How to Organize the Early Church

[JRKH]

There have been a number of threads here discussing and debating the orgainzation and authority of the Early Church. This has led me to begin
working on a paper the premise of which is how the Church developed organizationally in the first centuries. (Before the canonization of the Bible)
To Everyone: Catholic and Protestant, Please review the info below and give me your feedback on it.

Note on development dates:
The Term PC stands for Pentecost and is used simply for clarifying the timeline in the development of the early Church. Thus PC+15 would mean 15 years after Pentecost. This is done to give a timeline that is easier to imagine.
For example if you assume you were born on Pentecost and your parents converted that same day, you would be about 17 years old before the very first NT letter would be written.

PC+0

1. Gospel is spread orally from Jerusalem out into the wider world.
2. As Churches were established, men were appointed by the Apostles to govern and teach that which the Apostles had taught them.
   Note that this was all done Orally
   PC+17
3. Very early on there was seen a need for written testimony, and not just oral teachings so letters addressing specific issues, or persons were written by the Apostles to various Churches. The earliest of these are dated around 50 AD, which is nearly 20 years After Jesus ascension.
4. These letters make known that there was error being taught by some and the Truth must be defended against these heresies.
5. The Apostles begin to die, and the Church becomes too large for the Apostles and their successors to adequately cover. False teachings continue to be a problem
   PC+32
6. The First of the “Memoirs of the Apostles” is recorded. This is the Gospel of Mark. This is the only Gospel recorded for the next 15 years.
   PC+67
7. The last of the Apostles dies. All of the New Testament writings are complete by this time.
8. The Church has spread virtually throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. No commonly accepted NT canon exists.

So you can see from the above that, if you were born on Pentecost, in all likelihood you would have not even seen most of the writings that we now associate with the NT canon. So who, if not the Church, taught and protected the Truths of Jesus the Christ.

What Now?

So, at the turn of the second century, we have a Church governed by Bishops; men who were trained and appointed by the Apostles. The Church had the Old Testament books, plus a series of writings by men personally associated by an original Apostle, or by someone claiming to have been associated with them. Church wide these writings numbered into the hundreds but were not universally available. Also at the turn of the second century the Church was faced with a number of heretical teachings and ideas. But now, there are no apostles to turn to for guidance. Our Lord has called them all home.

So what is the Church to do to protect the Truth of Jesus and protect His flock?

What is the Best way to structure the Church to maintain the Truth of Christ?

Ideas?

I’m interested in everything from personal opinion (I’d do this or that) to references in the ECF’s. Just keep the discussion charitable and on topic please.

Peace
James

 

[3bar17]

The answer to your questions would be to involved to post here. An excellent book that covers the time frame you are interested in is: The Bible, the Church, and Authority, by Joseph T. Lienhard

 

[JRKH]

The answer to your questions would be to involved to post here. An excellent book that covers the time frame you are interested in is: The Bible, the Church, and Authority, by Joseph T. Lienhard

Thanks for the Book. I’ll look into it.

Yes I realize this is an involved sort of question - proposal.
What I put together just quickly ran into 6 pages.
I guess what I hope to generate is a demonstration about how logical and “organic” the development of the Church was in those early days.

So often we find ourselves arguing over the role of Peter and the importance of this or that Apostle, Council, or writing. That’s why I want to ask people to look briefly at my outline in the OP and give some though as to just how the Church should have organized itself.
For our Protestant brothers and sisters, if Peter is not the head of the Church and the Roman Catholic model is wrong, perhaps you could enlighten us as to how you think it should have been done?

I do apprecate any (name removed by moderator)ut.
Thanks

Peace
James

 

[Steadfast]

We have a strong tendency to think of second century bishops exactly as we think of twelfth century bishops.

It is likely that, in the second century the office of bishop was one more of prestige, representation and recourse than of “governance” in the sense in which we think of it today. He had more of a presidential role than that of an autocrat.

