed the authority to teach others: “You have envied no one; but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instruction may remain in force.” -Letter to the Romans, Ch 3 Finally, Ignatius confirms-as do other Church Fathers-that this authoritative Church at Rome was founded by Peter and Paul: “Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles and I am a convict. They were free, and I even to the present time am a slave.” -Letter to the Romans, Ch 4.

[@robertrenato]

Almost first. Yay!

[@vikkibowers4301]

No Pope

[@nahomafriend]

abshr

[@ji8044]

There has been a Bishop of Rome as long as there has been any other bishopric, but there was no papacy as we understand it today until the 7th-8th Century at the earliest. That's why no all Church councils were held in the West until 1100. Christianity was mainly an Eastern religion until Islam destroyed the bulk of the Eastern church.

[@IlleMagister]

Iranaeus of Smyrna seems to say otherwise in chapter three of his third book in the Adverus Haeresēs series. Ignatius' kind words are far more flattering in his letter to the Romans. Tertullian and Augustine also mention Petrine supremacy being in Rome. Jerome did not always see eye to eye with the pope but still obeyed the pope. Jerome also mentions that Origin repented to pope Fabian. I am no theologian, but it is clear that early Christians considered the bishop of Rome to have a unique authority above all other bishops.

[@ji8044]

@@IlleMagister Irenaeus made a very large number of unsubstantiated and dubious claims, chief among them that a disciple of Jesus wrote the Gospel of John. However since he owed his new ly establish bishopric post in Lyon to the Bishop of Rome, it's easy to see why he would feel a debt. These protestations always seem to ignore both Acts and Paul's epistles in which he ONLY portrays James, never Peter, as the head of Jesus's followers. In fact there is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome at all any earlier than at least a century after his lifetime. The Council of Nicea, which established Christianity as an organized religion, was not even attended by the Bishop of Rome and had no more than 10-15% representation of bishops from areas of Roman Catholicism today.

[@IlleMagister]

@ji8044 No evidence Peter went to Rome from the first century? Then was Peter actually literally meaning Babylon in 1Peter 5:13? I honestly doubt that. Is the archeology fake too? The bones are fake as is the graffiti near the tomb? Yeah, Acts 2:14 totally says James and the eleven. Acts 15:7 totally doesn't portray Peter having authority over the other apostles and all Christendom. Your right. Paul totally doesn't call Simon BarJonah Κεφᾶς (bedrock) in Galatians 2:11&14. Nope; Paul definitely just calls Peter regular ol'Simon and not the rock of the Church.

[@ji8044]

@@IlleMagister There is no archaeology which ties Peter to Rome for centuries after his lifetime. It's as real as St Anne finding pieces of the True Cross. "Acts 2:14 totally says James and the eleven" The NT NEVER refers to James as just one of the 12. He was in charge after Jesus died and up to his own death in 62 AD. Josephus confirms that. "Acts 15:7 " James speaks last because he is in charge. "Galatians 2:11&14". 11 But ewhen Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him fto his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, ghe was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing hthe circumcision party.1 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their iconduct was not in step with jthe truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas kbefore them all, “If you, though a Jew, llive like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” James is quite clearly above Peter in that passage. No one could possibly get any another interpretation. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

[@jacktracy8356]

CHRIST said in John 5:24 KJV "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears MY WORD and believes on HIM that sent ME, has everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 6:47 KJV "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believes on ME has everlasting life." If you do not know where you will go if you died right now then that means 1. You do not have everlasting life. 2. You are still condemned and have not passed from death to life.

[@alexanderh2345]

The popes were an afterthought for several centuries as each kingdom and province in Europe had their own bishops, and ultimately their king had the final say on religious matters just as it was with the Roman emperors. Read history for yourselves people.

[@iggyantioch]

Which centuries? Also please cite your sources Respectfully Thanks.

[@alexanderh2345]

@ Christendom by Peter Heather and this is the early Middle Ages. Peter Heather is the leading scholar of medieval history at Kings College London. There are other sources of course, but this is a strong one and a good base.

