Chain of Command in Early Church

[dochawk]

How could they verify who’s bones they are?

Early churches were built on the sites of martyrs.

Excavation of St. Peters a few decades ago found an ancient cemetery, with a central grave having a stone the remaining part of which had the corresponding part of Peter’s name on it.

Also, the apostles did not “report to” Peter; there wasn’t a “chain of command”. Peter was the clear and indisputable leader of the Apostles, to whom they implicitly and explicitly deferred.
AMDG

hawk

 

[PJM]

Early churches were built on the sites of martyrs.

Excavation of St. Peters a few decades ago found an ancient cemetery, with a central grave having a stone the remaining part of which had the corresponding part of Peter’s name on it.

Also, the apostles did not “report to” Peter; there wasn’t a “chain of command”. Peter was the clear and indisputable leader of the Apostles, to whom they implicitly and explicitly deferred.
AMDG

hawk

EXCELLENT!

Thanks

GBY

 

[James248]

Early churches were built on the sites of martyrs.

Excavation of St. Peters a few decades ago found an ancient cemetery, with a central grave having a stone the remaining part of which had the corresponding part of Peter’s name on it.

Also, the apostles did not “report to” Peter; there wasn’t a “chain of command”. Peter was the clear and indisputable leader of the Apostles, to whom they implicitly and explicitly deferred.
AMDG

hawk

And after Peter’s death?

 

[pablope]

And after Peter’s death?

Clement of Rome, successor to Peter, has the answer:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

1Clem 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.

1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.
57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

 

[dochawk]

And after Peter’s death?

Yes, that’s when they buried hi there . . .



More seriously, you aren’t going to find anything resembling a “chain of command” in the early church; it just didn’t work that way.

You will find that some sees, notably Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria being more influential, and over time, Rome coming to be seen as a final arbiter in disputes as the centuries passed.

Also, St. Basil at one point, I believe it was during one of his periods as Patriarch of Constantinople, made a tour in which he deposed several bishops; I know of nothing comparable to Rome.

There is evidence of church council edicts being sent to Rome for approval afterwards, but East and West split in the descriptions about those and how they would be accepted/rejected.

The Byzantine emperor ratified Papal elections eventually. If memory serves, he once deposed a pope and installed his own candidate, but don’t hold me to that (and as late as the 20th century, the Austro-Hungarian emperor’s representative vetted the papal selection of the College of Cardinals–they elected another, who promptly rewrote the rules to eliminate the secular veto).

There were unsuccessful papal attempts by the late first millennium to assert authority outside of his own patriarchy.

Nothing like the authority of the current pope within the west ever existed before the schism, not even in the west. It is only recent that Rome has had a significant role in selection of bishops outside of Italy and the Americas.

AMDG

hawk

 

[PluniaZ]

Yes, that’s when they buried hi there . . .



More seriously, you aren’t going to find anything resembling a “chain of command” in the early church; it just didn’t work that way.

You will find that some sees, notably Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria being more influential, and over time, Rome coming to be seen as a final arbiter in disputes as the centuries passed.

Also, St. Basil at one point, I believe it was during one of his periods as Patriarch of Constantinople, made a tour in which he deposed several bishops; I know of nothing comparable to Rome.

There is evidence of church council edicts being sent to Rome for approval afterwards, but East and West split in the descriptions about those and how they would be accepted/rejected.

The Byzantine emperor ratified Papal elections eventually. If memory serves, he once deposed a pope and installed his own candidate, but don’t hold me to that (and as late as the 20th century, the Austro-Hungarian emperor’s representative vetted the papal selection of the College of Cardinals–they elected another, who promptly rewrote the rules to eliminate the secular veto).

There were unsuccessful papal attempts by the late first millennium to assert authority outside of his own patriarchy.

Nothing like the authority of the current pope within the west ever existed before the schism, not even in the west. It is only recent that Rome has had a significant role in selection of bishops outside of Italy and the Americas.

AMDG

hawk

I think you underestimate the authority of the Pope in the first millennium.

In the 2nd Century, Pope Victor I excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor that refused to celebrate Easter on Sunday: newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

In the 4th Century, Pope Julius I re-established Athanasius as bishop of Alexandria (the second highest see in the Church) against the Arian heretics who had exiled him: newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

In the 5th Century, Pope Celestine I deposed Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople: newadvent.org/cathen/03477c.htm

Also in the 5th Century, Pope Felix III excommunicated Acacius, bishop of Constantinople: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacian_schism.

In the 6th Century, the entire church yielded to the Pope’s authority in the Formula of Hormisdas, which reads:

“Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.”

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/122063/The%20Formula%20of%20Pope%20St%20Hormisd

In the 7th Century, Pope Theodore I excommunicated bishops Pyrrhus and Paul of Constantinople: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Theodore_I

In the 8th Century, Pope Gregory II asserted his authority to punish the Byzantine Emperor himself, and to depose the iconoclast Anastasius, bishop of Constantinople: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_II#Conflict_with_Emperor_Leo_III

 

[dochawk]

The Pope definitely had strong influence during much of the first millennium; I’m not disputing that.

