Early Church Hierarchical Structure

[fisherman_carl]

We see in the NT roles such as bishop, deacon and presbyter (priest) described. However, I wonder where these roles came from? How did the early church come up with its organizational hierarchy? We see Peter choose a replacement for Judas in Acts 1. So right off the bat there is some kind of hierarchical structure for at least the 12 or he wouldn’t have bothered. But do these structures come out of Jewish hierarchies of the time or are these new structures the early church is developing? And then later we see Paul talking about the requirements for a bishop. So I wonder did they pull these hierarchal roles out of a hat or is there some logical procession that occurred to arrive there?

 

[DavidFilmer]

I find that many Catholic apologists on this Forum are quite happy to agree that Church doctrine develops (grows in understanding, but does not fundamentally change) over time, and to defend several such doctrines.

EXCEPT when it comes to Church hierarchy, and the Papacy in particular. Somehow, the very first Christians perfectly and completely understood Matt 16:18 and the Office of Peter. THAT particular Doctrine never needed to grow, because it was perfectly understood from the get-go.

I quote here at length from a Catholic historian who is an expert on the Papacy who dares to claim that doctrine regarding Church hierarchy (including the Office of Peter) actually developed over time (just like every other Church doctrine).

Since at least the fifth century the popes have claimed that their office was directly created by Jesus Christ in his own lifetime: he willed that his Church should be ruled by the Apostles and their successors, and he gave to Peter, as leader of the Apostles, the fullness of spiritual power, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peter came to Rome and there appointed his own successors (the earliest of whose names are recited to this day in the canon of the Mass) – Linus, Cletus, Clement and so on, down to Benedict XVI , now, as they say, gloriously reigning. All that the modern Catholic Church claims for the Pope, his authority in doctrine and his power over institutions, is on this account a simple unfolding of the dominical bestowal of the keys, and of the post-resurrection command to Peter to feed Christ’s sheep. The historical reality, of course, is not quite so simple. The most famous of all ‘papal’ bible texts, Matthew 16: 18 – ‘You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church . . . and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ – is quoted in no Roman source before the time of the Decian persecution in the middle of the third century , and the very roots of what may be called the foundation myth of the papacy are uncomfortably complicated.
The historical reality, of course, is not quite so simple. The most famous of all ‘papal’ bible texts, Matthew 16: 18 – ‘You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church . . . and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ – is quoted in no Roman source before the time of the Decian persecution in the middle of the third century , and the very roots of what may be called the foundation myth of the papacy are uncomfortably complicated. Christianity established itself in Rome some time in the AD 40s. Historians are now by and large agreed that for the best part of the century that followed there was nothing and nobody in Rome who could properly be called a pope. The Church in Rome emerged out of the Roman synagogues. To begin with it resembled them in being not so much a single church as a constellation of independent churches, meeting in the houses of wealthy converts or in hired halls and public baths, without any central ruler or bishop. The Jewish community in Rome had fourteen synagogues in the first century. Unlike the synagogues in other great Mediterranean cities, including Antioch, the Roman synagogues were all independent, with no central organisation or single president, and the earliest churches in Rome almost certainly also functioned independently. Many of them were in any case ethnic or regional churches – groups of Syrian, Greek or Asian residents in Rome, using their own languages, following the customs of the Christian communities back in their home regions. Elsewhere, in the first century, episcopacy emerged as the dominant form of church order – the rule of each church by a single senior presbyter who took the lead in ordinations and the celebration of the Eucharist, and who was the focus of unity for all the Christians of a city or region. But Rome – probably because of the complexity and ethnic and cultural diversity of its Christian communities – was slow to adopt this system. Everything we know about the Church at Rome in its first century or so points to a community that certainly thought of itself as one Church, but which was in practice a loose and at times divided federation of widely different communities, each with their own pastors and their own distinctive and often conflicting liturgies, calendars and customs. But the threat of heresy within this seething diversity, and the need to impose some sort of unity and coherence on the Church, led to the acceptance of the rule of a single Roman bishop. That development was underpinned and validated by a succession narrative that expressed the Roman Christian community’s community’s pride in the life and death among them of the two greatest Apostles. As described in the first chapter of this book, by about AD 160 shrines had been built over the supposed graves of Peter and Paul, and those shrines were being shown to Christian visitors to Rome. By the early third century the bodies of the deceased bishops of Rome were being gathered into a single crypt in what is now the catacomb of San Callisto as a sort of visible family tree stretching back, it was believed, to the apostolic age. This tidying up of the past presented the tangle and confusion of real history as a neat and orderly relay race, with the baton of apostolic authority being handed from one bishop to another. Tidiness was the keynote of this process. The earliest surviving succession list of the Roman bishops was recorded towards the end of the second century by St Irenaeus of Lyon, as part of a general argument that the best way to refute heretics was to refer them to the doctrine that the bishops of the great apostolic churches had received from the Apostles. Irenaeus’s list started with the earliest bishop of Rome, Linus , and went up to the contemporary incumbent, his own friend Pope Eleutherius.

