On the Corruption from the Original Non Real Presence Church, to the V century Real Presence Church

[Radical]

A week or so ago Pneuma07 and myself were discussing the Real Presence (RP) and the views of the early church fathers when my life got rather busy. Before I could return and answer Pneuma’s latest salvo of posts, the post count on the thread exceeded 1000…and the thread was closed. So w/o further introduction, I am picking up where we left off. If the title to the thread seems a bit odd, blame Pneuma (it’s a title he suggested )

Your interesting trilemma is making somehow my point. Had RP been unthinkable, any shift towards it would have been hard indeed.

Hard yes, but possibly solved with time. Again, it is a matter of adding to the pedestal of beliefs. I would suggest that it is a natural thing for the devout to find more and more to add to a religious rite or idea…as the devout dwell upon a religious thing it seems to be only a matter of time before they find things to add to it, including actual innovation.

1. I’m simply wondering whether after all it does not look simpler considering there was no programmed destruction of evidences of NRP, and of RP-NRP controversies within the ECFs.

If it was a) an adding to the pedestal among the devout with one person fueling the efforts of another b) resulting in a gradual building (within a generation or two) of the level of presence in the Eucharist then a RP-NRP blow-up would not necessarily result. Further, if one tried to hold to a base religious belief whilst others tried to add to it, those adding to it may not be inclined to challenge the first person b/c they could not help but acknowledge their addition. Meanwhile, the fellow resisting the additions may not be inclined to challenge those adding b/c, to do so, would make one appear to be not granting God his due.

These two combined issues seem to point to no real contrast among eucharistic views within ECFs.

…or, that there wasn’t sufficient clarity for the matter to be brought to a boil…or there was sufficient ambiguity to allow for conciliatory interpretations. I note that you and I can certainly take two very different meanings away from much of what the ECFs wrote.

We could “develop” this statement. … The preliminary question being which credentials the XXI century Christian can boast in order to measure the orthodoxy of the early Fathers

Let me reword your development to focus on the issue. The preliminary question being what evidence the XXI century Christian can produce in order to measure the degree to which the beliefs of the early Fathers corresponded to the beliefs of the apostles. The evidence would be the writings that remain from each group. The procedure would be to compare the content of the writings of the apostles to the content of the writings of the ECFs in question. Obvious differences are apparent. How does one account for the differences? At one extreme one could conclude that all the differences are due to the ECFs adding to and otherwise diverging from the original. At the other extreme one could conclude that all the differences were attributable to either a) unwritten teachings of the apostles that were preserved by the ECFs and then put into writing and/or b) further revelation by the Holy Spirit. It seems that you believe that if one or more ECF added to or diverged from the original deposit in any way the other ECFs would make such a noise that evidence would surely exist. As no evidence of such a conflict exists with respect to the real presence, no such addition could have possibly occurred. It is the “in any way” aspect of that assumption that causes me the greatest difficulty…there are many ways by which additions could be made and I do not see that all must result in a full blown conflict.

This inexhaustible richness of the Sacrament is something that I would categorize as an addition rather than part of the initial deposit.
Then we should understand what “addition” here means: between growth in awareness or exploration of the deposit, and , on the other hand, illicit change by introduction of novelties.

Any addition that is not divinely inspired would be wrong, regardless of whether it is a minor “exploration” or a well-intentioned “novelty”. It all comes down to a absolute need for guidance by the Holy Spirt.

( maybe we are starting too many lines by now )

I am afraid that sowing the seeds for numerous threads is unavoidable with regard to these sorts of issues.

That’s even too true Radical. Many of us ( beginning from myself) are spending 90% or more of the posts debating with christian brothers following a different tradition. I like to hope that all these debates within our christian family can be a useful training for the evangelization of our non christian brothers, that is our common task.

I don’t know about the evangelization bit…my hope is that these debates within our christian family will lead to a greater understanding that will, in turn lead to a greater unity. I seem to flip-flop between optimism and pessimism in this regard.

