Church Governance -- Bishops or Elders?

[KnightIHSV]

I need help from those who understand the early Church and the development of Bishops and the Papacy.

I am in a debate with a Reformed/Presbyterian friend.

He has made a number of points to me based on, in part, Acts, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, saying that the early Church’s governance was by Elders who were overwhelmingly lay, married (must be married and have good children) and otherwise completely different to the Catholic Church’s bishops and Papacy, who are celibate priests. He also describes St Peter to me as the most prominent Elder of the early Church but that he was not in any way infallible. Apparently the Reformed view is (I think) that the Church’s Elders should reflect the Israelites tribes and leadership structures.

I am not yet prepared to respond – can anyone assist with Scriptural supports for the Catholic position that we are the early Church. I need to deal with the Scriptural role and qualifications for Elders, and the degree to which this is now the office of Bishop.

Thanks to all who respond.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Apparently the Reformed view is (I think) that the Church’s Elders should reflect the Israelites tribes and leadership structures.

The Catholic Church better meets that description.

On whether the initial structure was two- or three-fold, the New Testament is a bit hazy – the writings of the Church Fathers are clearer, in that they name individuals by name (like Irenaeus being called the Bishop of Lyons, for example). In particular, the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, in about the year 107, make abundantly clear that the Church established by Christ had a three-fold structure of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Quickly, presbyters became known as priests, as they’re the lowest rank of Holy Orders that can offer the Mass. Ignatius’ writings are so clear, and so early, that Calvin thought they were forgeries.

Some of the ordained in the New Testament were married, and some of the ordained today are married – about 20% of Catholic priests are married. So a married Catholic priest doesn’t disprove Catholicism.

As for the claim that you must be married, this would disqualify St. Paul, as well as Christ Himself. Scripture clearly describes celibacy as the highest spiritual state, and Jesus says of it, "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Mt. 19:12).

The idea that Paul’s prohibition against bishops having more than one wife means that all bishops were required to be married first is terrible exegesis that contradicts plain Scripture.

 

[Godfollower]

I need help from those who understand the early Church and the development of Bishops and the Papacy.

I am in a debate with a Reformed/Presbyterian friend.

He has made a number of points to me based on, in part, Acts, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, saying that the early Church’s governance was by Elders who were overwhelmingly lay, married (must be married and have good children) and otherwise completely different to the Catholic Church’s bishops and Papacy, who are celibate priests. He also describes St Peter to me as the most prominent Elder of the early Church but that he was not in any way infallible. Apparently the Reformed view is (I think) that the Church’s Elders should reflect the Israelites tribes and leadership structures.

I am not yet prepared to respond – can anyone assist with Scriptural supports for the Catholic position that we are the early Church. I need to deal with the Scriptural role and qualifications for Elders, and the degree to which this is now the office of Bishop.

Thanks to all who respond.

I think your friend is misinterpreting the Bible. First, bishops “must” be married? The limitation in 1 Timothy 3 is a restriction on the number of wives the bishop could have had. No polygamists, thank you very much. And no serial divorces, either. But it wasn’t a ban on singles: St. Paul wasn’t married; was he prohibited from the priesthood? He specifically taught that celibacy was the preferable state (“But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.” 1 Corinthians 7:6-9). And, after all, Jesus spoke of celibacy as being for the good of the Kingdom:

His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. Who [Jesus] said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

Matthew 19:10-12.

That being said, celibacy is just a red herring. It is not doctrinally required by the Catholic Church; it’s merely a discipline of the Latin Rite (a/k/a “Roman Catholic,” as opposed to the other branches of the Catholic Church). Having a celibacy requirement in one branch of the Church is a mere policy decision that the Church has always said it could change – and, in fact, it does grant the equivalent of waivers in individual circumstances. It’s just a policy, not a doctrine.

---

As for your friend’s focus on “elder” instead of “bishop,” he’s misunderstanding again. “Bishop” comes from the Latin episcopus from the Greek episkopos. What’s the original word in Timothy? Right: episkopos. It was a title for various government officials, roughly meaning “overseer.”

