Encountering Jesus in the Stations of the Cross: the Physicality of Faith

In just about every Catholic Church one can find depictions (whether paintings, sculptures, prints, mosaics, etc.) of the Stations of the Cross – fourteen images of events that encompass the trial, suffering, and execution of Jesus. The traditional fourteen stations begin with Jesus condemned to death before Pontius Pilate and end with Him being laid in the tomb. Included are various moments (some directly Biblical, others rooted in popular tradition) that tell the story of Jesus’ Passion and which allow the viewer to meditate on each event as they pass from station to station on what is also called “The Way of the Cross.”

The Stations are usually arranged in an orderly fashion within the church, spread out in such a way to encourage us to walk from one to the next as though following a route marked out by each successive event, numbered “one” through “fourteen,” until we find ourselves at the tomb. It becomes a journey on which we pause to pray and reflect at designated intervals.

This traditional devotion surrounding Jesus’ suffering and death stems from the ancient practice of making a “pilgrimage” – a journey to the holy places of Jerusalem or other significant religious sites. Specifically, the Way of the Cross allows those of us who cannot afford, or due to some other limitation cannot make, a pilgrimage to the Holy Land to see and experience what pilgrims have seen and experienced for centuries. We re-trace the steps of Jesus as He is led to his death. In the Stations of the Cross we behold a physical reminder of Jesus’ suffering on our behalf. The Stations of the Cross are often prayed during Lent, as we journey to the joy of Easter.

Our five-year-old son has been fascinated with the Stations of the Cross for a couple of years or so. Many Sundays, after Mass, he insists that we walk from station to station as I tell him what is happening in each picture. Our daughter (who is soon to be three) is also now taking an interest in the Way of the Cross. They both have benefited from the very physical depictions of Jesus’ life and death, as well as the lives of the saints that appear, not only in the Stations, but also in the statutes and stained glass, the paintings and imagery found throughout our parish church. These are invaluable teaching tools for the very young. But even adults can benefit from these physical reminders of the faith.

Catholic faith thrives on the physical. The sights and sounds (or the “bells and smells,” as they say) encourage total participation from all of our five senses as we pray and worship God in the Catholic Tradition. Faith is not just a “mental” disposition – a belief that stays trapped in the abstract, in the mind – faith involves the whole person. We worship as whole persons, body and soul, when we include our bodies in the spiritual act of prayer. Catholics have certainly taken this principle very seriously down through the centuries. We stand, sit, or kneel during the Mass for very specific reasons; we cross ourselves; we light candles, burn incense, and pray on rosary beads; we genuflect and bow and process in and out of church; we use blessed palms, blessed ashes and holy water; we consecrate with sacred oils We find every way imaginable to include our bodies in our devotions.

One component of the Protestant Reformation involved a shedding of the outer “trappings” of Catholicism, specifically the physical reminders of what the Reformers saw as a corruption of the true faith. They destroyed statues, burned paintings, and shattered stained glass. The holy water, the incense, the liturgical vestments were thrown out. Gone were the images and relics of the past, and all that was left was “Faith Alone” – as the Protestant motto declared. But this was a Faith stripped bare and left naked and in the dark. Without the kneeling, the standing, the genuflections, faith was left paralyzed. Without the statues, the windows, the paintings and the lamp-light, faith was left blind. “Faith Alone” is a lonely and disheartening prospect. Some of the Reformers realized this and struggled somewhere between a pseudo-Catholicism and the more puritanical sects of the Reformed Movement. Protestantism has, ever since, struggled to grapple with how to include physicality within spirituality.

Today some of the Mainline Protestant churches retain a few “catholic” carry-overs. Some use palms on Palm Sunday or ashes at the start of Lent. Some use liturgical vestments and even some stained glass or paintings. But many of these mainline denominations are dying out. The up-and-coming Christian sect seems to be the Evangelical, non-denominational, mega-church style of Christianity. And with its rise there seems to be a new stripping away of the old “catholic” understanding of Tradition and the physicality of worship. The new Christian churches are sleek and clean. The minister wears a suit and tie, and cannot be physically distinguished from any of his parishioners. If there is a cross, it is bear, without Christ’s body. There are no depictions of saints or Biblical scenes in the windows or on the walls. Worshipers are given plush stadium seating so that each can sit comfortably, unmoved throughout the “show” without standing or moving or gesturing in the slightest. This new manifestation of the Protestant ideal has not only watered down the doctrine, but it has further watered down the spirituality. Our bodies are again separated from the worship of God.