To answer your questions though, the best way to protect the faith is exactly the way they eventually did it: through a conciliar process where representatives of the churches met in concord to discern the will of God and solemnly and fearfully sought consensus on the same.

 

[3bar17]

We have a strong tendency to think of second century bishops exactly as we think of twelfth century bishops.

It is likely that, in the second century the office of bishop was one more of prestige, representation and recourse than of “governance” in the sense in which we think of it today. He had more of a presidential role than that of an autocrat.

To answer your questions though, the best way to protect the faith is exactly the way they eventually did it: through a conciliar process where representatives of the churches met in concord to discern the will of God and solemnly and fearfully sought consensus on the same.

Actually the second century bishops were more like today’s priests. The church was an organic institution at that time. Baptism emopered anyone to do ministry, those with charismatic gifts used them to build up the growing church. The church was structured more horizontally than it is now. The deacons at that time had more power than the priests, and they were often in charge of the temporal goods of the church and reported directly to the bishop. As the priests began to take the place of the bishops as the number of churches grew the deacons assisted them as well.The hierarcy we see today did not evolve until the 4th century and was modeled on the roman military system, called cursus honorum or a structure of grades, each higher than the previous.

 

[Milliardo]

For our Protestant brothers and sisters, if Peter is not the head of the Church and the Roman Catholic model is wrong, perhaps you could enlighten us as to how you think it should have been done?

I do apprecate any (name removed by moderator)ut.
Thanks

Peace
James

It’s been laid out how the Orthodox Church is now, with autocephalous communities. Universal jurisdiction was unheard of in the early Church. Administration was conferred to the bishop, who was looked upon as the leader of the local Church. The Patriarchs administered several of these communities, but still maintain respect for each other’s jurisdictions. Only later would the novel idea of universal jurisdiction be applied by the Western Church, and that is after the split from the East.

 

[mercygate]

Thanks for the Book. I’ll look into it.

Yes I realize this is an involved sort of question - proposal.
What I put together just quickly ran into 6 pages.
I guess what I hope to generate is a demonstration about how logical and “organic” the development of the Church was in those early days.

So often we find ourselves arguing over the role of Peter and the importance of this or that Apostle, Council, or writing. That’s why I want to ask people to look briefly at my outline in the OP and give some though as to just how the Church should have organized itself.
For our Protestant brothers and sisters, if Peter is not the head of the Church and the Roman Catholic model is wrong, perhaps you could enlighten us as to how you think it should have been done?

I do apprecate any (name removed by moderator)ut.
Thanks

Peace
James

I would add the letter sent back with Paul and Barnabas as recorded in Acts 15. We don’t have that letter, but we DO have the record that it was sent.

 

[Gofer]

snip

You would say that. However, Acts 15 guts your and your church’s assertions completely, for who was it who first said that circumcision was required for no one?

Regardless of how the church developed, what s certain is that Peter was Christ’s vicar.

 

[Milliardo]

You would say that. However, Acts 15 guts your and your church’s assertions completely, for who was it who first said that circumcision was required for no one?

If one would stop at verses 7-12, then that might well be; however, the passage continues on, and it was James, not Peter, who would say thus:

It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. (19-20)

Hhmm…doesn’t seem to be Peter making the decision, but rather James. To bolster even further the Orthodox position on this, the passage would go on thus,

Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. (22)

What can we gather from the passages thus presented? We see, contrary to Catholic teaching, that Peter only spoke up to give his opinion on the matter; he did not make any decision for the whole Apostles or even the whole Church, for that matter. James was the one who made the final decision on the matter, and by assent and agreement with the whole Church, the Apostles and presbyters present went to act on the matter. So it wasn’t at all a supremacy of Peter that we see; far from it, actually. We saw a collegial body coming to a decision and agreeing.