Similarly, in Titus 1:5-9, St. Paul remarks that he gave Titus authority to appoint priests in every city, and a bishop must be without blame. Again, “priest” comes from the Vulgar Latin “prester,” from the Latin “presbyter,” from the Greek “presbyteros.” What’s the original word in Titus 1:5? Right: presbyteros – meaning “elder.” And the word in Titus 1:7? Again, episkopos - the overseer who became “bishop.”

And what is Titus to do respecting those “elders” in verse 5? katastEsEs, roughly meaning “appoint” or “put in charge.” They weren’t just old guys who got to stand up front during Mass; they were in charge.

And the presbyteros had to answer to the episkopos, who had to answer to Titus, who had to answer to St. Paul.

Which (setting aside individual identities) is exactly how the Catholic Church does things, even today.

 

[KnightIHSV]

Thank you very much. Most helpful.

When I raised the authority issue with my friend, he said Presbyterian churches were Biblical authorities because Reformed authorities drew on the example of Acts 15 as a decision making norm, ie he said that the Council of Jerusalem was a model by which apostles/elders gathered together and agreed what was and was not sound doctrine … and that is how doctrine should be determined in 2011.

Basically, my friend rejects the Papacy as an unscriptural addition to what should be the Church’s governance, which is based on the Bible and the practice of the early Christians.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Thank you very much. Most helpful.

When I raised the authority issue with my friend, he said Presbyterian churches were Biblical authorities because Reformed authorities drew on the example of Acts 15 as a decision making norm, ie he said that the Council of Jerusalem was a model by which apostles/elders gathered together and agreed what was and was not sound doctrine … and that is how doctrine should be determined in 2011.

Basically, my friend rejects the Papacy as an unscriptural addition to what should be the Church’s governance, which is based on the Bible and the practice of the early Christians.

Acts 15 was a Council governing the entire Church. No Presbyterian church can seriously claim to do that. Only Ecumenical Councils, like Vatican II, can, and they’re Catholic.

Here’s a five part series on the primacy of Peter in Scripture:
One: Strengthen Thy Brethren
Two: The Good Shepherd Calls a Shepherd
Three: Jesus Tethers Peter to Himself
Four: “Peter and the Eleven”
Five: Upon This Rock

As it is, Calvin rejected the Secund Ecumenical Council of Nicea in no uncertain terms in his Institutes. So it’s disingenuous to claim that Ecumenical Councils are the way to go, when you reject the Councils that disagree with your pre-set views.

 

[KnightIHSV]

Thank you again. One of our recurring arguments is whether Scripture is or is not the “supreme rule of faith”. I have agreed with him that Scripture’s rule will still need an interpreter but he says that Scripture is clear etc. It is very difficult and I feel like I am wrestling with a difficult subject. He seems to agree that Elders do discuss and then agree a binding teaching on a subject, which I see as no different to that of the Bishops of the Church agreeing on a binding teaching through the Magisterium.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Thank you again. One of our recurring arguments is whether Scripture is or is not the “supreme rule of faith”. I have agreed with him that Scripture’s rule will still need an interpreter but he says that Scripture is clear etc. It is very difficult and I feel like I am wrestling with a difficult subject. He seems to agree that Elders do discuss and then agree a binding teaching on a subject, which I see as no different to that of the Bishops of the Church agreeing on a binding teaching through the Magisterium.

Ask him what to do if he finds that he disagrees with his elders on an issue of faith or morals.

Because if he’s like most Presbyterians, it’s something like this: “the Church authorities are put over us, so we have to obey them … but now when they’re wrong on an issue of faith and morals.”

And as you can probably guess, that leads to constant schism, because it means you’re subject to the Church unless you disagree with the Church… so you’re only subject to the Church where you (a) already agree, (b) don’t care about the outcome, or (c) recognize the issue as immaterial.

On all the important issues, you don’t listen to the Church, you find a church that agrees with what you already believe. That, at least, has been the general response I’ve gotten - you should find out his own interpretation.

 

[KnightIHSV]

Thanks. Great suggestion. I guess that explains why there are so many Presbyterian churches out there.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Thank you again. One of our recurring arguments is whether Scripture is or is not the “supreme rule of faith”. I have agreed with him that Scripture’s rule will still need an interpreter but he says that Scripture is clear etc. It is very difficult and I feel like I am wrestling with a difficult subject. He seems to agree that Elders do discuss and then agree a binding teaching on a subject, which I see as no different to that of the Bishops of the Church agreeing on a binding teaching through the Magisterium.

