Does scripture interpret scripture?

[submariner2]

Here is the quote from Fr. Brown that you provided in another thread…I think you have a misreading of what Fr. Brown said:

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.

What Fr. Brown is saying…there was a selection/ordination process already in place…but the practice varied from place to place…until the Church “developed a regularized pattern”…that after the 3rd century…the manner of selection was the same all through out…after the Church promulgated the pattern to be followed by all.

So, how can the Church develop and regularize a pattern if none existed before?

Pablope,

Obviously there was laying on of hands in the NT but it was not ordination. In the 3rd century when formal clergy was introduced they used the laying on of hands as part of the ordination ceremony. Before then there was no formal clergy. In other words - no priests.
This is what the historians teach that I read and I read a number of them. They agree on this point.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Exactly.

Just like the concept of priestly ordination.

You see how you cannot have it both ways? You cannot say one thing being formalized in later centuries (such as the NT) is present in the first century…

without also acknowledging that another thing formalized in later centuries (such as priestly ordination) was present in the first century as well.

PR,

Not a reasonable conclusion. The NT was written in the first century. It did not contain a concept of priestly ordination. Laying on of hands was not ordination but merely a blessing for a mission that we use in my church today. We certianly do not use laying on of hands to ordain priests.Perhaps our bishops do for ordaining pastors but we cannot think that back to the NT when it did not mean the same as today. When priests were introduced with a formal ceremony of ordination in the 3rd century they used laying on of hands in the ceremony. I dont see how this is hard to understand.

If you want to think otherwise that is fiine with me but I am describing what I learn from top Catholic scholars and historians.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

That was how I took it. Not trying to make an argument. I was merely expressing my opinion based on the words I read.

I understand your point of view on the euchairst. I would not interpret the words the same however.

Have a nice day.

Rob

You have posted here an excellent example of why the Church is fragmented today, and why the principle of scripture interpreting scripture falls short.

Basically, without an authority, each man makes up his own mind what the text means to him. Persons who believe God created the Church for a reason will usually go seeking out other Christians who also espouse the same view as his own. If a group has a disagreement about how to interpret the words, they split, and separate.

This is not the method Jesus put in place for the faith, which was to be handed down (paradosis) by those to whom it was entrusted. The Reformers rejected the idea that God was able to preserve His Word where He placed it, so they rejected the paradosis.

 

[guanophore]

pablope,

it is clear that Paul did not stick to those agreements in Jerusalem. He plainly ruled out any regulations as to diet in his letters. Neither did he claim any appointment or ordination for his preaching by anyone. See Gal 1.1.

Regarding my church, our pastors and bishops were called by God as was Paul. They have taken on the tasks of the Apostles as did Paul.

Laying on of hands was not any kind of ordination in the NT. It was simply a blessiing for a mission. There was no separation of laymen and clergy in the NT.

**Bishops of my church ordain the pastors. **
Rob

Why does your church engage in an activity that is not supported by the NT?

It seems very important to you to cling to this view, even if history does not support it. I am not going to pursue it because it is outside the thread topic,but if you wish to really learn the truth, we can open a new thread.

 

[submariner2]

Yes, they would be leaders, but the question is, how did they get to be leaders? Did they take on the task on their own initiative, or was it because of some kind of divine appointment?

I imgine some were appointed or recruited by apostles and some took on the task by themself… We have no knowlege more than that.

Yes, some historians say that, but I don’t know why, nor do I know what they mean by formal clergy. I consider it their opinion. Because in scripture it is evident that there was already a clergy/ laity distinction, even if they weren’t called that. 2Peter 5:1-5 makes this clear. It is one elder writing to fellow elders, telling them to tend the flock of God that is their charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in their charge, but being examples to the flock. Peter says those that are younger be subject to the elders

.

I suspect the difference between the elders and their congregation was no more than a sunday school teacher and his students. An elder was an informal leader in the Jewish gatherings. Probably the same in the christian gatherings. What little evidence we have is they were elected by the congregation. We have no evidence of any clergy as distinct from laity.Most churches were governed by a council of elders. The Monarchical bishop became common in the second century. The Roman church was run by elders until mid second century.

Paul says to Timothy–I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and teaching. The “clergy” had duties in regard to the “laity.” 1Timothy 4:11-16 further explains these duties and how Timothy had hands laid on him.

No evidence for clergy at all. We should all do what Timothy relates. Some of course in the churches then would have more responsibility than others.

1Timothy 3 lays down the offices of overseer, elder and deacon quite formally. And 1Timothy 5:17 says to let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor.
22 says not to be hasty in the laying on of hands.

Yes but not as clergy. They were most likely elected by their congregation and could be unelected.

Clearly an elder/flock separation, or as we say today, clergy/laity. Paul appointed elders, so the initial appointment of elders and overseers was done by an apostle. These overseers in turn, according to scripture, appointed others. This is apostolic succession

.