I listen to a radio station frequently that advertises heavily for a local Evangelical mega-church. Many of the other sponsors on this station also lean heavily toward this brand of Evangelicalism. I recently heard a commercial on this station that I found encouraging and somewhat surprising. With the approach of Easter, one Christian retailer was promoting a product that is meant to bring out the true meaning of the holiday and introduce children to the story of Jesus’ death and Resurrection. Their product includes twelve Easter eggs which contain objects associated with different moments in Jesus’ Passion – from the Agony in the Garden to the Resurrection. As your child opens each egg, he or she is introduced to the events of Jesus’ suffering and death and through these physical reminders will come to a better understanding of the true meaning of Easter and the sacrifice that Jesus made on our behalf. Sound familiar? Rather like the Stations of the Cross, don’t you think?

There is no escaping the physicality of our being. We are physical creatures and we express ourselves in physical ways. Our spirituality can be nurtured through outward signs and symbols. The Son of God, though He was pure spirit became flesh and blood, so that salvation could be brought to our bodies as well as our souls. We should embrace our physical nature and include it in our worship. Our children, who are so often exposed to the signs and symbols of the pop culture, need corresponding symbols in the world of faith to combat the temptations and struggles they will inevitably face. It does no good to strip our Christian faith of the physical symbols in the name of some supposed “reform” if that reformed church fails to teach our children who Jesus is and what He did for our salvation. As we approach Easter we should realize that when Jesus died He did not shed his body and assume a new non-physical form. Rather He rose again in the flesh, and we too must feed our flesh spiritually for our own growth in the faith.

On Love, and Proper Order in Creation

I just watched a news piece on one of the major networks telling of a strange “custody” battle in California. A woman owned a parrot for ten years until one day the parrot escaped and flew away. Another woman in the same city found the parrot and “adopted” it as her own. After three years the two women (who had been strangers) met, quite by accident, and struck up a conversation about their love of animals and their special fondness for parrots. As they talked about their pets they realized that they were both talking about the same parrot.

A lawsuit followed with the original owner demanding that her missing bird be returned to her; while the other woman insisting that the parrot had found a new home with her and ought to remain. In the end the judge ruled in favor of the original owner. In the judge’s words, under California law “pets are chattel; they're no different from your automobile.” In other words, pets are property. We OWN pets and the rights of the original owner must be honored.

The woman who lost the case lamented the decision, “This poor bird, he calls me 'Ma. He's very attached to me.” Noticeably distraught and in tears she wailed, “They treat a living, breathing animal like a car. Is that fair? Is that justice”
YES! It is fair! It is justice!

An animal is not a child. A parrot is not a member of the family. The fact that a parrot can mimic the human voice is quaint and causes their owners much joy, and this ability makes them a desirable pet for many people…But they are still just PETS, not children – even if they do call you “Ma.”

I changed the channel to another news program and, coincidentally, I landed upon a story about the chimpanzee that recently achieved national infamy for literally tearing the face off of its owner’s friend. This particular news report was an update of the victims recovery (which is improving), but imbedded in the story were some comments from the chimp’s former owner. She claims that the chimpanzee’s rampage was a freak accident. She maintains that she has been wrongfully blamed for not keeping the animal in a cage or somehow contained, and that his frenzied attack is no different than when any human suddenly snaps and murders someone unexpectedly…sometimes these things just happen without warning.

But it IS different!! A chimpanzee is a wild animal and should not be compared to a human person. The owner of this chimp treated her pet as though it were her son. He ate and slept with her, and roamed around the house as though he were one of the family. His violent outburst was not like a human who commits murder; the two should not be equated. The chimp was only acting as a chimp. We should not be surprised when a 200 pound male ape attacks a human who enters his territory. We should, however be surprised that society has accepted animals as our equals. We should be alarmed that a wild creature can live among us as though they are part of our extended family. A wild animal taken out of the wild is still a wild animal.