The agreement you two have about Scripture is an important one, and his qualification is pivotal. The Catholic position is that the Bible is materially sufficient - that is to say that every doctrine necessary to salvation is present in Scripture in at least a seminal form - but that, as you two agree, it needs to be interpreted in order to be fully and correctly understood. What’s interesting is that you say that he has agreed with you “that Scripture’s rule will still need an interpreter.” This is true, but the Catholic Church does not see the Scripture as having its own *seperate *“rule”, and certainly does not say that its “rule” is supreme, as most Protestants, and certainly Calvinists will claim. The interpreter (i.e. the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church) has equal authority to that of Scripture. His follow-up qualification - that “he says that Scripture is clear” - is the Protestant claim that Scripture is formally sufficient, i.e. that it is so abundantly clear on all matters necessary for salvation, that there really isn’t any need for an interpreter, at least not about “the essentials.” This is the Calvinist’s loophole to avoid the need for the Magisterium. (Of course, the mere fact that you read scripture and disagree with your friend on whether the Sacraments are necessary for salvation disproves this theory, but he’ll probably use some form of mental accrobatics to ignore this obvious flaw in his claim.)

Now, you should note that his claim “that Elders do discuss and then agree a binding teaching on a subject” is in fact essentially different from the Catholic Church’s concept of the Magisterium for a couple of essential reasons. First, in the CC, it’s not the Elders (greek: presbyteroi) but the Bishops (Greek: episkopoi) who discuss and come to a binding decision/teaching. The Elders/Priests serve the Bishops, but their authority is directly derived from them and they are only commissioned to administer the Sacraments where the Bishops cannot be present, and - more relevant to this discussion - to teach what the Bishops pass on to them. They do not have the authority to alter anything taught by the Bishops.

Secondly, the Bishops’ authority is intrinsically linked with and, in a sense, derived from, the Chair of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. The Bishops may discuss the further development of teachings amongst themselves, but ultimately any disagreements must be resolved by submission to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Without unity under St. Peter, there can be no unity of the Faith. Obviously your friend will explicitly deny this second teaching, but look closely at his prototypical counsel in Acts 15. There was a very heated discussion, and opinions were given on both sides - no one agreed. Then St. Peter spoke and all were silent. Once St. Peter made a decision, everything said thereafter was either a witness to both support his ruling (cf. Paul & Barnabus’ statements), or a specific suggestion on how to promulgate the teaching by the local Bishop, St. James. The final decision was made by St. Peter and not one person questioned it.

There are many other verses that point to Peter’s primacy - as well as many things written by the Early Church Fathers that corroborate it - but start with this one from the Jerusalem Counsel since that’s where your friend is fixated at the moment. For the rest, look at Belloc Fan’s links to the five part series on St. Peter, to St. Clement of Rome’s example, to St. Irenaeus of Lyons’ statements in Adversus Haereses, III, 3, 2, and to St. Cyprian of Carthage’s writings. And, again, point out also what Godfollower said about Titus 1:5-9 - namely that Elders were subject to Bishops, and that Bishops were placed in charge over them by the authority of St. Paul, an Apostle.

(As a side note, if your friend reveres St. Paul more than St. Peter, perhaps it wouldn’t hurt to point out that the Church in Rome is often viewed as being founded on both of them. They were both martyred in Rome in the same year, and, according to some ancient sources, even on the same day. While Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built, the charism of the Church of Rome flows from both Peter and Paul. No other ancient episcopacy can boast of two Apostles lending their final breaths for its establishment. Perhaps it will help him to trust that God might ensure the infallibiility of this Church based on the patronage of both these great men. Perhaps it won’t matter to him either way, but it couldn’t hurt to plant the seed of this idea in his brain…)

 

[KnightIHSV]

Thank you Catholic Trekkie (I was as well!)

I have further engaged with my friend. He said of Scripture that it is not only materially sufficient but formally as well. He put it this way: “Scripture is our safe guide to know the Christian religion. If it is in Scripture, then it is safe and has been written and ratified by the saints. Human tradition is too hazy and too prone to error.” He says he does not reject tradition but cannot rely on it.