You are making the presumption that bishops appointed bishops. Scripture does not support that. So you should stick to the facts you know. In fact the Didache plainly shows that the bishop was elected. This was probably common.

The idea is that overseers and elders cannot appoint themselves, but must have been appointed by a previous overseer, and so back to the apostles themselves.

No evidence for that at all. Probably they were elected. Here is a historian to describe the church structure of the second century. The first century was more primitive.

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon page 172.

"The primitive bishops were considered only as the first of their equals,
and the honorable servants of a free people. Whenever the episcopal chair
became vacant by death, a new president was chosen among the presbyters
by the suffrage of the whole congregation, every member of which
supposed himself invested with a sacred and sacerdotal character.

Such was the mild and equal constitution by which the Christians were
governed more than a hundred years after the death of the apostles. Every
society formed within itself a separate and independant republic; and
although the most distant of these little states maintained a mutual as
well as a friendly intercourse of letters and deputations, the Christian
world was not yet connected by any supreme authority
or legislative assembly."

This seems most reasonable to me. No ordinations were involved as far as we know.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Then you have to acknowledge that there was no Trinity prior to the 4th century.

And no NT prior to the 4th century.

Which is it, Rob?

PR,

I cannot imagine where you get that? All church historians know the NT was written in the first century and available from church to church in most cases. I am not sure when the term “Trinity” was invented. The principle of the trinity is taught in the NT.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Why does your church engage in an activity that is not supported by the NT?

It seems very important to you to cling to this view, even if history does not support it. I am not going to pursue it because it is outside the thread topic,but if you wish to really learn the truth, we can open a new thread.

guano,

Ordination of pastors is not forbidden in the NT. It is a reasonable way to assure that the formal leaders of a church are well trained and will protect the basic tenants of that church.

But the churches of the NT were not so organized as that. Such a practice is not shown in the NT or even in the time of the ECFs until the 3rd century.

Some evangelical churches do not ordain because the NT does not teach it. But many of those churches are independent also. I do not think that is a wise manner to organize a church. It may be similar to what happened in NT days but that does not mean we cannot get smart and do things in a more organized way.

I think we have about exausted the topic of ordination but if you want to start a thread I will participate.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

That is precisely what separated them, Rob. They took on the tasks of the Apostles. Their whole focus was on feeding and caring for the flock.

guano,

I never pretended they did not have an important task as one of the shepherds of Christs church… I siimply relay to you the conclusions of historians there was no formal ordination. They were commonly elected.
Many larger churches were run by a council of elders like the Roman church until mid second century. There were some churches run by a Monarchical bishop as Ignatius.

One can usually tell which ones were which. Where there was a bishop Ignatius addressed them by name. Where there was not a bishop, Ignatius addressed to the church as a whole.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

I think we have about exausted the topic of ordination but if you want to start a thread I will participate.

Rob

If this is your position, it would not be much benefit to start a new thread. Your mind is closed to the historical record.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

You asked my opinion of what the phrase means for magesterial statements to be changeable. I gave it.
Rob

Could you please provide the post where I did this?

Thanks.

(Or is this another example of your making a claim that cannot be backed up?)

PR,

That was how I took it. Not trying to make an argument. I was merely expressing my opinion based on the words I read.

Ah, so another concept you’ve proclaimed that cannot be backed up.

As another poster proffered, these comments that you keep making that cannot be substantiated do make your credibility suspect.

Please be aware, Rob, that there are way too many knowledgeable Catholics here on the CAFs for you to offer or argue points that can’t be substantiated.

I suggest you re-arrange your modus operandi so that the points you offer can be backed up.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

That was how I took it. Not trying to make an argument. I was merely expressing my opinion based on the words I read.

I understand your point of view on the euchairst. I would not interpret the words the same however.

Have a nice day.

Rob

That’s like a Muslim saying, “I know that you believe that Paul says that Jesus is God. But that’s not how I interpret his words. He said that Jesus is a man.”

And isn’t it true, Rob, that St. Paul does indeed say that Jesus is a man?

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I think I know what I mean. There were no clergy in the NT as in a separate class of Christians. This is what the historians teach that I read.

I’m not sure what you mean by “a separate class”. That is not part of my Christian lexicon.

Could you explain what you mean?

There were leaders of course but bishops and presbyters and deacons were informal leaders and not clergy as we think of them today. Same terms were used in Jewish gatherings and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. No christians there at all. Those terms were simply borrowed for the informal leaders in the churches.

There was no ordination. Layng on of hands was simply a blessing for a special mission and not an ordination.

Just like there was no Trinity. At least, not as a formal teaching.

It appears to me that the elements of the Trinity were already in the NT.

Rob

Yes. Just as the elements of ordination were already in the NT.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

Not a reasonable conclusion. The NT was written in the first century.