 

[Radical]

The unavoidable impression is that by postulating NRP in the early Church, you’re claiming a point of contact with an environment where you openly admit that so much is alien to your faith and liturgy experience. If you agree your affinity with ( many important aspects of) the early Church is overall smaller than what you see in the Catholic Church …

I will readily state that the beliefs of the V century ECFs have more in common with current RC beliefs than with mine. That said, the only level of affinity that concerns me is the one with the Church that existed in 35 AD +/- and shortly thereafter. The areas where I differ from RC belief are exactly the areas where I believe the RCC has likely added to or altered the original deposit, such as Petrine Supremacy, RP, the Marion Doctrines, Apostolic Succession, Indulgences etc. (Areas of Disagreement)

 2)   isn’t it a  reasonable  supposition that about RP too,  those early believers were ( or could be)  in line with the Catholic Church  rather than your own faith community ?  Don’t their attitudes towards the Sacrament look substantially different from yours own,  making so doubtful  they had agreement with your faith community precisely on the very nature of the Eucharist itself ?    I trust you have an insightful answer.

I see the study of history and the interpretation of scripture as an exercise in “likelihoods”. One, of course, hopes for guidance from the Holy Spirit. It seems that most denominations claim that their particular view was acheived after much prayer and fasting and through that approach or through some other means they believe their view to be the result of God’s guidance. One cannot prove which group(s) have so benefitted (and to what degree) and so one is left with one’s own conscience and one’s own assessment of what was most likely the case at the start. It strikes me that when we look at the likelihood of a novelty being added to the NRP view to get to a RP view, you (in part) are inclined to believe that such just couldn’t happen w/o a serious conflict (based on your understanding of church history). In contrast, b/c I feel that novelty was introduced in each of the Areas of Disagreement, I do not see it as being so exceptional or irregular that a novelty could be added (to the NRP view to get to a RP view) w/o resulting in a serious conflict.

Again St Justin’s passage fron First Apology, ch. 66…1) My impression is that negating RP here backfires towards the reality of Incarnation. The translations we used are a little different, but IMHO not substantially so ( if necessary we should go back to Greek here).

I think we have a misunderstanding regarding Martyr’s comments on the Eucharist. I understood you to be asking if I agreed with what he wrote…and my answer was to say “yes, but with these clarifications and or amendments”. I wasn’t arguing that my changes would not change Martyr’s meaning.

Any such poor a definition of omnipotence that stops before my “unthinkable” makes Our Lord bound by myself.

I think that it is unthinkable that Jesus could sin. Am I limiting our Lord’s omnipotence or am I right based on what has been revealed to us? Further, when I say that it was unthinkable (for the disciples) to believe that the bread was actually changed into Jesus’s body given that no change was revealed to their senses, I am commenting on the likely perception of the disciples (thinkable vs. unthinkable) and not at all commenting on God’s actual powers.

Some guys would tell us in those times Jesus could not shape a triangle the sum of whose inner corners is more (or less) then 180°. …one could tell that is an inherent unavoidable feature of the definition of “ triangle”.

one alters the understanding of what is a triangle in order to make the impossible become possible. It strikes me that the RCC has altered the definition of body so as to be able to claim a bodily presence.

Please do not confuse concepts which are considered as useful to express somehow the mystery and the faith in the mystery itself. Quantum physics could likely be considered useful with some of its concepts in order to give an idea of the mystery of Trinity. Yet, you’d never say Arius had to be right b/c they could not held to quantum physics in ancient times.

I would not look to quantum physics for any insight into the Trinity…but I guess someone could argue that something might somehow be analogous. Transubstantiation, goes beyond merely giving an idea of how something might somehow be analogous, but rather clarifies how things actually are. It claims that there are things such as substances and accidents and that one can exist w/o the other.

A general question: does acceptability imply understanding ? Cannot I be so open to a revelation to accept it without being able to penetrate its mechanisms ?

I would think one would have to be open in that manner…or God is not much more than us supersized. That said, when we are considering bread and a body we are considering two material things (the area of our familiarity and experience) as opposed to areas where we are unfamiliar and w/o experience.