Don’t get me wrong. I love animals. The Catholic faith has a rich tradition of respecting and loving God’s gift of creation. Saint Francis gives us a wonderful example of how we are called to love and care for all of God’s creation including the beasts, wild and tame, who share our planet with us.

But as with all things, love must be properly ordered. Love of fellow man is not the same as love of animals, just as love of fellow man is not the same as love of God. There are different kinds of love and different expressions of love. To elevate one species or one Being is to necessarily diminish another. If we love ourselves as we do God, we diminish our love of God – we drag Him down to our level. If we love animals as we do ourselves, then we drag ourselves down – we risk losing the dignity that separates mankind from animals. Indeed, many on the cultural left would do just that. They see no difference between the dignity of a dog or a cat and the dignity of a person. And many would tear down our notion of God and remove the sense of the sacred. They deny and image of God in man.

A couple of years ago PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) ran an ad campaign that compared the butchering of chickens for Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants to the murder of the Jews in the Holocaust. There was, of course, an immediate outcry from the Jewish community and the ad was scrapped. But PETA (a very left-leaning organization) saw the comparison as appropriate and justified. The killing of Jews and the killing of chickens is of the same order of evil. The chicken has been elevated, but in the process, humanity is degraded.

To paraphrase the woman who lost the parrot custody case: “They treat humans as though they were chickens. Is that fair? Is that justice?”

There is something drastically wrong with society when our sense of reality can become so morbidly twisted. After all, our REALITY is what this is all about, not simply some woman’s eccentric attachment to a chimp or a parrot. But how do we answer certain fundamental questions – How do we define the things around us? What is a “family”? Does it include parrots? What is “motherhood”? Are you a “mother” to a chimpanzee? What does it mean to be “human”? Are we nothing more than animals with large brains? How do we react and interact with the world? How do we love?

Love is a beautiful thing…but love misdirected can be destructive. Loving something for what it truly is gives us a sense of order to our world; but loving a thing for what it is not distorts creation and can lead to a multitude of errors.

Patristics: Ignatius of Antioch, Part IV

We have thus far examined Ignatius’ understanding of episcopal (“bishop’s”) authority in the First Century Church, and the three-fold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon that composes the hierarchy of the Church. We have seen how this view of ecclesial (“church”) power ensures unity and preserves authentic teaching as handed down from the Apostles. According to Ignatius, the Church would cease to exist without this authority vested in the hierarchical structure of the institution. As he wrote to the Ephesians: “Apart from these, there is no Church."

On the theme of Church unity, Ignatius wrote to the Smyrnaens concerning the people’s relationship to their bishop: “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

This passage from Ignatius marks the first recorded use of the word “catholic” in describing the Church. Interestingly, we know from the Bible (Acts 11:26) that it was in Antioch that Jesus’ followers were first called “Christian.” Now in this letter from Ignatius, a First Century bishop of the same ancient city, we find the Christian Church described for the first time as “catholic” – which means “universal.” Through this word “catholic,” we see that Ignatius’ view of the Church includes more than just a loose collection of individual local congregations lead by independent bishops spread throughout the world. Rather, the local churches are integrated into one single “Body,” and form - to use Ignatius’ term - a “catholic” (“universal”) Church, which encompasses all believers. The Church is a single entity, not a group of independent congregations.

Now we must ask… If, according to Ignatius, we are all members of a larger, “Universal” (Catholic) Church that extends beyond local boundaries, then what is it that brings about the Church’s catholicity? What are some of the common characteristics that bind Christians together in the “universal” faith? What do we believe that makes us “Catholic”?

Certainly, we might point out the common bond with Apostolic Tradition which is traced through the succession of bishops down through the generations. For Ignatius the hierarchy is one component of catholicity. This is a common theme in Ignatius writings. But we might also search further in Ignatius’ letters for a description of some of the specific Catholic beliefs that distinguish the First Century Church.

Ignatius does not give us a point-by-point run down of all the doctrines he held, but he is very specific about certain areas of belief, especially Christian worship. I will give a few points on which Ignatius writes concerning Christian worship:

1) Christians of the First Century accepted the bishop’s authority regarding the proper celebration of authentic worship, which they called “Eucharist.

From Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaens: “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.”