[@iggyantioch]

@@alexanderh2345 Ty

[@Justas399]

..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222). -Catholic scholar Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).

[@classicalteacher]

That's all you got against the Roman Bishop? No any primary sources quoted... just some opinions. Did you listen to what Joe said or did you write this first?

[@classicalteacher]

Plus, you are quoting unorthodox progressive sources. They are not teaching Catholicism as the same way you can find fringe lesbian evangelical protestant "pastors" teaching about "Christianity". Low, low fruit you're picking. Maybe if you got out of the dirt you might learn something about history and true Christianity.

[@gabrielklautau167]

The biggest problem with the aforementioned protestant argument from silence against the papacy is that it can also be used by skeptics against the apostolic authorship of the Gospels of John and Luke. After all, no document prior to the time of Saint Irenaeus makes mention of the apostolic authorship of these two texts. If the authority of Irenaeus and the authors of his time are sufficient to historically consolidate the apostolic authorship of the aforementioned Gospels, it should also be the case with regard to the early Roman monoepiscopate (which at the end of the 2nd century is already attested by Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.). Furthermore, in his Letters, St. Ignatius states that in his time there were already bishops all over the world (which includes Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire, the most politically important city of that time): “For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, c. 3)

[@shamelesspopery]

I don't know if you made it 90 seconds into the video before commenting, but I make the point myself that skeptical Catholic scholars (like McBrien and Sullivan) loved to argue that the papacy didn't go all the way back to Peter, but that their scholarly arguments are weak when you actually analyze them. If your response is just a quote more of the same bad scholarship, without any actual argument for why we should trust it, I don't know what to tell you. Would you believe McBrien or Sullivan on the authorship of the New Testament books?

[@Justas399]

@@shamelesspopery Linus was supposedly the next pope after Peter. What did he do that proved he was the pope of the entire church in the 1st century? What other bishops who were alive when he was acknowledged that he was the pope of the entire church? Where is the documentation for this? Do you know what the credentials were for McBrien and Sullivan were? What did those scholars say about the scholarship on the NT books? What facts do they present for them?

[@smeatonlighthouse4384]

There is only one Head of the Church, that is the Lord Jesus Himself. He is the Head of the Body in Heaven, and we, that is every born of the Spirit child of God, are members of His Body, here on earth. We are joined to the 'Head' by the Holy Spirit who indwells us. That is what the Eucharist or Breaking of Bread remembrance feast is all about. We are partaking of the bread, which is broken from the one loaf or Body in affectionate calling to mind of our Saviour and Lord who died that we might have eternal Life in Him, or in Christ which is the scriptural term. The idea of eating the actual body of Christ is just utter nonsense and shows complete ignorance of what the scriptures mean. 1 Corinthians ch. 10, and 1 Corinthians ch. 11.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

In the church of the New Testament, elders (Gk. presbyterous) and bishops (Gk. episkopous) are the same office. Acts 20:17 - And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders [lit. presbyterous] of the church. Acts 20:28 - Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers [lit. bishops], to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. It wasn't until after the apostasy that power became consolidated under a single man of sin and the whole church was thereby spoiled. The apostasy started by the corrupting of the bishopric. This happened VERY quickly after the apostles were taken out of the way.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

Imagine believing that the entire Church as recorded in history fell away from the truth like 5 seconds after the death of the last apostle (or even during the apostles' lifetimes depending on the dating of certain documents). Glad I believe Jesus keeps His promises

[@charlesjoyce982]

So the men that the apostles personally appointed, guided by the Spirit, immediately corrupted the Church that was entrusted to their care? What doctrines did they add that demonstrate this corruption?

