How did Bishops resign in the Early Church?

[Paul_Edwards]

Not quite sure I follow your thoughts here. Just as there are three orders of clergy, there are also three tiers of bishops - suffragans, metropolitans and patriarchs (the cardinalate is a personal honour and not a type of bishop), each has its role and its charisma.

I don’t think there are three steps to the sacrament of Holy Orders (maybe I am not understanding you correctly). It is not a necessary progression to move through all three orders. There is only one sacrament and in fact, the technical term to be made bishop is not ordination but consecration.

What I mean is, in the sacrament of Holy orders people are ordinained a deacon a priest and then a Bishop. Once a Bishop you have the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Suffragans, metropolitans and patriarchs are not divenely instituted positions and Bishops are not ordained again if they become them things.

“Those men who receive episcopal ordination receive the FULLNESS of the sacrament of holy orders.”

“It also must be recognized that there are THREE degrees of the sacrament of holy orders: the episcopacy, the presbyterate and the diaconate. In other words: bishop, priest and deacon.”

“Priests do not receive the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders”.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/sacraments/holy-orders/christs-priesthood-continues-today-through-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders/

 

[jimkhong]

What I mean is, in the sacrament of Holy orders people are ordinained a deacon a priest and then a Bishop. Once a Bishop you have the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Suffragans, metropolitans and patriarchs are not divenely instituted positions and Bishops are not ordained again if they become them things.

“Those men who receive episcopal ordination receive the FULLNESS of the sacrament of holy orders.”

“It also must be recognized that there are THREE degrees of the sacrament of holy orders: the episcopacy, the presbyterate and the diaconate. In other words: bishop, priest and deacon.”

“Priests do not receive the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders”.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/sacraments/holy-orders/christs-priesthood-continues-today-through-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders/

Yes, three degrees of the sacrament or three orders of clergy but not three steps - which implies a natural and necessary progression (you probably didn’t mean that but sometimes words can be important as they could end up conveying something unintended). Still there is nothing there implies that this is divinely instituted. There are many things in Canon Law which are not necessarily divine in origin.

I guess one can understand from the historical facts that the office of apostles that Jesus imbued with the priestly ministry eventually split into bishops and the separate order of priests. To my mind, that is secondary to the indisputable fact that Jesus instituted the Catholic priesthood, with the apostles as the first bishops. That would be a fundamental part of Catholic teachings.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Yes, three degrees of the sacrament or three orders of clergy but not three steps - which implies a natural and necessary progression (you probably didn’t mean that but sometimes words can be important as they could end up conveying something unintended). Still there is nothing there implies that this is divinely instituted. There are many things in Canon Law which are not necessarily divine in origin.

I guess one can understand from the historical facts that the office of apostles that Jesus imbued with the priestly ministry eventually split into bishops and the separate order of priests. To my mind, that is secondary to the indisputable fact that Jesus instituted the Catholic priesthood, with the apostles as the first bishops. That would be a fundamental part of Catholic teachings.

Hello, you are a faithful son of the church. Please however think of reading the letters of St Ignatius of Antioch who written in 110 A.D to the Trallians:

“In like manner, let all reverence the DEACONS as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the BISHOP as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the PRESBYTERS as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that ye are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestations of your love, and still have it with me, in your BISHOP, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence”

So there are PredbyterS and DeaconS with an S on the end, but a Bishop with no S, the Bishop. Just like in Catholic diocese today.

He writes also like this in his other letters, which were written 80 years after Christ found the Church. Some might think half way between these writing and the church was found or somewhere the disctincion just “started” but I am one of those who believe it was there since the beginning

But I am still your friend whatever happens please feel free to read any early Fathers however ready for possible future conversations you get into with protestants:

earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html

 

[jimkhong]

Hello, you are a faithful son of the church. Please however think of reading the letters of St Ignatius of Antioch who written in 110 A.D to the Trallians:

“In like manner, let all reverence the DEACONS as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the BISHOP as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the PRESBYTERS as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that ye are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestations of your love, and still have it with me, in your BISHOP, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence”

So there are PredbyterS and DeaconS with an S on the end, but a Bishop with no S, the Bishop. Just like in Catholic diocese today.

He writes also like this in his other letters, which were written 80 years after Christ found the Church. Some might think half way between these writing and the church was found or somewhere the disctincion just “started” but I am one of those who believe it was there since the beginning

But I am still your friend whatever happens please feel free to read any early Fathers however ready for possible future conversations you get into with protestants:

earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html

Hi Paul, I am just someone interesting in the wealth of the stories of the church.

I note your letter of Ignatius and his letter to Polycarp is especially treasured by me. I do have the collection of the Apostolic Fathers and a few apocryphal books to boot. It is intersting to read them all. I often wish that some of the Apostolic Fathers should have been in the NT - esp Didache and 1 Clem.