He also said that Church government is better when done by Elders in the Presbyterian manner. He said it is more transparent and more involves the lay Christian. He remains of the view that early Christians were Presbyterians, not “ruled from Rome by a Pope”.

Having said all this, a lot of conservative Presbyterians I have met do admire the Papacy on moral issues and on its unwavering stands. I raised with him how American presbyterians have come to ordain gays and lesbians … John Knox would be most upset!

 

[Tiberius1701]

Thank you Catholic Trekkie (I was as well!)

I have further engaged with my friend. He said of Scripture that it is not only materially sufficient but formally as well. He put it this way: “Scripture is our safe guide to know the Christian religion. If it is in Scripture, then it is safe and has been written and ratified by the saints. Human tradition is too hazy and too prone to error.” He says he does not reject tradition but cannot rely on it.

He also said that Church government is better when done by Elders in the Presbyterian manner. He said it is more transparent and more involves the lay Christian. He remains of the view that early Christians were Presbyterians, not “ruled from Rome by a Pope”.

Having said all this, a lot of conservative Presbyterians I have met do admire the Papacy on moral issues and on its unwavering stands. I raised with him how American presbyterians have come to ordain gays and lesbians … John Knox would be most upset!

Yes, your point about American Presbyterianism is a very good one. I would ask him more pointedly, how he can believe that a non-centralized, completely changeable hierarchy can possibly be “better” when it leads to more division. I would also ask him whether he would feel more comfortable with Divine Tradition than with human, because the truth is that we Catholics are actually much, much more distrusting of human traditions. That’s precisely why we submit to the Sacred Tradition instituted and guaranteed by Christ Himself.

I also think it’s important that you point out to him how he’s altered his position. First it was that the Elder-counsels of the Presbyterian tradition are “more Biblical,” but now that you’ve shown that to be false, he’s changed his claim to be, instead, that, essentially, the Elder-counsels are more comfortable, i.e. “more transparent and includes the laity.” Ask him, if he’s so untrusting of human tradition, why he submits to it more readily than to the Divine Tradition demonstrated in Scripture and carried out in the Catholic Church from the first century to this very day. Shouldn’t he be more uncomfortable with the increased “transparency” and, especially, with the more-direct involvement of the laity, precisely because the laity were never involved in such things in the New Testament Church?? I might also ask why transparency matters if it has no bearing on whether he can be assured that the tradition he is following is God’s infallible, unalterable Truth, and ask him to specify exactly how he thinks Catholic governance is less transparent, but most importantly ask him to show you where the Bible says that the laity should have any direct involvement in the decisions of Church counsels on matters of faith and morals. From Acts 15, it looks to me like everyone there was a Bishop, or at the very least a Priest/Elder…

 

[KnightIHSV]

Great arguments. I usually start by querying authority, and more or less start with the Canon of Scripture. I have found a number of Presbyterians seem to think the Bible was almost beamed down from Heaven complete and intact and know nothing about the very human if divinely inspired deliberations that forged the Canon that held for 1500 years. It is like a massive chunk of Christian knowledge has been denied them. Similarly, I always say that from 33AD-400AD, there was not yet a Bible as we know it → therefore were the early Christians, often martyred, not Christians??? I have not yet seen an apologetic from ‘Bible Christians’ as to what to do for the approximately 370 years of early Christian history.

One constant dialogue is on celibacy because of Paul’s exhortations for the elders to be married and be good fathers. I am now butting my head against an argument on this subject because I have cited Christ and Paul’s example of their celibacy but, apparently, these examples mean nothing because of what the Bible teaches …

 

[Tiberius1701]

One constant dialogue is on celibacy because of Paul’s exhortations for the elders to be married and be good fathers. I am now butting my head against an argument on this subject because I have cited Christ and Paul’s example of their celibacy but, apparently, these examples mean nothing because of what the Bible teaches …

“these examples mean nothing because of what the Bible teaches …” Right. Because… they’re not what the Bible teaches too? This is the point where I think you just need to make the point you already made about the fact that Jesus said, “he who can accept [celibacy], accept it” (or whatever the wording in their Bible), remind them about 7 times that Jesus, God-Incarnate, the Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Eternal High Priest, is the One who said touted celibacy over marriage… and then go to eucharistic adoration for about an hour and devote that entire time to praying that Christ would send His Holy Spirit to them to drown them with the divine grace necessary to see and accept the Truth, the Whole Catholic Truth, and nothing but the Truth. If they think that one Bible verse trumps another Bible verse, thus denying that all are in perfect harmony, not in eternal conflict, then it’s really only God who can change/open their mind…

 

[KnightIHSV]

Thanks again. I have referred my friend to Dave Anders and Scott Hahn who both left Calvinism for the Catholic Church.