 

[Gofer]

Er, non:

“It is my judgment” — also translatable as “my opinion”. So all this could mean is “I think”. But we know he was the bishop (because Peter/James/John appointed him), and thus the “host”… but this does not negate Peter’s unique leadership role. Also, he’s the leader of the Judaizers.

“therefore” - because of Peter’s words (“Simon has declared”)

“that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God” come from Peter, while " but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood" is from James, whom Paul chooses to ignore in later letters.

Peter and the Pope are not dictators. The evidence from the scripture/tradition/magisterium shows that Peter did not need to hold a patriarchate/bishopric/see to be Christ’s vicar, though he did.

 

[Milliardo]

Er, non:

“It is my judgment” — also translatable as “my opinion”. So all this could mean is “I think”. But we know he was the bishop (because Peter/James/John appointed him), and thus the “host”… but this does not negate Peter’s unique leadership role. Also, he’s the leader of the Judaizers.

Doesn’t change the fact that it was James that ended the whole discussion, not Peter’s. Peter only gave his own opinion; it wasn’t stated what he said was the actual decision (and as already mentioned, James took that up). The tone of verse 19 though does not leave much room for the notion that James was only giving his opinion; indeed, the very tone of how it was made shows he was already making a decision, not merely giving his own opinion on the matter.

 

[Steadfast]

It seems pretty clear that James had that letter written giving voice to the proceedings in a presidential manner.

When he says “It is my judgment” he is saying that he, as presider over the event, sets his approval to what was discovered and concluded.

I don’t see why any Catholic would have a problem with this.

 

[JRKH]

Gofer, Milliardo and Steadfast
As interesting as the above exchange is, you are allowing yourselves to become distracted by a detail and making the same arguments that have been hashed out time and again about this passage. This is distracting to the point of this thread.

As to the specifics of this first council I will point out a couple of things:

1. Note that Paul and Barnabas saw fit to take the issue in Antioch to a central Church authority. That being the Apostles who were at the Church in Jerusalum. There-by fullfilling the command of Jesus to, “Take it to The Church”.

2)“After much discussion, Peter took the Floor…”, He reminds those gathered of a favored position that Our Lord gave him and then makes his position on the issues known. In verse 12 we are told that “At that the whole assembly fell silent”.
This statement by Luke tells me that Peter had put an end to what may well have been some pretty contentious debating. Once Peter spoke “discussion” ended and they went back to listening to Paul and Barnabas telling about the works of God among the Gentiles.
The logical conclusion from this is that Peter, acting as a chairman, had brought an end to some contention in the council and got things back on track.

1. After Paul and Barnabas finished, James stood and made his presentation. This includes the phrase “It is my Judgement”, which seems to be a bone of contention between Roman Catholics and others.
   I think it is important to note that James says it is “His” judgement. Not the judgement of the Church or the council as we can see from what Luke writes in verse 22.
2. “It was resolved by the Apostles and the presbyters in agreement with the whole Jerusalem church…”

Hence we should be able to see that Peter, acting as Chairman kept things on track, James proposed the action that was ultimately accepted by the “Whole…Church”

What does this tell us about the early Structure?

1. That the Church was immediately beset with problems of teaching and authority.
2. That there was a recognition among the Church leaders of the need and desirability for a strong central authority, able to make decisions binding upon the whole Church.
3. Peter was accepted as a person of great authority in council
4. Once a decision was made, those you might still harbor doubts submit their doubts to the authority of the Church.

 

[JRKH]

It’s been laid out how the Orthodox Church is now, with autocephalous communities. Universal jurisdiction was unheard of in the early Church. Administration was conferred to the bishop, who was looked upon as the leader of the local Church. The Patriarchs administered several of these communities, but still maintain respect for each other’s jurisdictions. Only later would the novel idea of universal jurisdiction be applied by the Western Church, and that is after the split from the East.

How do the Patriarchs deal with issues that effect the church as a whole (not just in their sphere) Do they meet? Write?