Yes. But there were over 400 early Christian texts that were written in the first century

How did the early Christians know what texts were theopneustos and what weren’t?

It wasn’t formalized until the 4th century. Just like ordination. And the Trinity.

It did not contain a concept of priestly ordination.

It certainly did.

And, even if it didn’t, it doesn’t matter. The first century Christians did ordain their priests, and were doing so through the 3rd century when the process was formalized.

Just like the Trinity was formalized in the 4th century, but was present from the kerygma of Christ.

If you want to think otherwise that is fiine with me but I am describing what I learn from** top Catholic scholars and historians.**

Rob

I think the Muslim would be able to argue the same thing with you, Rob; he would say, “You can say that Christians believe that Jesus is God, but I am going by your very** top** evangelist, Paul, and he says that JESUS IS A MAN.”

And here he would quote your Bible: “the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one MAN, Jesus Christ” and says, “Paul is clearly saying Jesus is a MAN. He does not mention Jesus is God. I am simply going by what your evangelist–a top guy in your faith, is he not–is saying, Rob!”

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I cannot imagine where you get that? All church historians know the NT was written in the first century and available from church to church in most cases.

No one is arguing that the NT was written in the 4th century, or the 15th century, or the 21st century.

It was written, along with 400 other early Christian writings, in the first century, but the Bible wasn’t around until the 4th century.

Just like ordination. It was present in the first century, but it wasn’t formalized until the 4th.

I am not sure when the term “Trinity” was invented. The principle of the trinity is taught in the NT.

Rob

Just like the principle of priestly ordination was taught in the NT.

 

[OLofMtCarmel]

guano,

I never pretended they did not have an important task as one of the shepherds of Christs church… I siimply relay to you the conclusions of historians there was no formal ordination. They were commonly elected.
Many larger churches were run by a council of elders like the Roman church until mid second century. There were some churches run by a Monarchical bishop as Ignatius.

One can usually tell which ones were which. Where there was a bishop Ignatius addressed them by name. Where there was not a bishop, Ignatius addressed to the church as a whole.

Rob

Actually, the correct answer is both, historically speaking. In some cultures someone within the community, usually held in high esteem or authority, was elected/selected for ordination. 1 Timothy 4:14 is a good place to start for seeing ordination. For example. St. Ambrose was the local government leader, like a mayor or whatever the proper term. He was baptized, then confirmed, then ordained deacon then priest then bishop. It did not occur on the same day. I forget the length of time, but it was within a week I believe. It would do you some good to read actual history and not accept the misleading documents that totally assume Catholicism was made up. The truth is disturbing among Protestants that came much later than even Martin Luther and Henry the VIII. I didn’t believe it either until I read scripture in light of Church teaching. Paul warns Timothy to pray over carefully. That praying over is most likely one of the sacraments, confirmation or ordination. It sounds more like ordination. The early Church leaders anointed the sick. The Catholic Church still carries this mission out. Protestants freak out when someone brings this up. Protestants even freak out when you talk about fasting when praying too. As least the brand name of Protestants in my life.

 

[Lochias]

Really??? There is always someone who has to be hostile. I’m quite used to it. I do however appreciate other Catholics who are welcoming and generous. So, I’ve read your response, yet you did not answer the question. Pleases tell me the official Catholic teaching. Sans that, you have an opinion, and from what I can see, in the big picture, catholics can disagree just as much as protestants on these things. Since there is no official teaching, then it seems fair to say, that this is the result of people going too far, leaving the context of the scripture. We all know that there have been catholic groups who have done things such as this. It’s not God’s fault, it’s the fault of people not taking their faith seriously on both sides. To say anything else is simply dishonest. There are factions and divisions within Catholicism. Ever been to the Philippines during the Easter season?

God Bless.

How was I being hostile?

And, I did answer your question. I said that interpretations can vary, as long as one is within the teaching guidelines and subject to the authority of the Church which gave us the Bible in the first place.

God Bless.

 

[GaryTaylor]

the NT was written in the first century

FALSE-----books included in the NT were written in the First century. There is no complete NT-Bible from the first century as we know it from the 4th foward.

and available from church to church in most cases

Show us in History where there is a “complete” NT-Bible from church to church as we know it today thus from the 4th foward.

The process of the canonization of the New Testament was complex and lengthy and in the initial centuries of Early Christianity there was no single New Testament canon that was universally recognized.

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written “180 AD”. A four gospel canon asserted by Irenaeus, who refers to it directly in his work “Against Heresies”,

“It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.”

However, Could we say all of the New Testament “books” were written in the first century? A statement in itself which is also debated btw. The term “Testament” itself wasn’t coined till Tertullian phrased a similar term on 208-AD. Unless you have something of historic value older?