The Greek term “eucharistia,” from which we derive the term “Eucharist,” means “thanksgiving.” The blessing and breaking of the bread and the sharing of the common cup, which Christ instituted at the Last Supper, became known as the “eucharistic” feast as early as the First Century. Ignatius, who learned the faith from John the Apostle (himself a companion of Jesus and a witness to the Last Supper), tells us that the Eucharist can be validly celebrated only by a properly ordained bishop or one designated by the bishop (presumably a priest serving under the bishop)

So we can say that one “catholic” belief from the First Century is proper ordination from a bishop (a successor to the Apostles) for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, or Eucharist.

2) The Eucharist unites Christians to Jesus, as it is a Communion in His Body and Blood.

“Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. 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.” (From Ignatius’ letter to the Philadelphians)

Today’s Catholic understanding holds that the Eucharist may be celebrated in many locations or over the course of many years, at all times and places, yet in all of this there is but “one Eucharist.” In the Eucharistic celebration, whenever and wherever it is kept, we all gather around the “one altar” and partake in Christ’s one sacrifice. The Catholic Church’s teaching seems to echo that of Ignatius cited above.

Likewise Paul maintains a similar view: “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” (1Corinthians 10:16-17

So, united with the bishop in the Eucharistic feast, Christians who partake in the bread and the cup are united to the sacrifice of Christ and within the one Body of Christ, the Church.

3) The First Century Christians believed that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus and only the heretics reject this teaching.

“They [the heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.” (From the letter to the Philadelphians)

This belief obviously corresponds to the Catholic Church’s belief today that the Body and Blood of Jesus are truly present under the appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharist. It is supported by Biblical passages such as Paul’s warning from 1Corinthians 11:27-29:

“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

Also Jesus own words: “I am the bread of life…Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” (John 6:6:48,54-56)

So the Real Presence of Jesus’ Body and Blood in the Eucharist is a “catholic” belief taught by Ignatius, a First Century bishop of Antioch.

4) Christians of the First Century worshiped on Sunday rather than the old Jewish Saturday Sabbath.

From the letter to the Magnesians: “Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. …[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death…”

And furthermore: “Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity…It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believes might be gathered together to God.” (Also from the letter to the Magnesians)

There is not a specific Biblical mandate for the transference of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. However, this is an ancient tradition that grew up within the Church from a very early date and Ignatius bears witness to this fact. The Bible offers some indication of this:

Acts 20:7 “On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread…”

1Corinthians 16:2 “On the first day of the week each of you should set aside and save whatever one can afford, so that collections will not be going on when I come…” (Paul obviously knew that Christians gathered on the first day of the week and therefore a general collection would be possible at that time.)

Also important to note, both the Resurrection and the decent of the Holy Spirit happened on a Sunday.

So too, it must be remembered that Ignatius received his training in the faith directly from John the Apostle and from Peter who ordained him as bishop. Ignatius learned from the Apostles themselves how to carry on proper Christian worship. Just as the New Law superseded certain Jewish practices in the Old Testament (kosher dietary requirements, for instance), so too, the Sabbath took on a new meaning for Christians as Sunday became the day of worship.

Thus one of the “Catholic” (“universal”) Christian beliefs of the First Century was that Sunday is the proper day of worship.

In conclusion…

In his brief letters to various congregations, Ignatius devoted much time to the issue of Christian unity - the oneness of the “universal” Church. He stressed unity in the authority of the bishops and the hierarchy of the institutional Church, and he sought unity in the authentic celebration of the Eucharist. Indeed, the Body of Christ on earth (the Church) is united to her Head (Christ) by partaking in the Body that is made present in true Christian worship. Thus the “Catholic” Church is gathered around the one altar to share in the one sacrifice.

The Eucharist played a central role in Ignatius’ writings, and also in his own life. Or rather, his death, as this passage from his letter to the Romans reveals:

“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. …[E]ntice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body…Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God].”

Truly no better witness can be found to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and our intimate relationship to Christ’s own sacrifice than Ignatius of Antioch, First Century bishop and martyr.

Happy New Year!!...sort of...