And while we can torture ourselves with categories such as material-immaterial, can’t it be that before and more essentially than being beyond us, the mystery is beyond such categories as material-immaterial

I would suggest that if it is beyond such categories, then to assert a real bodily presence would be wrong b/c that claim employs such categories…rather, the RCC should simply say that there is a presence that we can not describe and may not fit worldly or material descriptions. The Orthodox use of “mystery” together with a real bodily presence would also be employing inappropriate categories/terms.

 

[Radical]

How do you know he was mistaken ?

That Ignatius was wrong is merely MHO…expressed assertively rather than humbly

The lines *he is in no better position to determine how the church should operate than any pastor in any church today (and perhaps even less so, depending on what scripture was available to him) * are the farthest from my perception of Christianity you’ve ever posted on this his forum.

It surprises me that you feel we are so far apart on this one. Please understand that the first part of the sentence is of vital importance. It read: **If he derives his view of how the church should operate from his understanding and interpretation of the relationship between Jesus and the Father (as an example) and without reference to some apostolic teaching that we do not know about, **then he is in no better position to determine how the church should operate than any pastor in any church today (and perhaps even less so, depending on what scripture was available to him.) Isn’t it that you can agree completely with the theory of that sentence, but that you simply believe that Ignatius was privy to apostolic teaching apart from the NT and on that basis was in a better position than a modern pastor? If not, please elaborate.

I cannot see Ignatius feels any necessity to “justify” his central tenet about the role of bishops. He communicates, preaches it , He extols it. No “proof” is shown, as you accurately noted. That is quite simply and very clearly described and prescribed. We don’t see he expects any doctrinal opposition. We see in general no record of opposition to this so early ecclesial development. Again, evidence was very accurately destroyed

I doubt that there was opposition. I doubt that the apostles mandated a form of Church government beyond what is stated in the NT. The early church found that a monarchial bishop was a practical measure against division. It is easier for a monarch to require obedience than it is for a committee. It is easier to receive unity amongst local churches when dealings are made between individuals than between committees. Although it wasn’t God’s design, ancient Israel requested a king to follow and I suspect that the early church had a similar desire.

And Christendom would remain for 14 centuries totally under the fist of those power -thirsty self-proclaimed successors of the Apostles…. ever since the ones appointed by the Apostles themselves.

If you look at the Didache it advises the addressees to “appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord,…” From that it seems that not all bishops were appointed by apostles or by their successors unless we see successors as being the whole church or as being all those in agreement with the original deposit that the apostles possessed. Further in that regard, I note that Paul summons the elders of Ephesus and refers to them as overseers. Paul never addresses a letter to a single overseer/bishop, or demands obedience to the bishop or suggests that the Eucharist must be under the bishop. The contrast with Ignatius is rather obvious. Regarding those “power -thirsty self-proclaimed successors of the Apostles” I take it that you would agree that “power-thirsty” would be a fair description of a good number of bishops (including a number from Rome). Regarding being “self-proclaimed successors of the Apostles”, when would you say that the ECFs actually started making this claim for themselves?

Who performed so unsuccessfully in teaching that their own disciples started deviating.

Well, Paul’s churches seem to run into problems as soon as he “left the building”. Should we expect that those following after the apostles would somehow do better?

…human nature being what it is, Ignatius was self-serving ( his mind preoccupied with power games ) on the road to martyrdom.

Ignatius seems preoccupied with 3 things: Church unity, false teachings and his approaching martyrdom. It seems that the solution he sees for Church unity is a monarchial bishop…which may be a good practical solution, but doesn’t appear to be the original set-up. It is also self-serving in that it determines as wrong, the action of anyone who challenged his authority. One might note that teaching my children to be respectful of their parents is self-serving (for me), but also the right thing to do. Again, it is a question of whether Ignatius was guided by the Holy Spirit in his advocation of a monarchial bishop…for he goes beyond what we see in the NT.

You seem to believe the Holy Spirit did not protect any generation, even the first post-apostolic one. On the contrary, he specially decided to let this generation go astray.