Canonicity is analogous to codification, and implies the existence of separate books. In fact there were hundreds. Very easily the Apocalypse of Peter could have been in place of Revelation by John, Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Andrew etc.

The Didache itself comes under critical view by scholars whom many believe late first to 2nd Century. Some say 40-60 AD. Let alone other Christian sects, gnostic works, apocrypha, etc etc etc. Thomas, Judas, Magdalene etc.

So no there was no NT as was known from 4th foward in the First Century, there were precisely specific books/canons used.

So what is you point since we can conclude there was NO New testament in the first century codified or thus another term…arranged or systematize, this occured in the 4th. Are we in agreement here?

If not then provide your “source”. I’d like to read it. Perhaps I have a distorted view of Biblical History and where this New Testament as was estabished in the 4th is in fact used in the 1st century?

 

[submariner2]

No one is arguing that the NT was written in the 4th century, or the 15th century, or the 21st century.

It was written, along with 400 other early Christian writings, in the first century, but the Bible wasn’t around until the 4th century.

Just like ordination. It was present in the first century, but it wasn’t formalized until the 4th.

Just like the principle of priestly ordination was taught in the NT.

PR,

Plenty of evidence the bible writings were around in the first century and used by christians as scripture for doctrine and practice thereafter even though it was not officially canonized until Trent.

No evidence whatsoever for ordination in the first century or until the 3rd.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

Plenty of evidence the bible writings were around in the first century and used by christians as scripture for doctrine and practice thereafter even though it was not officially canonized until Trent.

Yes, all the writings that were canonized by the Church in 382 AD were written in the first century. But, as has been noted above, there was great controversy over some of the books, and distinction had to be made between those that were to be included in the NT canon, and the other approx. 400 texts floating around claiming to be inspired.

The point is that they were no less Scripture in the years prior to the NT canonization in 382 AD, just as ordination was no less valid prior to it becoming ritualized.

No evidence whatsoever for ordination in the first century or until the 3rd.

Rob

Well, we read history differently, do we not?

YOu are still stuck with the problem that formal ordination was the norm from the third century forward, as it is today. This is the Apostolic faith. It was these formally ordained clergy that canonized the New Testament. So, if they were engaged in a fraud of some kind, then how can you trust your canon? Either their ordination was valid, or it was not. If they invented it themselves, rather than receiving it from Christ, as they claimed, then what confidence can you have that the canon is accurate?

 

[submariner2]

QUOTE=guanophore;9392034]Yes, all the writings that were canonized by the Church in 382 AD were written in the first century. But, as has been noted above, there was great controversy over some of the books, and distinction had to be made between those that were to be included in the NT canon, and the other approx. 400 texts floating around claiming to be inspired.

The point is that they were no less Scripture in the years prior to the NT canonization in 382 AD, just as ordination was no less valid prior to it becoming ritualized.

guano,

There was no canonization in 382. You are referring to local councils where often the Roman church was not even consulted. They were not church wide councils. Scholars know that the bible was not canonized until Trent. I can provide some history quotes for you if you need it but you should be able to verify the accurate history without much trouble.

Well, we read history differently, do we not?

You might reconsider yours.

YOu are still stuck with the problem that formal ordination was the norm from the third century forward, as it is today. This is the Apostolic faith. It was these formally ordained clergy that canonized the New Testament. So, if they were engaged in a fraud of some kind, then how can you trust your canon? Either their ordination was valid, or it was not. If they invented it themselves, rather than receiving it from Christ, as they claimed, then what confidence can you have that the canon is accurate?

With all respect, the bible was not canonized until Trent. I can provide proof in the form of Catholic experts if you need it.

I am not questioning the Catholic churches ordination. My church also ordains pastors.
I am simply explaining to you there were no clergy or ordination of clergy in the NT. Here is Paul Johnson (Catholic) from his book A History of Christianity. It can be purchased cheap and used at amazon.com.

p 44.
“The church was an inversion of normal society. Its leaders exercised their
authority through gifts of the Spirit, not through office. The two noblest
gifts were prophecy and teaching. The apostles set the process in motion,
then the Spirit took over and worked through many people: ‘And God has
appointed in the Church first apostles, then prophets, third teachers, then
workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in the
various kinds of tongues.’ Worship was still completely unorganized and
subject to no special control. There was no specific organization to handle
funds. And there was no distinction between clerical class and the laity.
There were, indeed, presbyters in the Judaic Christian Church, but not in
Paul’s new convert congregaions. The atmosphere in short was that of a
loosely organized revivalist movement. Many from time to time ‘spoke with
tongues’; all expected the parousia soon. Clerical control seemed needless
and inappropriate. And the atmosphere in the Pauline churches was reproduced
elsewhere, in a rapidly spreading movement.”

I can provide many top historian quotes to this effect. No clergy in the NT. No ordination in the NT. Catholic scholars affirm this.

Rob