I suspect that some of the reticence is cultural. Many Presbyterians are Anglos and they still have issues with a Rome-based Church run (often badly) by Italians. I do not think their major objection is theology any more but is instead the heritage of hating “Rome” and opposing a church based outside of Anglo countries. Presbyterians used to be the Scots-church, very independent of any outside control or influence. Having some Scottish Presbyterian ancestry, I can understand this but it makes a reasoned argument based on Scripture and history very difficult to keep going.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Thanks again. I have referred my friend to Dave Anders and Scott Hahn who both left Calvinism for the Catholic Church.

I suspect that some of the reticence is cultural. Many Presbyterians are Anglos and they still have issues with a Rome-based Church run (often badly) by Italians. I do not think their major objection is theology any more but is instead the heritage of hating “Rome” and opposing a church based outside of Anglo countries. Presbyterians used to be the Scots-church, very independent of any outside control or influence. Having some Scottish Presbyterian ancestry, I can understand this but it makes a reasoned argument based on Scripture and history very difficult to keep going.

Yeah, that makes sense. No matter how much we try to justify our beliefs, we are often much more influenced by the things that have nothing to do with reasoned, logical arguments. That’s why grace is so important; it’s God’s way of breaking up the hard, dry soil of emotional resistance so that the water of logic and truth can get down underneath it to where the seed of our hearts lie waiting to receive it, submit to it, and then grow to what He created them to be…

 

[KnightIHSV]

I must say I have found the exchange sad as (1) my mother’s family were Scottish Presbyterian converts and (2) there is much to admire in Presbyterian rigor and zeal, and the intellectual achievements of Calvinist scholars. I have found that former Calvinists make excellent Catholic apologists. In some respects, it was sad that Calvin broke with Rome. I cannot pretend to be an expert but the Calvinists had a dynamism that the Church could have used. However, nowadays, many Presbyterian churches are as prone to error as any other mainline Christian church and ordain gays/lesbians and otherwise have sold out on orthodox Christianity.

 

[Tiberius1701]

I must say I have found the exchange sad as (1) my mother’s family were Scottish Presbyterian converts and (2) there is much to admire in Presbyterian rigor and zeal, and the intellectual achievements of Calvinist scholars. I have found that former Calvinists make excellent Catholic apologists. In some respects, it was sad that Calvin broke with Rome. I cannot pretend to be an expert but the Calvinists had a dynamism that the Church could have used. However, nowadays, many Presbyterian churches are as prone to error as any other mainline Christian church and ordain gays/lesbians and otherwise have sold out on orthodox Christianity.

I agree. I came from the Christian Reformed Church, not the Presbyterian, but the Calvinist dynamism of a rigorously intellectual approach to the faith is there as well. That dynamism is a great boon to those who are at the same time teachable and humble. However, too often in our modern culture of anti-thought, even those who’ve studied Calvinism at the highest levels are sometimes so awed by its apparent intellectualism that while they internalize the arguments, they seem to do so not by personal reflection and humble analysis, but rather by rote memorization which makes them impervious to the rational analysis of those arguments. It is almost as if the same method of discerning Scripture by its “apparent value” which Calvin taught as the basis of his version of sola Scriptura has led them to see Calvin’s Institutes as being exactly as inspired and infallible as is the Word of God. I suppose that’s only natural, since human nature always tends to have us replacing whatever God-given gift we reject - in this case Sacred Tradition - with something that seems to do the same task but is vastly different and far more hollow than what God intended us to have.