I am inclined to believe that the Holy Spirit did protect all generations and that RCs, Orthodox and Protestants presently enjoy that protection despite their differences. The message that the Son of God came to earth, was crucified and rose again so that we may be free of our sins and inherit eternal life has always been with the church (being those given the Holy Spirit as a deposit). At times it has been hard to find that message amongst the politics, legalism, disputes, wars etc. but now, with the Word put into so many languages, almost all can directly access it.

 

[Radical]

I hope you are not studying ECFs ( or anything else) mainly in order to find errors in the Catholic Church (or anybody else).

The RCC claims to be the holder of the deposit of faith and justifies that claim by resorting to scripture (using debatable interpretations) and to the tradition of the ECFs. Since the RCC has made such an important claim for itself one cannot help but study those passages in question to determine whether the RCC’s interpretation is likely correct or not and one cannot help but study the ECFs to see if their traditions do, in fact, create an unbroken (and unaltered) chain of doctrine going back to the original deposit. Where variations or development exists one has to determine whether it is likely or not that guidance by the Holy Spirit has played any part in it.

You call those guys, probably the same guys, “Church Fathers” as we do. We consider them spiritual fathers because we acknowledge in them an important and overall positive influence within the Church of which they were first of all…children.
Is it consistent considering them your fathers, if, in your perspective, they kept deviating, even the sub-apostolic ones whom you so reasonably declared to value most in post 77 ?

historical fathers, spiritual brothers.

If, in particular, you are plainly against episcopacy, do you see Ignatius (and those like-minded ), being so manifestly wrong ( at least ) in this central tenet of his, as a spiritual father of yours ?

Not so much. BTW, I am plainly against **monarchial **episcopacy. Many good bishops would have been more interested in the service than in the authority that goes with the office. Many others would have been more interested in the authority than in the service. In either case, anyone that was not desirous of the authority would have been hard pressed to continue in the role. Ignatius seems to presume that the bishop will always be a good one and will rarely err. It would have been interesting to allow Ignatius to see how the office had developed by the 15th century and hear his comments after that revelation.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Simply put, John 6.

 

[pneuma07]

A week or so ago Pneuma07 and myself were discussing the Real Presence (RP) and the views of the early church fathers when my life got rather busy. Before I could return and answer Pneuma’s latest salvo of posts, the post count on the thread exceeded 1000…and the thread was closed. So w/o further introduction, I am picking up where we left off. If the title to the thread seems a bit odd, blame Pneuma (it’s a title he suggested )

.

Hi Radical !

So there is a whole thread about exploring the speculative theory quoted in the title. ( Well, I had suggested a thesis work )

Hoping someone is going to join us, I’d propose a methodology a little bit different from a formally point-by-point dialogue. We can see that leads to many potential lines, and it does not always make it sure that nothing gets lost.
So I’m going to present a brief sequence of observations about the topic and your presentation. Tell me whether I’m unfortunately going to disregard essential parts of your exposition.

I’d guess we are partially off topic from the beginning, since alongside the strict proposal, so wide and basic in itself, a look at the more general issue of development versus deposit has come out, maybe unavoidably. That could become the object of an annex, or a second part of my present contribution.

First let me say that my wife got a trivial accident which she could not escape without injury.
The recovery is going to take, hopefully, a couple of months.
Anybody’s prayers are welcome.

Contribution to a first assessment of the theory

When different versions of an ancient text are found in two manuscripts, among the rules which are used to choose which is likely to be faithful to the original is the so called “lectio difficilior”, or the more difficult reading, ie the more peculiar or unusual. In other words, the version which looks more “normal” ( in meaning or style) is generally considered the changed one. That is acknowledged as a general trend.

That strongly speaks IMHO for an original Real Presence understanding, into which someone would not leap in any century, preferring the more acceptable or managable symbolic understanding. If I am taught “this bread is bread”, that is easy, it is fitting with my categories, with the general non Christian social or intellectual environment, it is “normal” in a word, and I won’t go to invent and spread the “unbelievable” proposal " this bread is Him".