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@michaelbeauchamp22 - In truth, the apostasy had already begun in Paul's lifetime. Consider: 2 Thes. 2:7 -For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. Read the context of that verse. The second chapter of Second Thessalonians is where Paul predicts the "falling away" (Gk. apostasia). Paul believed in this event. Why don't you? Furthermore, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" does not mean there wouldn't be wins and losses along the way, right? Does ANYTHING in God's universe go in a straight line upwards? No. Read the Book of Revelation. The good guys win in the end. Ergo, "the gates of hell" have not prevailed against the church of Christ.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@charlesjoyce982 - Your accusation suggests that there is such a thing as a "second generation Christian". There is not. Each generation MUST repent and come to the knowledge of God for himself. Can a person unto whom the gospel is entrusted betray that trust? Ask Judas Iscariot. Putting your faith and trust into the hands of a "second generation Christian" is a very bad wager (if you're a betting man). To suggest that just because someone has been ordained makes him immune from error or heresy is just so much wishful thinking. Look at history. 1) Adam was ordained to care for the Garden. 2) Saul was ordained to care for the kingdom of Israel. 3) Judas was ordained to preach the kingdom of God All these men were ordained and all these men failed. The only man who did not fail is Jesus the Christ. But we don't have to go back too far to see how men who were supposed to do the right thing, didn't. Recent history is filled with those. If you're in a religion of men then you will fall victim to their error. That's a pretty good description of Catholicism or really, every denomination, right? The word preached by the apostles is what we go by. NOT by their actions or by whom they associated with. Paul wrote the lion's share of the New Testament but he disobeyed the Holy Spirit. His journey to Rome took a whole lot longer than he wanted it to because he disobeyed. Did Paul trust in guys who later betrayed him? Oh boy, he did. Read his epistles. But Paul's words are from God. 1 Cor. 14:37 - If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. What the apostles wrote is what we go by - not what they did (necessarily) or who they associated with.

[@charlesjoyce982]

​@@GizmoFromPizmo Falling away didnt mean that all of the hierarchy would fall away.

[@louisvega-oe2sc]

The bible is the final arbiter about the pope, and it has concluded that, there is no popery? The pope being a catholic myth!

[@charlesjoyce982]

The Church hierarchy existed before the New Testament was written.

[@Zamalandre]

Papacy is biblical. Read Joe’s book titled « Pope Peter ». The Nicene Creed was established before the canon of the Bible. This proves we needed the Church established by Christ Himself (the Catholic Church) to know what to believe, even before knowing what is Scripture, or not. God bless you, and watch Joe’s videos to learn more about the faith Christ left us. 🙏🏻🕊️

[@Gofaw]

"the bible is the final arbiter about the pope" according to who? You?

[@louisvega-oe2sc]

@Gofaw what kind of, "the bible being the final arbiter!" Don't you understand? Mathew 28:18: you need to stop listening to what the catholic religion teaches, and read what God has to say in his Word?

[@louisvega-oe2sc]

@charlesjoyce982 Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever:

[@starlightHT]

Why did they want a bishop at the center of the civilized world at the time? I don't see the point of having a bishop in Rome... Really?

[@VivatChristusRex99]

…. This guy

[@a.ihistory5879]

Unity my friend, unity

[@starlightHT]

@@a.ihistory5879 Someone is desperate for validation and proof for their faith created by men in 1500.... It's difficult because they talk about people who don't validate their faith....

[@johnnynesbit8289]

why arent you following your current pope if they are necessary. He said recently that All religions are paths to God,” so since hes infallible you can start teaching this. But you wont because you know actual catholic doctrine. He also said last year that humans are born good.

[@classicalteacher]

Jesus esteemed a man named Peter. You do you. Catholics will follow Christ.

[@jomidiam]

How many times does it have to be explained that not everything that comes out of the pope's mouth is infallible?

[@gregnorthway3814]

You don't understand papal infalliblity. Pope Francis' statement that you cited was not being defined infallible. He was given his opinion and we are not required to obey his opinion. Infallible declarations have criteria and his statement did not meet them.

[@JanGavlas]

Also he did not say anything bad. In the context he said only the truth.