Peace
James

 

[Milliardo]

As to the specifics of this first council I will point out a couple of things:

1. Note that Paul and Barnabas saw fit to take the issue in Antioch to a central Church authority. That being the Apostles who were at the Church in Jerusalum. There-by fullfilling the command of Jesus to, “Take it to The Church”.

Yes, there is much agreement on this one.

2)“After much discussion, Peter took the Floor…”, He reminds those gathered of a favored position that Our Lord gave him and then makes his position on the issues known. In verse 12 we are told that “At that the whole assembly fell silent”.
This statement by Luke tells me that Peter had put an end to what may well have been some pretty contentious debating. Once Peter spoke “discussion” ended and they went back to listening to Paul and Barnabas telling about the works of God among the Gentiles.

No, this wouldn’t make sense in light of the action of James as well as the agreement reached by the Council afterwards. Peter did not act in any way as the decisive point in the Council, it was James who did it.

The logical conclusion from this is that Peter, acting as a chairman, had brought an end to some contention in the council and got things back on track.

Reading the passage, one could not garner Peter being the chairman of the Council; again, as seen by Steadfast’s assessment, it was James who acted more the presider than Peter.

1. After Paul and Barnabas finished, James stood and made his presentation. This includes the phrase “It is my Judgement”, which seems to be a bone of contention between Roman Catholics and others.
   I think it is important to note that James says it is “His” judgement.

This would be nonsensical as James clearly spoke with authority, not merely voicing his opinion as alleged by Catholic apologists. James making that move, in Catholic notion, would be meaningless, yet it is clear that it carried great weight in making the Council go into action in verse 22.

1. “It was resolved by the Apostles and the presbyters in agreement with the whole Jerusalem church…”

Hence we should be able to see that Peter, acting as Chairman kept things on track, James proposed the action that was ultimately accepted by the “Whole…Church”

Again, no go, as Peter clearly never acted in any way as the presider in the whole affair. One would never get that notion even after much reading and re-reading of the passage.

1. Once a decision was made, those you might still harbor doubts submit their doubts to the authority of the Church.

Actually a very Orthodox notion; the decision rests not on one man alone, but the whole Church decides on a matter of grave importance to the Church.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, there is much agreement on this one.

No, this wouldn’t make sense in light of the action of James as well as the agreement reached by the Council afterwards. Peter did not act in any way as the decisive point in the Council, it was James who did it.

Reading the passage, one could not garner Peter being the chairman of the Council; again, as seen by Steadfast’s assessment, it was James who acted more the presider than Peter.

This would be nonsensical as James clearly spoke with authority, not merely voicing his opinion as alleged by Catholic apologists. James making that move, in Catholic notion, would be meaningless, yet it is clear that it carried great weight in making the Council go into action in verse 22.

Again, no go, as Peter clearly never acted in any way as the presider in the whole affair. One would never get that notion even after much reading and re-reading of the passage.

Actually a very Orthodox notion; the decision rests not on one man alone, but the whole Church decides on a matter of grave importance to the Church.

If you look at the dates of the Jerusalem Council, and compare with Eusebius’ claim that Peter arrived at Rome in 42 A.D., that would mean that Peter had come back to Jerusalem from Rome for this council. If that is the case, then the council would have been considered important enough for Peter to be called to it.

While nobody could claim that the Papacy as it was known in the fifth century had developed at this time, the fact that Peter was AT LEAST considered by Paul to be one of “the pillars” certainly places him in a sine qua non position of leadership at that time.

The consolidation of the Roman See as the unifying Chair for the whole Church would be seen as a necessary playing out of Mt. 16 in light of the jurisdictional and doctrinal struggles in the following 3 centuries.

But IF the calendar is correct, and IF Peter returned to Jerusalem for that early council, the one conclusion that can be drawn from it is that “taking it to the Church” means “not without Peter.”

 

[JRKH]

Yes, there is much agreement on this one.

