Early church structure

[momstheword]

I need as much (name removed by moderator)ut as I can get, so please bring it on!
I’m trying to explain and prove that Christianity in the first few centuries was structured as it is today. It ultimately goes back to authority, but I need proof in the form of letters, examples and even reason.
Are there any clear ways to define how the CC did and should have evolved somewhat since early times? Clearly we did not have birth control, cloning and all 1700 years ago, so the papacy has necessarily evolved as civilization has evolved and needs clear guidance from Christ’s Church. I don’t think the pope of the 200’s was as visible as he is today because of technology, but does that mean he wasn’t the final word?
What issues would have been taken up by the bishop of Rome in the earliest centuries?
Why/how has the papacy changed over the centuries?
Thanks,

 

[momstheword]

OH, and any abuses by Protestants/ Protesant leaders might be helpful, too.

 

[mercygate]

Go to the CA home page and look at the library there. Then come back with specific questions. They have a lot of tract-length material that will help you get started.

 

[NotWorthy]

Read Clement’s Letter to Corinth in the late 90’s AD. It addressess the Church in Corinth that had replaced their Apostolicly appointed priests and bishop with priests of their own. Clement wrote a letter to them chastising them for this act. The Corinthians re-instated all the original clergy and read the letter to the public for years. Clement, at the time, was the Bishop of Rome, and he wrote his letter authoritatively.

Read Ignatius’ letters to the seven Churches throught the Roman Empire as he was being led in chains from Antioch to Rome to die at the Roman Coliseum. He will describe in great detail the role of the bishop in each diocese as well as the primacy of Rome.

Also, understand that the first 30 popes were martyred by the Roman authorities. 30 popes were killed!!! It is understandable that for the first 300 years the Pope HAD to keep a very low profile. Yet Pope Victor in the 2nd or early 3rd century exercised the right to ex-communicate the entire Eestern Church over the celebration of Easter on Sunday or following the Jewish Passover.

Ireneaus and Justin Martyr are also good people to study. You’ll find them at here:

 

[gelsbern]

Wow this should be an interesting thread as the group I belong to uses the model of the early church in it’s structure. In my opinion, you are attempting to prove something that never happened. I will expand on that later when I get home from work. I would say you need to look up on the Ignatian model of church governance. Here’s a real quick summary.

All bishops were equals. A bishop was the authority for the flock in his bishopric which was usually a city or sometimes a collection of cities. A bishop had no autority over the congregations or clergy that were under the bishop of another city. The bishop was the pastor of the local church, presbyters (priests) were simply assistants to the bishops since bishops could not be in more than one place at a time. There may have been outlying churches where presbyters were assigned for the day to day church activities but everyone came to the cathedral (where the bishop is) and the bishop was the celebrant for Sunday Mass. Archbishoprics were rare since all bishops were equals, each area had it’s own bishop and there were no bishops over other bishops. Rome was looked to for guidance in regards to any disputes in matters of faith, but all major decisions were made by councils of bishops.

I’ll expand more later, but coffee break is over.

 

[Kotton]

Wow this should be an interesting thread as the group I belong to uses the model of the early church in it’s structure.

You use it as you see it, and in many respects it does follow the structure.

In my opinion, you are attempting to prove something that never happened. I will expand on that later when I get home from work. I would say you need to look up on the Ignatian model of church governance.

All I read in the first posts follows history as regards the Church in it’s structure/governance/developement. No one is going to prove something that didn’t happen.

Here’s a real quick summary.

All bishops were equals. A bishop was the authority for the flock in his bishopric which was usually a city or sometimes a collection of cities. A bishop had no autority over the congregations or clergy that were under the bishop of another city. The bishop was the pastor of the local church, presbyters (priests) were simply assistants to the bishops since bishops could not be in more than one place at a time. There may have been outlying churches where presbyters were assigned for the day to day church activities but everyone came to the cathedral (where the bishop is) and the bishop was the celebrant for Sunday Mass. Archbishoprics were rare since all bishops were equals, each area had it’s own bishop and there were no bishops over other bishops. Rome was looked to for guidance in regards to any disputes in matters of faith, but all major decisions were made by councils of bishops.

I will say that what you present is true in the overall sense, and is what would be expected is a study of history as re: CATHOLIC CHURCH. The same order is present in the Church today, with the exception that the Church today is much larger and therefore the bishop has many churches where only the priest is present. What was presented as the Early Church, is very much what I see in Today’s Church.

Kotton