There are several theories as to the origins of April Fools Day. The most likely scenario involves the introduction of the Gregorian calendar (the one we currently use) which replaced the Julian calendar in 1582. The Gregorian calendar is named for Pope Gregory XIII, who had called for the formulation of the new calendar and ordered its implementation. Among the new features that were introduced with the Gregorian calendar, the New Year was moved to January 1 from its previous date of April 1. The selection of the start of the calendar year may seem like an arbitrary matter (after all, what difference does it make which month begins the year), until one examines the reasons behind the decision.

Obviously our current celebration of the New Year marks the climax of a week-long celebration of Christ’s birth (a celebration which then continues for several days into the month of January). We celebrate Jesus’ birth on December 25, and this Feast builds up to the changing of the calendar year on January 1, to mark the number of years since the time of Jesus’ nativity. Similarly the old April 1 date was the climax of a week-long celebration of Jesus conception, which was (and still is) marked on March 25, the Feast of the Annunciation. We can see then that the two dates are not so arbitrary after all.

So we are presented with two competing ideass about which event ought to determine the changing of our calendars. Both of these have theological merit; both involve the Incarnation and divide time between that which came “Before Christ” (B.C.) and that which is “Anno Domini” (the Year of our Lord – A.D.). But with the introduction of the Gregorian calendar, January 1 eventually won out, and replaced the April 1 celebration.

Yet there were those who openly resisted the new date for the New Year (or, due to lack of communication in those days, were simply unaware of the change) and continued to celebrate the New Year on April 1. These people were referred to as April Fools, and were taunted and lampooned by the rest of society. April 1 became the Day of All Fools or April Fools Day.

Today we play pranks and make jokes at the expense of others and call them “April Fools” without much thought to the historic origins of this popular custom. I find it interesting to reflect on this day that April Fools has a Catholic origin. Perhaps in the true spirit of the day, those who (for whatever reason) do not acknowledge papal pronouncements or reject the authority of the Church as a divinely established institution ought to reflect on the folly of their ways...perhaps they are the true April Fools.

Feast of the Annunciation

Today is the Feast of the Annunciation, which celebrates the announcement, made by the Angel Gabriel, that Mary would conceive the child Jesus. We celebrate the fact that Mary was chosen to bear the Son of God made man.

As with all the Feasts involving Mary, Christ is always at the center of the celebration. Mary’s life is celebrated by Catholics precisely because she “magnifies” the Lord, as she says in the Magnificat (Luke 1:46). The powerful events in her life point us to a deeper understanding of Jesus.

Obviously the key to appreciating the significance of the Annunciation is the reality of the Incarnation – that God became flesh and dwelt among us. Mary’s participation in this event is the primary focus of this Feast Day. Much could be said about the importance of this Christological doctrine and why it is celebrated in the humble person of the peasant girl, Mary of Nazareth.

But more specifically, a thought occurred to me today as I pondered recent political events and the prevailing evils of the culture at large. How wonderful it is that the Church in her wisdom has seen fit on her Liturgical Calendar to count back precisely nine months from December 25, to toady – March 25 – and mark the conception of our Savior. What a fitting reminder of the sacredness of life from the moment of conception. In this time of “abortion on demand” and the “culture of death,” it is good to pause and reflect that God so humbled Himself, to make Himself vulnerable, fragile, as a newly conceived child.

At that moment of conception God entered the world, helpless and in need of protection. The power-that-be wanted this child dead. His mother was unwed and facing the social stigma of conceiving a child who was not her husband’s. Even her husband-to-be, Joseph, struggled with how to deal with this un-expected pregnancy. It took an Angel and a message from God to convince Joseph to care for the child as his own.

Today we face imposing obstacles in our struggle to protect unborn life. It may seem that the culture, indeed the whole world, is against us in this fight. But on this Feast of the Annunciation we can seek solidarity with the unborn Christ. Perhaps in the coming nine months we can mark the days of his development and follow Mary as she awaits her new arrival. And we can hope that one day all the unborn are anticipated with joy and love.

Patristics: Ignatius of Antioch, Part III

Having begun an examination of “authority” and Church “hierarchy” in the writings of Ignatius, we now turn specifically to his letter to the Romans. Remember that to the other churches (Magnesia, Ephesus, and so on) Ignatius offered instruction; he counseled them on matters of doctrine and discipline; he gave them advice for the functioning of their local church community. But Ignatius does not attempt to advise Rome on any of these matters, for he says to them:

“You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others].”