[@363catman]

​@gregnorthway3814 well here's the problem with how infallible gets thrown around or I should say magisterial Authority presented with the same weight. If you go off the definition that only infallible pronouncements are obligatory then pretty much most of Catholicism is optional you and I both know the Catholic church does not operate on that premise. Now granted we have those whose tradition has no Episcopal Authority outside of the congregation itself so they're pretty much off the table but for those who do there's not as much issue with there being a bishop of Rome or even with there being a lead Bishop within Christianity as much as there is that one office has absolute and unquestioned and unreviewable authority over everything. Whether you liked or disliked Francis what he has shown is someone who is actually exercising the full scope of the authority that the church says this office has seems to me the people upset with that only have a problem with he's doing things they don't agree with. If you had someone a little bit more of the slant of Benedict the 16th of happy memory you would most likely have the same crowd shouting from the rooftops with joy

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

What difference does it make whether or Not the late Mr Ignatius disproves or approve the Papacy? The Holy Bible totally rejects the Papacy, and that's what matters...

[@charlesjoyce982]

Does the bible reject all hierarchies? Were there any leaders appointed to rule and teach the Church?

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

@@charlesjoyce982 The Bible rejects everything the Catholic church says, and teaches outright. The Bible and the Catholic church are not allies.

[@charlesjoyce982]

​@@benjaminfalzon4622 RCC teaches salvation by grace. Isnt that biblical?

[@IlleMagister]

My friend, the papacy is all over the scriptures.

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

@@IlleMagister My friend,. Am I reading that correct,? Show me just one scripture which support the Papacy, one scripture will be enough, then I'll find the rest of the scriptures about the Papacy by myself... 🥱

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

Is St Ignatius in heaven?...Not according to Jesus. John 3:13.

[@Vigula]

That conversation took place before the resurrection :)

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

@@Vigula So what? Catholic the so-called Saints are not ordained by God. The dead are dead. Do the Catholics know that Jesus existed before the resurrection?

[@EmberBright2077]

@@benjaminfalzon4622 \\ So what? \\ After the resurrection, people are going to heaven, courtesy of Jesus. It does not contradict John 3:13, since that verse is describing things before this point.

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

@@EmberBright2077 Where did you get that information from,? Not from the Holy scriptures that's for sure. Show me a scripture which says that after the resurrection people go to heaven?, And I'll show you, 100 verses that says Jesus is coming back to earth...Here we go. Google... "100 Biblical Verses about the second coming of Jesus"...Now you show me one scripture that says, after the resurrection people go to heaven, courtesy of Jesus.

[@EmberBright2077]

@benjaminfalzon4622 I'm talking about His resurrection, not our resurrection.

[@brucedavenport7016]

It is irrelevant whether or not "st ignatius disproves the papacy. The Bible does. There is no more important set of documents on the planet!

[@humbirdms2784]

You serious? Please tell me you're joking 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@rafexrafexowski4754]

How in the world does the Bible disprove the papacy? It actually heavily supports it, and actively proves it outright when it comes to Peter himself. You may think that I am referring to Matthew 16:18, but I will actually be mostly referencing the next verse after it: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven". Jesus unambiguously gives Peter alone the power to loose sins on earth and in heaven, which is unique to him and only him at that time. Another very important case of Peter being uniquely taken over the other Apostles is in Luke 22:31-32: "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren". Peter is uniquely chosen as the one who will strengthen the other Apostles. The job of the Apostles is to lead and strengthen the other disciples, while the job of Peter is to strengthen the other Apostles.

[@brucedavenport7016]

@@humbirdms2784 Serious about what? Is there a more important set of documents on the planet than the Gospel? I'm serious! That is far and away the most important set of books that anyone can ever read! "st ignatius" is important to catholics. Bible believing Christians place no importance on him at all. His writings are interesting to some, but that's as good as it gets.

[@classicalteacher]

Can you be saved and a Christian without the Bible?