Duffy, Eamon (1996-02-02). Ten Popes Who Shook the World (p. 12). World Bank. Kindle Edition.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We see in the NT roles such as bishop, deacon and presbyter (priest) described. However, I wonder where these roles came from? How did the early church come up with its organizational hierarchy? We see Peter choose a replacement for Judas in Acts 1. So right off the bat there is some kind of hierarchical structure for at least the 12 or he wouldn’t have bothered. But do these structures come out of Jewish hierarchies of the time or are these new structures the early church is developing? And then later we see Paul talking about the requirements for a bishop. So I wonder did they pull these hierarchal roles out of a hat or is there some logical procession that occurred to arrive there?

In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. Aaron, high priest
2. Levites, ministerial priests
3. Israel, a nation of priests

We see a similar structure in the NT.

1. Jesus, Our Eternal High Priest

“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” (Hebrews 4:14)

1. The Ministerial Priesthood

“But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 15:15-16)

1. The Universal Priesthood of All Believers

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9)

 

[fisherman_carl]

I find that many Catholic apologists on this Forum are quite happy to agree that Church doctrine develops (grows in understanding, but does not fundamentally change) over time, and to defend several such doctrines.

EXCEPT when it comes to Church hierarchy, and the Papacy in particular. Somehow, the very first Christians perfectly and completely understood Matt 16:18 and the Office of Peter. THAT particular Doctrine never needed to grow, because it was perfectly understood from the get-go.

I quote here at length from a Catholic historian who is an expert on the Papacy who dares to claim that doctrine regarding Church hierarchy (including the Office of Peter) actually developed over time (just like every other Church doctrine).

I’m surprised he would say no one could be considered pope in the first century since we have the writings of Clement, bishop of Rome in AD 80. Thus there was a bishop in Rome at that time. So one could still argue Apostolic Succession of the bishop of Rome is historical.

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . 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” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).Clement.

 

[Todd977]

Acts 6:1-6 describes the circumstances surrounding the ordination of the first deacons of the Church.

St. Clement of Rome was of the opinion that the early Church hierarchical structure was prophsied in the Old Testament. Writing to the Church at Corinth about A.D. 80, he says,
And thus preaching through counties and cities, they [the Apostles] appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” (St. Clement of Rome, First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 42)

St. Clement seems to cite the Septuagint version of Isaiah 60:17, which says, “I will give thy chiefs in peace, and thy bishops in righteousness.”

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’m surprised he would say no one could be considered pope in the first century since we have the writings of Clement, bishop of Rome in AD 80. Thus there was a bishop in Rome at that time. So one could still argue Apostolic Succession of the bishop of Rome is historical.

He is not claiming that there was no Bishop of Rome (indeed, the first of the ten Popes he discusses is St. Peter). He is saying that the notion of the Papacy (and the office of Pope) was not established during the first Century. To the earliest Christians, the Bishop of Rome was important, but not what we would call a Pope.

Of course, this is what the Greek Orthodox have been saying this all along. It’s a question of whether the Papacy was a development which happened to occur in the West, or was a Western invention of convenience.

And the debate goes on…

 

[Ad_Orientem]

There’s a lot about the early Church we simply don’t know.