But when when attempting to engage in such acts, there was generally a certain amount of, “Yeah? You and what army?”

When the answer was, “the Imperial army”, or “the rest of the bishops in your curia”, he would be successful

Generally, when successfully exerting himself, it was through influence, not diktat.

AMDG

hawk

 

[PJM]

The Pope definitely had strong influence during much of the first millennium; I’m not disputing that.

But when when attempting to engage in such acts, there was generally a certain amount of, “Yeah? You and what army?”

When the answer was, “the Imperial army”, or “the rest of the bishops in your curia”, he would be successful

Generally, when successfully exerting himself, it was through influence, not diktat.

AMDG

hawk

So dear friend,“What Army” is the CATHOLIC Magesterium

GBY

 

[dochawk]

So dear friend,“What Army” is the CATHOLIC Magesterium

Today, or in, say, the seventh century?



Back then, during “universal usually in communion”, it just plain wasn’t what it is now.

Today, it’s top-down from Rome; then, Rome was part of it.

AMDG

 

[PJM]

Today, or in, say, the seventh century?



Back then, during “universal usually in communion”, it just plain wasn’t what it is now.

Today, it’s top-down from Rome; then, Rome was part of it.

AMDG

That’s a valid point, but nevertheless, does not deminish the perceived authority of the Papacy.

GBY

Partick

 

[rcwitness]

The Pope definitely had strong influence during much of the first millennium; I’m not disputing that.

But when when attempting to engage in such acts, there was generally a certain amount of, “Yeah? You and what army?”

When the answer was, “the Imperial army”, or “the rest of the bishops in your curia”, he would be successful

Generally, when successfully exerting himself, it was through influence, not diktat.

AMDG

hawk

Just because some bishops did not honor the authority of Rome, it doesn’t mean Jesus compelled them to do so.

 

[PJM]

I was still going on the thread about leadership in the Church when I read this.

This is a convenient explanation. But it doesn’t answer what happened when Peter died and other apostles were still around, like John. So how does one explain this?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm

“For current procedures regarding the election of the pope, see Pope John Paul II’s 1996 Apostolic Constitution UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS. See also ELECTION OF THE POPES and CONCLAVE.

The method of electing the pope has varied considerably at different periods of the history of the Church.

As to the earliest ages, Ferraris (op. cit. infra) says that St. Peter himself constituted a senate for the Roman Church, consisting of twenty-four priests and deacons. These were the councillors of the Bishop of Rome

and the electors of his successors. This statement is drawn from a canon in the “Corpus Juris Canonici” (can. “Si Petrus”, caus. 8, Q. 1). Historians and canonists, however, generally hold that the Roman bishopric was filled on its vacancy in the same manner as other bishoprics, that is, the election of the new pope was made by the neighbouring bishops and the clergy and faithful of Rome. Nevertheless, some maintain that the naming of the successor of St. Peter was restricted to the Romanclergy, and that the people were admitted to a part in the elections only after the time of Sylvester I"

GBY

Patrick

 

[po18guy]

What evidence we have indicates that Peter, Linus, (Ana)Cletus, and Clement were all alive at the same time, and likely died in that order. Clement was held up later as someone who still heard the echo of the Apostles’ words, as he had personally heard Peter and Paul speak (presumably a rare thing by the time he died).

Our current Holy Father, and the eight who went before him - back to Benedict XV - all lived concurrently. As to succession, It is entirely reasonable to infer or assume that the same process used to replace Judas (Acts 1) was employed in replacing Peter. Remember that the early Christians were as fascinated with and expectant of the Parousia as we moderns are - even more so.

Evangelization was the Church’s mission, not writing a detailed history for doubters 2,000 years hence. There were no hermetically-sealed stainless steel coffins in which to bury Church leaders. Methinks that those who constantly doubt the early Church also tend to have doubts about many things, possibly including Christ Himself.

Without Church history, the bible is a meaningless book - a fantasy without foundation. Oh, but add the continuous, living tradition of the Church, and suddenly there are eyewitnesses. What a difference!

For some context, a fairly good and quick read is Handbook to the Gospels by (then) Fr. John Wijngaards.

 

[Ubenedictus]

The question on the other thread started regarding the historical accuracy of Irenaeus’ writing Against Heresies.

“3. The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Did Peter and Paul together commission Linus as the Bishop of Rome? If Peter was alive and Linus was the Bishop of Rome which one had the “keys?” If Linus was the Bishop of Rome when Peter died, then what was Peter’s official role at his death? Or is Irenaeus’ writing not historically accurate?

It seems there were more bishops in rome during those times, i think both clement and linus were bishops under peter. Linus took over when peter died, then clement.