[@thundersmite2162]

​@@brucedavenport7016 giving a lot away here. If the reformation is a retrieval of the early Church and protestants put no value on the writings of the early Church fathers, then what are they retrieving? No one argues their writings are scripture, but they are important to know how the early Church interpreted scripture and functioned.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

I find it interesting that the expression, "the bishop" does not occur in the bible. Bishops are presented (in the scriptures) as a plurality. Php. 1:1 - Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: In Paul's churches, there were multiple overseers assigned to each congregation, just as there would be multiple shepherds assigned to a flock. Herding is a group effort. Whether it's cattle, sheep, swine or the church of God. There is always a plurality of herders per flock. The New Testament agrees with that pattern. It is not until after the apostles died off that it became a power-grab to exert control over as many churches as possible under one bishop. By the second century, this power-grab is what was responsible for the great apostasy foretold to the bishops of the church at Ephesus by the Apostle Paul in the Book of Acts. Acts 20:29-30 - For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. This devouring of the laity by the bishops can be seen in the political structure of the Roman religion. All the corruption in the church can be traced back to the adulteration of the overseers. Think about it.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

That's why when you get rid of bishops, everything gets fixed! No corruption in any other denomination...

[@thepalegalilean]

Wow, this is a really ignorant take. You're completely ignoring the fact that what we mean by bishop today is not what the Bible means by that word. We know this because Saint Paul uses the word 'Apostle'. He refers to this office as made of both male and female members. Clearly, the office of Apostle is fundamentally different from what we know as an Apostle today. Similarly, when we read the Didache, it uses the term 'prophet' as an office of the Church. Paul refers to people 'prophesying' in the Church. So, the words bishop, prysbeter, prophet, Apostle, and deacon meant something fundamentally different from how we recognize these words today. The fact you don't know this and yet express your absurdly massive Dunning Krueger is utterly shocking.

[@shamelesspopery]

But your point is literally untrue. I briefly mentioned this in a prior episode, but in 1 Timothy 3, St. Paul speaks of "ton episkopon" (*the* bishop, singular) and "diakonous" (deacons, plural). I don't think we can make much of the grammatical argument in either direction, but your particular grammatical argument is false.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@shamelesspopery relating to Gizmo's points he's been making, and since you're doing episodes on Episcopacy, can you do a short video on why elders/bishops and deacons can be celibate?

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

@@thepalegalilean - It's actually my whole argument. By changing the definitions of these words, we can rewrite history, right? Look at the Woke Left. "Columbus couldn't have discovered America because there were already people here." That redefinition of the word "discover" presumes that the word means to "pop into existence". Nobody ever taught that Columbus created the Americas but that's what the Leftists want us to believe, isn't it? That very thing is taught in all government schools (i.e. communism indoctrination camps). This is why it behooves us to define our "church" terms using the same definitions used in the first century. In hermeneutics, it's stated this way: "Let the bible interpret the bible" or "We call bible things by bible names" These guardrails help to prevent wandering off into error. Also, the apostles and prophets are indeed offices in the church. there are multiple witnesses to this fact, which I will mention here: Eph. 2:20 - And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 1 Cor. 12:28 - And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Eph. 4:11 - And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Apostles and prophets are foundational to the church. Therefore, we hold in highest regard the writings of these men of the first century. So, my definitions are fixed in the first century IN ORDER TO prevent heresy. Allowing these definitions to drift invites heresy because now you're not talking about the same religion that the foundational apostles and prophets are talking about. See how that works? By the way, Columbus did indeed discover America - contrary to the new definition of that word.

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

St Ignatius ...😂😂😂😂😂😂Who on Earth is, was, he? Who made St Ignatius a Saint, was it God, or the Devil?

[@charlesjoyce982]

A martyr. Interesting that you find martyrdom so hilarious. Does that spirit come from God or from satan?

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

@@charlesjoyce982 A martyr? Why only Catholics are saints? There are no such thing as Catholics Martyrs. Only Christians have been martyred, not Catholics.

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

@@charlesjoyce982 God.

[@charlesjoyce982]

@@benjaminfalzon4622 Catholic just means universal. At the time of ignatius, there was only One, Universal, Christian faith and Church.

[@charlesjoyce982]

@@benjaminfalzon4622 God doesnt laugh at martyrdom. I bet satan does.