Trent defined (Sess. xxiii, *Can. 6) that the three-fold ministry of bishops, priests, and ministers (ministris) is of divine institution, so we know that much.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article Priesthood conjectures that the simple priesthood developed as an offshoot of the episcopacy. You can learn a lot from that article, along with the articles Bishop, Deacons, and Hierarchy of the Early Church. There’s more recent scholarship on this topic, but I don’t know if it adds anything to what we knew a hundred years ago.*

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

He is not claiming that there was no Bishop of Rome (indeed, the first of the ten Popes he discusses is St. Peter). He is saying that the notion of the Papacy (and the office of Pope) was not established during the first Century. To the earliest Christians, the Bishop of Rome was important, but not what we would call a Pope.

Of course, this is what the Greek Orthodox have been saying this all along. It’s a question of whether the Papacy was a development which happened to occur in the West, or was a Western invention of convenience.

And the debate goes on…

Indeed. Shame there is no easy answer.

How would you justify that it was a true and Godly development rather than an invention?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Indeed. Shame there is no easy answer.

How would you justify that it was a true and Godly development rather than an invention?

I would disagree with DavidFilmer in that I believe the papacy was established by Jesus and that this is evident when you consider Peter as:

• the Rock upon which Jesus would build His Church
• the Keeper of the Keys
• the Shepherd of the One Flock
• the Vicar of Christ
• the Royal Steward

That is a pretty powerful combination of images and taken together, I think the seeds of the papacy are unmistakably present. What developed, IMO, is the Church’s understanding of just what the papacy really is. One author describes the development of the papacy as one of style rather than of authority. The authority and universal jurisdiction of the pope was ALWAYS conferred but lay dormant until needed. The style of the papacy, meaning the interaction the pope had with the world, developed as the Church grew in power and wealth (and these are not intrinsically bad things).

 

[steve_b]

I find that many Catholic apologists on this Forum are quite happy to agree that Church doctrine develops (grows in understanding, but does not fundamentally change) over time, and to defend several such doctrines.

EXCEPT when it comes to Church hierarchy, and the Papacy in particular. Somehow, the very first Christians perfectly and completely understood Matt 16:18 and the Office of Peter. THAT particular Doctrine never needed to grow, because it was perfectly understood from the get-go.

I quote here at length from a Catholic historian who is an expert on the Papacy who dares to claim that doctrine regarding Church hierarchy (including the Office of Peter) actually developed over time (just like every other Church doctrine).

excerpt from Duffy’s quote

Tidiness was the keynote of this process. The earliest surviving succession list of the Roman bishops was recorded towards the end of the second century by St Irenaeus of Lyon, as part of a general argument that the best way to refute heretics was to refer them to the doctrine that the bishops of the great apostolic churches had received from the Apostles. Irenaeus’s list started with the earliest bishop of Rome, Linus , and went up to the contemporary incumbent, his own friend Pope Eleutherius.

Without more context from Duffy I can’t tell where he goes from here.

He quotes a part from Irenaeus “Against Heresies” where Irenaeus is using his argument to defend not just apostolic succession, but a particular succession coming from Peter & Paul that makes Rome the primary Church such that all Churches must agree with THIS CHURCH, i.e. the Church of Rome, “on account of it’s preeminent authority”.

Irenaeus is only one man away from an apostle, AND Irenaeus is from Smyrna in the East, in present day Turkey. I mention Irenaeus coming from the East because

• if Irenaeus was from the West writing in this fashion, we know what the Eastern polemicist argument would be against Rome’s authority. Some see everything through East or West glasses depending on which side of the divide one is on… But Irenaeus being from the East, and taught by Bp Polycarp, also an Easterner from Smyrna, who was also a disciple of St John the apostle. So one can easily see where Irenaeus received his teachings
• Since it’s understood at this early date that everyone agree with the bishop of Rome on account of his preeminent authority, we could safely assume where Irenaeus got that information too
• So Irenaeus is stating a fact that all the Church around the world, needs to agree with Rome because that came from Peter and Paul. [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) see paragraphs 2&3

If Irenaeus was teaching something odd or controversial, in his work “Against Heresies” then we should see push back by a contemporary. Author + their work should be available. But we see none of that.