As I understand it, the scholarship is still out on the presbyters that Ignatius referred to. What kind of liturgical role did they have? We are still not too sure and the documentary evidence are still hard to come by.

To re-hash something you probably already know: originally, there was only one mass in each town every Sunday, with the entire community turning up for the mass under the single bishop. There was no need for a separate order of priests for liturgical purposes. Later as the community grew, it became necessary to have mass stations in the rural areas and this is where priests were commissioned & delegated to celebrate mass in these outlying areas. Thes outlying areas do not become sees as they are not urban areas to support the seat of the bishop. It is no accident that the word pastor and pastoral have the same root.

It is possible that in Asia Minor, where the Church was more developed that most other areas, the order of priests developed earlier than elsewhere but was it developed by the early frirst century? Or were the presbyters assistants to the bishops in the governance of the bishop (like his own Senate) but haven’t yet developed a liturgical role?

If anyone has come across any scholarship on this, I would be happy to hear it.

In any case, the order of deacons was clearly developed after Jesus’ time and was clearly not instituted by Jesus himself - unless you take it as implied.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Hi Paul, I am just someone interesting in the wealth of the stories of the church.

I note your letter of Ignatius and his letter to Polycarp is especially treasured by me. I do have the collection of the Apostolic Fathers and a few apocryphal books to boot. It is intersting to read them all. I often wish that some of the Apostolic Fathers should have been in the NT - esp Didache and 1 Clem.

As I understand it, the scholarship is still out on the presbyters that Ignatius referred to. What kind of liturgical role did they have? We are still not too sure and the documentary evidence are still hard to come by.

To re-hash something you probably already know: originally, there was only one mass in each town every Sunday, with the entire community turning up for the mass under the single bishop. There was no need for a separate order of priests for liturgical purposes. Later as the community grew, it became necessary to have mass stations in the rural areas and this is where priests were commissioned & delegated to celebrate mass in these outlying areas. Thes outlying areas do not become sees as they are not urban areas to support the seat of the bishop. It is no accident that the word pastor and pastoral have the same root.

It is possible that in Asia Minor, where the Church was more developed that most other areas, the order of priests developed earlier than elsewhere but was it developed by the early frirst century? Or were the presbyters assistants to the bishops in the governance of the bishop (like his own Senate) but haven’t yet developed a liturgical role?

If anyone has come across any scholarship on this, I would be happy to hear it.

In any case, the order of deacons was clearly developed after Jesus’ time and was clearly not instituted by Jesus himself - unless you take it as implied.

I am not saying priests had the same role as today, a Bishop decides what roles his priests have. There was still priests plural(plural) and a Bishop(singular) regardless of if they had parishes etc… a bishop divides his diocese as he wishes.

I disagree with you on deacons, I think the 12 apostles were the
First Deacons Priests and Bishops as the greater includes the lesser and then that they ordained some as deacons and some as priests who remain deacons and some as bishops who remain deacons and priests.

Regardless of what any theologians say I believe the Church:

1593 Since the beginning, the ordained ministry has been conferred and exercised in three degrees: that of bishops, that of presbyters, and that of deacons. The ministries conferred by ordination are irreplaceable for the organic structure of the Church: without the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, one cannot speak of the Church (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Trall. 3,1).

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm

 

[jimkhong]

I think the 12 apostles were the
Deacons Priests and Bishops as the latter includes the former and then that they ordained some as deacons and some as priests who remain deacons and some as bishops who remain deacons and priests.

Sorry, Paul but I find that a highly novel interpretation of scriptures. Could you point to the basis for this intepretation?

Regardless of what any theologians say I believe the Church:

1593 Since the beginning, the ordained ministry has been conferred and exercised in three degrees: that of bishops, that of presbyters, and that of deacons. The ministries conferred by ordination are irreplaceable for the organic structure of the Church: without the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, one cannot speak of the Church (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Trall. 3,1).

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm

Ah, I think I see the problem. I would advise that the word ‘beginning’ here does not necessarily mean ‘Day One’, but from ‘the earliest period of the Church’. The reference to Ignatius is also clearly not Day One. We use the term ‘primitive church’ sometimes to describe the period of the beginning which is the formative period of the Church. Depending on what is being discussed s being formed, it could stretch to 600AD.

You may want to refer to a scholar near you who is sanctioned by the Church to teach - they can probably explain to you better than I can.

I think it is important that we recognise scholarship by those who are trained in it. There tends to be a consensus among scholars for most issues (unfortunately it is the disagreements that get the attention in the media) and most of these scholars are santioned by the Church as they teach in the seminaries & Catholic universities. Sometimes we (myself included) misunderstand what they mean or what the Church’s opinion is and we (myself included) get ourselves confused. The facts remain and if we choose to conclude without the facts, we can (and sometimes it may be appropriate to do so) but we must be clear we are concluding without support of the facts.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

I think it’s obvious what it means by beginning