It seems it is Rome’s place to “enjoin instructions” on others, while Ignatius does not presume to enjoin instructions on Rome. Ignatius makes only one simple request – not a call to obedience or the correction of some abuse – rather, Ignatius asks for their prayers:

“Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but [truly] will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one.”

Ignatius asks nothing more than their prayers as he faces his impending martyrdom. In this way the Romans will “confirm” by their “conduct” what they have conveyed in their “instructions” to the other churches.

Why this special treatment of the Roman church? Why do the other churches receive stern teaching from Ignatius, while Rome receives only praise and an earnest appeal for prayer? Lest we forget, Ignatius opened this letter with words of high admiration for the Romans unlike that of any of the other churches: “…worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Why is Rome set apart in this way from the other churches?

Ignatius gives one possible indication for this rare treatment when he alludes to the two Apostles who ministered in Rome and met their end in that great city. Ignatius acknowledges the Apostles Peter and Paul. He points to their preaching in Rome and suggests that it is the preeminence of their ministry in Rome that prevents him from now issuing instruction to this church:

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant.”

Ignatius, a man who himself was a student of John the Apostle and a prominent First Century Christian bishop - worthy of recognition in his own right - yet recognizes Rome’s place of honor above his own. Even while he offers instruction and guidance to other churches well outside his jurisdiction in Antioch, Ignatius withholds any such teaching for Rome. It is the city of Peter and Paul. She teaches other churches and “presides over love.”

Ignatius now makes an appeal to the Roman Church - that they pray for his own strength as he undergoes his martyrdom: “[R]equest in my behalf both inward and outward strength.” He is traveling to Rome to be fed to wild beasts. He wishes to embrace this martyr’s death so that he “may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one.” Ignatius asks that the Romans not intervene or make any appeal to the authorities for his life. He says to them, “I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God.”

Ignatius’ plea is both gruesome and heartfelt: “May I enjoy the wild beasts that are prepared for me; and I pray they may be found eager to rush upon me, which also I will entice to devour me speedily, and not deal with me as with some, whom, out of fear, they have not touched. But if they be unwilling to assail me, I will compel them to do so. Pardon me [in this]: I know what is for my benefit. Now I begin to be a disciple. And let no one, of things visible or invisible, envy me that I should attain to Jesus Christ. Let fire and the cross; let the crowds of wild beasts; let tearings, breakings, and dislocations of bones; let cutting off of members; let shatterings of the whole body; and let all the dreadful torments of the devil come upon me: only let me attain to Jesus Christ.”

This is a man who had lived a long life serving Christ and his Church as bishop of Antioch. After decades of service, he was ready to meet his final reward. But he was not so detached from the world as to neglect those he left behind. Ignatius showed concern for the Church that would remain after his passing. We have already read a few excerpts from some of his letters. And Ignatius mentions these letter to the Romans: “I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God…” And he realizes that his own church in Antioch will be left without an earthly shepherd. So he entrusts his flock to God and to the prayers of Rome:  “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].”

Thus Ignatius gives his final report to Rome upon his impending death. The tone is quite distinct from that of the other letters. To the other churches he had stressed the role of bishops and the authority of the ordained clergy within Christ’s Church. He instructed them to obey their bishops and to act in one accord with their leaders. But to Rome Ignatius seems to owe his own allegiance. He seems to acknowledge an elevated status for Rome, a place of honor, praise and holiness. He acknowledges Peter and Paul’s leadership there. And he ascribes to Rome the role of teacher of other churches. He even commends his own church to the loving prayers of Rome as he meets his final fate.

Once again, none of this definitively proves Roman primacy, the papacy, or the Catholic understanding of the hierarchical structure of the Church. But it certainly goes a long way in that direction. For a First Century student of the Apostles to bear such witness as Ignatius does gives strong support to the Catholic argument on this matter.

And finally, we are reminded of Jesus’ words to Peter before His passion and death: “But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Ignatius now asks for the strength to face his own death. He turns to Rome, the city where Peter met his own end, the city which carries on Peter’s role of strengthening his brothers. Rome has “instructed others” and now her instructions are "confirmed by [her] conduct" as she receives her faithful “servant" Ignatius, so that he might go home to meet the Lord.