I’m curious, how did Duffy end his thoughts.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I would disagree with DavidFilmer in that I believe the papacy was established by Jesus and that this is evident when you consider Peter as:

• the Rock upon which Jesus would build His Church
• the Keeper of the Keys
• the Shepherd of the One Flock
• the Vicar of Christ
• the Royal Steward

That is a pretty powerful combination of images and taken together, I think the seeds of the papacy are unmistakably present. What developed, IMO, is the Church’s understanding of just what the papacy really is. One author describes the development of the papacy as one of style rather than of authority. The authority and universal jurisdiction of the pope was ALWAYS conferred but lay dormant until needed. The style of the papacy, meaning the interaction the pope had with the world, developed as the Church grew in power and wealth (and these are not intrinsically bad things).

We don’t disagree on anything, my friend! I agree 100% with everything you say.

I also agree with the source I cited (a Catholic theologian and historian) that there was no universal understanding on the importance (singularly or combined) of these images in the first 100 years of the Church’s history.

The Church’s understanding of the Office of the Papacy developed over time (just like every OTHER Church Doctrine). Heck, the early Church did not even understand JESUS (was he all-God? All-man? Half-God/half man? Did he really suffer, or was it just an illusion? Was he some poor schmuck that God pressed into service as a symbol? Was Joseph is biological father? Was Mary his biological mother?) The history of early Christian heresy is largely littered with improper understanding of the nature of Christ.

It took CENTURIES for the Church to come to some understanding of the Hypostatic Union. And this is OUR LORD that we are talking about! The Church did not understand OUR LORD for centuries. And, yet, we are expected to believe that the Church fully understood the the Office of Peter (merely his Vicar) from the Apostolic Age??? Nonsense!

My source does not believe that, and neither do I. I do believe that the Church eventually figured both out, and rightly so.

 

[Nita]

…The Church’s understanding of the Office of the Papacy developed over time (just like every OTHER Church Doctrine). Heck, the early Church did not even understand JESUS (was he all-God? All-man? Half-God/half man? Did he really suffer, or was it just an illusion? Was he some poor schmuck that God pressed into service as a symbol? Was Joseph is biological father? Was Mary his biological mother?) The history of early Christian heresy is largely littered with improper understanding of the nature of Christ.

It took CENTURIES for the Church to come to some understanding of the Hypostatic Union. And this is OUR LORD that we are talking about! The Church did not understand OUR LORD for centuries. And, yet, we are expected to believe that the Church fully understood the the Office of Peter (merely his Vicar) from the Apostolic Age??? Nonsense!
…

I look at the same events and understand them from a different perspective (like 2 people who look at the same glass of water and one sees it as half full while the other sees it as half empty).

I see it as the Church from the beginning understanding the basic truths of our faith; eg. the authority of Peter and his successors, Jesus was God and yet a man, that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, bread truly becomes Jesus’ body, … But when teachings contrary to those basic beliefs arose, it became necessary to more specifically define those truths. More technical language had to be developed or adopted that would exclude the various false/heretical understandings. (eg. hypostatic, transubstantiation, infallibility) The truth was there (and known) from the beginning. But, the language and the clarity with which the truth was expressed did develop and in the process the understanding deepened and grew.

 

[Usagi]

I would go so far as to suggest that the first four popes (as we now list them) were all “bishops in Rome” at the same time.

There’s evidence in the New Testament that the middle order of presbyters (priests) was not always clearly distinguished from the bishops; possibly at first everyone who was of higher clerical status than a deacon was ordained a bishop, and the idea of “one bishop per region with multiple priests under him” seems to have taken time to catch on. Ignatius’ writings show us that some cities had that structure by the end of the first century, but Rome actually seems to have taken longer than some others. (Even the Letter of Clement is written on behalf of “the clergy of Rome” collectively, not on Clement’s personal authority as sole bishop.)

Further, we are told by Church historians that Clement knew Peter and Paul. And there is confusion in the early papal lists about the exact order of Linus, (Ana)Cletus, and Clement. I suggest that there was a period where Peter, Linus, (Ana)Cletus, and Clement all lived in Rome together and may all have held the rank of bishop. Naturally, that is not to deny Peter’s primacy (certainly as an apostle, even if the precise role of the Pope was not yet understood), nor to suggest that there might not have been a passing on of seniority in the traditional order as each man died. But I do think our current list of Popes implies an orderly one-by-one succession where there may have been more of a committee with a chairman operating in first-century Rome.