The single most disappointing side-effect of my conversion is the loss of a friend whom I had known for 7 years - we had met at Dordt College and then met again when I went to Calvin College while he was attending Calvin Seminary. When we were both Calvinists, we were the closest of friends, talking about faith, science fiction, and everything else that mattered to us. But when I became Catholic and moved to the far side of the state, we began a debate about the much the same issues as are mentioned in this thread - church governance and authority. He quickly stopped listening and in the end simply said, “I know you’re one of the Elect, therefore some day you will return to Calvinism. I’ll talk to you when you do.” I tried to write to him once after that, but he no longer wants anything to do with me. He simply could not see Scripture from any other perspective than from the most stringent five-point Calvinist tradition. I still miss his friendship and pray for him often. Nevertheless, even **if I lost every friend I ever had as a result of becoming Catholic, I would still submit to the Catholic Church, for in It is Life to the full!

 

[KnightIHSV]

Can I ask you, what Bible do most Presbyterians use? Is it the KJV / RSV?

Also, how does a Calvinist know if he or she is part of the “Elect”?

Thanks again.

Graham

 

[Tiberius1701]

Can I ask you, what Bible do most Presbyterians use? Is it the KJV / RSV?

Also, how does a Calvinist know if he or she is part of the “Elect”?

Thanks again.

Graham

I can’t answer the first question, but the second is… very astute. As an ex-Calvinist, I can’t help but quote Shakespeare to answer that one: “Aye, there’s the rub…” Theologically speaking, one only knows when one dies. Practically speaking, if one is optimistic, one simply assumes and lives in happy ignorance… however, if one is gifted with a meloncholic disposition (or worse, prone to depression), one is plagued with doubt and the doctrine of Predestination is a banner or terror hanging over one’s head.

 

[TimothyH]

He also said that Church government is better when done by Elders in the Presbyterian manner. He said it is more transparent and more involves the lay Christian. He remains of the view that early Christians were Presbyterians, not “ruled from Rome by a Pope”.

I’m reasonably certian that the good Presbyterian is not very familiar with the history of the diaconate in the Catholic Church.

First of all, if the good Presbyterian is correct and the Church had more lay involvment and was governed by elders instead of Bishops, it was because it necessarily had to be. The Church was under the harshest persecution. and one could not just hang up a sign, set up adminstrative functions in the local office park and start issuing memos “From the desk of the Bishop…” To be caught with correspondance on Church matters and other Christian documents, church vessels, or being found in the posession of anything identifiable as Christian meant probable torture and death. The lines of communications between Rome and the local bishopric were not as established as they later were, much of the Church adminnistrative functions were done at the local level, and the Church hierarchy was underground to a great extent. It’s not that this stuff wasn’t in existence, it’s just that most of it was not made visible in the face of persecution.

And that is where deacons came in. Deacons were the eyes and ears of the local bishop. The office of Bishop was often given not because of any great skill in pastoral care or because of any great knowledge of doctrine but often because of administrative skills, what we today would call Organizational Management. Deacons were usually sent out to the surrounding area to report back to the Bishop what was going on in the local Churches and to communicate the Bishop’s wishes back to those Churches. It is a point of fact that some Bishops rose from the ranks of the diaconate without ever having been ordained to the priesthood. This is where the Presbyterian, Baptist and many other non-Catholic religions get the idea of elders, from the deacons of the Catholic Church, the golden age of which was from 200 AD to 500 AD. In so far as as “Elder” refers back to the first elders of the Church called deacons, the Presbyterian is correct. Much of the governance in the early and often persecuted church was done by Elders… AKA Deacons.

It is a shame that the permanent diaconate virtually disappeared from Catholicism from 900 AD until it was reestablished by Pope Paul VI in 1967. But much of the decline in the diaconate as the “Eyes and ears of the Bishops” was not because of a concious decision to do so nor as a result of a deviation from Christ’s teaching about how to organize the Church. As persection declined, secular government support increased, and technology improved, the need for deacons as administrators of the Church was lessened to the point where the diaconate all but disappeared.

Fast forward to 2011 where there are close to 20,000 deacons in the US Catholic Church alone. These do just about everything conceivable in management and governance of local parishes. I’m sure that the good Presbyterian doesn’t realize how close the Catholic Church actually is to the governance model he describes.

-Tim-