Patristics: Ignatius of Antioch, Part II

And so we continue our study of Ignatius. Specifically we turn our attention to his view on the role of bishops and the hierarchy of the Church. But before we look directly at any of Ignatius’ own writings, we would do well to refresh our memories on what Clement of Rome had to say on the matter, from his Letter to the Corinthians:

“Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”

This idea, which we now term “Apostolic Succession,” preserves the teaching authority once granted to the Apostles by establishing successors to the role of “bishop” or “elder” in the Church. Likewise Paul instructed Timothy: “You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others as well,” (2Tim 2:1-2), and to Titus: “I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town as I directed you…” (Titus 1:5). We know that the Apostles instructed the churches to take great care in selecting their bishops and ministers, as Paul further warns: “Do not ordain anyone hastily…” (1Tim 5:22), and again “…guard what has been entrusted to you.” (1Tim 6:20).

Bearing witness to these teachings, Clement wrote as a First Century Bishop of Rome, one who knew Peter and Paul and who was himself ordained and entrusted by the Apostles to carry on their mission. So too is Ignatius a faithful steward of Apostolic teaching, a student of John the Apostle, and ordained by Peter as Bishop of Antioch. Ignatius picks up the same theme of Church unity and faithfulness to Apostolic teaching as was pointed out by Clement…

“…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.” (from Ignatius’ Letter to the Trallians)

Ignatius views union with the bishop and union with “the enactments of the Apostles” as directly linked to union with Jesus Christ. To separate oneself from the bishop is to make oneself “not pure” – or to step away from “the altar,” as it were. Faithful Christians owe their allegiance to their bishop, just as they owe allegiance to Christ. Ignatius even boldly proclaims to the Ephesians “we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.” In other words, Jesus and His Church cannot be separated. Similarly strong language is found throughout Ignatius’ writings:

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” (To the Smyrnaeans)

“…the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit." (To the Philadelphians)

“…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…Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be united with your bishop, and those that preside over you…” (To the Magnesisans)

Among “those that preside over you” Ignatius points out two other offices (presbyter and deacon) which, together with the bishop above them, form the basic hierarchy of Church ministry. We read the same offices described in other letters from Ignatius, as in this passage from his letter to the Trallians:

“…without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God.”

Thus we see clearly the threefold nature of ordination, expressed in three Greek terms: 1) the episcopate – the bishops, the highest degree of ordination, 2) the presbyterate – from which we derive the English word “priest,” who serve under the bishop, and 3) the diaconate – deacons, who receive a special call to minister to the needs of the people. Already in the First Century, and from no less an authority than the Apostolic Father Ignatius, who was trained by the Apostles themselves, we see that the Church recognized these distinct offices within the hierarchy. And we see that the First Century Church accepted this authority as having come from the Apostles and from Christ Himself.

This orderly arrangement within Church hierarchy was not meant to oppress Christians or stifle spiritual growth, but rather to instill unity in faith, so that all might believe with one accord - undivided - as Ignatius insisted to the Ephesians: “…obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind…" And to the Trallians Ignatius insists that this unity with the hierarchy is necessary for the very existence of the Church: “…reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”

The Church – that is, the union of all believers – is held together by the ministry of this three-fold hierarchy. It is a unity for which Jesus Himself prayed:
"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one." (John 17:20-23)

None of this is to discount the role of the laity. But without the ordained ministers the Church ceases to function as a unified Body. Each is called to his or her own role within that Body. The distinct functions of each member brings about the unity of the whole, united in one Spirit, as Saint Paul writes: “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.” (1Cor 12:4-6)

And again: “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?” (1Cor 12:27-30)

God ordered his Church is such a way that the teaching office of bishop (together with the presbyters and deacons) might be preserved down through the generations. We see this already in the First Century from those hand-picked by the Apostles for this role. Ignatius was ordained by the Apostles and bears witness to Apostolic teaching on this matter. And we can trace this teaching office down to the present day in the Catholic Church. Catholics remain subject to the authority of the bishops just as Scripture admonishes us:

“Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you; consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith...Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Heb 13:7,17)