From the quotations we usually see, it almost seems that the primacy of Rome was understood first, and the personal primacy of the Bishop of Rome as singular successor of the Petrine Office was understood only later. And of course, early on the primacy operated more in the fashion of the U.S. Supreme Court, in that bishops with disagreements would write letters appealing to Rome, rather than Rome reaching down pre-emptively to make rulings (much less approve the appointment of every single other bishop). I can see why the authority that Rome developed in the West makes the Orthodox leery. I believe either John Paul II or Benedict XVI suggested that the earlier “court of appeal” conception of the papacy might be an acceptable compromise if there is ever to be reunion between Catholics and Orthodox.

Usagi

 

[Randy_Carson]

We don’t disagree on anything, my friend! I agree 100% with everything you say.

I also agree with the source I cited (a Catholic theologian and historian) that there was no universal understanding on the importance (singularly or combined) of these images in the first 100 years of the Church’s history.

The Church’s understanding of the Office of the Papacy developed over time (just like every OTHER Church Doctrine). Heck, the early Church did not even understand JESUS (was he all-God? All-man? Half-God/half man? Did he really suffer, or was it just an illusion? Was he some poor schmuck that God pressed into service as a symbol? Was Joseph is biological father? Was Mary his biological mother?) The history of early Christian heresy is largely littered with improper understanding of the nature of Christ.

It took CENTURIES for the Church to come to some understanding of the Hypostatic Union. And this is OUR LORD that we are talking about! The Church did not understand OUR LORD for centuries. And, yet, we are expected to believe that the Church fully understood the the Office of Peter (merely his Vicar) from the Apostolic Age??? Nonsense!

My source does not believe that, and neither do I. I do believe that the Church eventually figured both out, and rightly so.

I think we are in sync. After hundreds of apologetics “battles”, I tend to emphasize the idea that the acorn was present from the beginning and contained everything that would come to be the oak at a later time in anticipation of the arguments about theological novelties.

 

[steve_b]

I think we are in sync. After hundreds of apologetics “battles”, I tend to emphasize the idea that the acorn was present from the beginning and contained everything that would come to be the oak at a later time in anticipation of the arguments about theological novelties.

In the past I’ve used the example of a 2000 year old Redwood tree growing true to the way God designed it.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7144137&postcount=84

 

[Abu]

DavidFilmer #6
a question of whether the Papacy was a development which happened to occur in the West, or was a Western invention of convenience.
And the debate goes on…

Such a “debate” is fatuous with the reality that is evident, as already expressed from Randy Carson (#9).

Jesus specifically entrusts Peter with His authority.
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve also].

Sole authority to Peter:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Precisely.

The apostles were a collegial community, under Peter. “By the end of the apostolic age, the bishops of the Catholic Church began meeting together on a regional basis, and with the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325, this co-operative activity reached worldwide proportions.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 320-321). The teaching of Ecumenical Councils has to be approved by Christ’s Supreme Vicar.

Christ Himself proclaimed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:18). “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

On the Council of Jerusalem, the Council took place on the eve of the dispersion of the apostles on their mission to “all the world.” St. James seems to have been designated as the future Bishop of Jerusalem, but there is no indication that Jerusalem itself had been designated as the “chief See”. At the Council, St. Peter manifested his superior authority by speaking first, giving his decision and declaring that, by means of a vision, the course to be adopted had been indicated to him by God. His verdict did not need the approval of the assembly, and it left no room for discussion. “All held their peace” once Peter had spoken (Acts, 15:11).

The Anglican scholar, Dr. Trevor G. Jalland, in his book The Church and the Papacy, says of the subsequent speech of St. James: “It is the summing up of a chairman, not the verdict of an arbiter. If anything, the narrative suggests that it was the evidence of Peter which turned the scales of decision.” The same Dr. Jalland says of St. Paul’s visit to Jerusalem (Galatians, 1:18) that Paul “admits that he did encounter James . . . but makes it clear that this meeting was purely accidental. Why was it so important to introduce himself to St. Peter? Can we exclude the possibility that St. Paul had some problem of a pastoral or administrative nature, regarding which he had reason to think that St. Peter’s opinion would not only be valuable, but decisive?” At most it can be said, as regards the Council itself, that St. James acted as local host, not as supreme ruler of the whole Church.