No, this wouldn’t make sense in light of the action of James as well as the agreement reached by the Council afterwards. Peter did not act in any way as the decisive point in the Council, it was James who did it.

Reading the passage, one could not garner Peter being the chairman of the Council; again, as seen by Steadfast’s assessment, it was James who acted more the presider than Peter.

This would be nonsensical as James clearly spoke with authority, not merely voicing his opinion as alleged by Catholic apologists. James making that move, in Catholic notion, would be meaningless, yet it is clear that it carried great weight in making the Council go into action in verse 22.

Again, no go, as Peter clearly never acted in any way as the presider in the whole affair. One would never get that notion even after much reading and re-reading of the passage.

Actually a very Orthodox notion; the decision rests not on one man alone, but the whole Church decides on a matter of grave importance to the Church.

Milliardo,
I have to go out for awhile but I do want to address this a bit more with you. I’ll get back to it later today. (This morning I hope)

Peace
James

 

[Milliardo]

If you look at the dates of the Jerusalem Council, and compare with Eusebius’ claim that Peter arrived at Rome in 42 A.D., that would mean that Peter had come back to Jerusalem from Rome for this council.

While nobody could claim that the Papacy as it was known in the fifth century had developed at this time, the fact that Peter was AT LEAST considered by Paul to be one of “the pillars” certainly places him in a sine qua non position of leadership at that time.

Paul most certainly must see Peter to be one of the pillars of the Church. That cannot be doubted. However, reading this passage, it does not show us Peter acting in any way in some sort of supremacy. It simply does not bear out in the passage shown.

But IF the calendar is correct, and IF Peter returned to Jerusalem for that early council, the one conclusion that can be drawn from it is that “taking it to the Church” means “not without Peter.”

A funny notion in light of the passage taken; again, it simply does not bear that out except if one would try to force such an interpretation on that passage. No such thing can be discerned there to that effect, either explicitly or implicitly.

 

[mercygate]

Paul most certainly must see Peter to be one of the pillars of the Church. That cannot be doubted. However, reading this passage, it does not show us Peter acting in any way in some sort of supremacy. It simply does not bear out in the passage shown.

I did not claim “supremacy.” I claim only that Peter’s presence as “a pillar” can be considered essential since he would have had to make the trip from Rome to attend.

A funny notion in light of the passage taken; again, it simply does not bear that out except if one would try to force such an interpretation on that passage. No such thing can be discerned there to that effect, either explicitly or implicitly.

I stand by my post. I do not claim that at this point in history there was anything like a full-blown ecclesiology with a developed understanding of Petrine primacy. For that matter, it appears that even the roles of “elders”, “bishops” and “deacons” were still rather blurred. However, as the Church grows, Peter’s prominence in Scripture and the prominence of the See of Rome in the Church begin to cast light upon one another.

 

[swariffin]

No, this wouldn’t make sense in light of the action of James as well as the agreement reached by the Council afterwards. Peter did not act in any way as the decisive point in the Council, it was James who did it.

The James you mentioned was not James the Apostle. It was James the “brother” of Jesus (brother from different mother). Gal 1:18. Peter had respect to the big James, because Big James was the brother of Jesus. Naturally speaking, it is understandable that “a staff” has high respect to “the family of the boss”. Paul also supported Peter, and Paul was upset by the wissy-wossy behavior of Peter (Gal 2:11-21). Paul did that because he believed that Peter should not be afraid of James, and stick to what have been decided by earlier council. The decision to exclude the Gentiles from the requirement of circumsition was from Peter (Act 15:1-33). It was Peter who came with the decision (Act 15:6-11). It was Big James who agreed to Peter as stated in Act 15:13-21.

By the way, as the leader, even for the Pope today, does not mean that everything must be in his sole decision only. The term Magisterium does not mean the Pope sole decision. Big James may come to an idea, but it was the decision of the council headed by Peter would be valid. In this case, Peter and the council agreed to Big James. So, it does not mean that Big James made the decision.