Since we’re not in the Upper Room with Jesus, having lived alongside Him, for us it is “obvious” that a bread is bread. Just everything points for us to that. But for Apostolic witness and a teaching which is passed to the present generation as it was to St. Justin’s.
New believers must have been struck in IV or V century as in XX or XXI or in the II.The same reasons which play into unacceptability for the first generations, do play more or less for any other, including ours and probably the future ones. No need to underline molecular compositions and so on.

Let us not build on the supposition that people are that different from ourselves, and they do not live somehow those struggles with the mystery you can describe so well.
We’re speaking about “hard saying” here. That’s it.

You propose RP could be a subtle temptation, a will to glorify God by adding something in this matter to His original message. I guess building unnecessary hurdles to the faith would not only be contrary to the spirit of that Revelation which Church leaders had to preach and preserve, but contrary to a self-serving approach as well.
If I want audience, flock, followers, my temptation will likely be the opposite one: making things easier. You know this charge is often present in protestant brothers: “the Church leadership would compromise in IV century, and accepted pagan elements”, in order to conquer the masses and a power position for itself. We know, with Chesterton, that the Church is object of any sort of charge, one of them being often the opposite of another one. It is precisely leaving the* paradosis* about RP for any form of NRP, that can mean precisely compromising with secular mindsets, with immediate perceptions.

Consider please another point here. We’re speaking of the very same Church which rejected as apocriphal early Christian literature embellishing the Lord’s life from childhood to Resurrection. So, we do know they precisely could and would resist the temptation to tell more than what was deemed necessary and true.
Against this evidence, shall we bet that precisely RP was in particular chosen ( or just came up) to glorify the Lord, in spite of being so alien a thing to our minds and senses as to have been so obviously ruled out even as a mere possibility by the Apostles themselves in the Upper Room and thereafter, per your proposal ?

I’m offering a counter-example. We do have Zwyngli. He was certainly able in preaching or debating, no question here. But, I mean…. after a millennium or so of RP teaching, NRP was almost immediately accepted in Zurich. Why ?
In a few years, not centuries or generations, whole communities would turn strongly NRP, not only in Zurich, but in other parts of Switzerland and soon in other parts of Europe. An extraordinary success story. That is history, and not theoretical speculation.
NRP is thus shown to be the easier way by history too.

TBC

 

[pneuma07]

continuing

Looking again at the theory more directly:

a) We have that an NRP understanding was obvious for the Apostles within and after the overall performance by Jesus. The theory needs this point, considering the tales of the Institution. I cannot see how this point gets fixed. That speaks IMHO against the exceptionality of the experience of he Twelve alongside the Word made flesh.

b) We have a highly speculative theory, built without producing ancient passages where the supposed novelty of RP is bashed, or something like that.
The incremental nature of the paradigm shift has been proposed in order to control this absence. Now that could be somehow plausible if we assumed a more or less uniform path. That is, a first small step towards RP is somehow reached and uncontroversially shared by everyone everywhere, then a second step is proposed and the same pattern repeated… In four or five steps we have an RP Christianity without any conflict anywhere. The coexistence of authors/leaders more then one step from each other appears ruled out.

Let’s remember now “our” great Augustine. If you remain of the opinion he was ( more or less) NRP well into the V century, then we have a different scenario. According to the title , the general christian environment was by then RP, I mean (even) according to the proposed theory. We have a bishop, a great thinker, a prolific author, who in his 5 million or so recorded words ( where did I read that number ? ) never engaged in even friendly controversies with a colleague of his, be he his revered mentor Ambrose or any other. O r vice versa. At this point it becomes apparent the theory has to deal with the coexistence of supposed NRP leaders with fully RP ones, and the construction imagined to carefully avoid the )coexistence of distant views does not stand.

c)
I cannot imagine a period of Church history when everyone would make statements such as “is, becomes, receives the body of the Lord”, meaning different things from each other. And nobody perceives this odd situation, nobody calls a check.
Just an “anything goes Church”, which is so far from the image of so many (too many ?) disputations in ancient Christianity.
She even uses this very language in the Nicea Council, precisely in a period when (after the OP theory ) we should expect a high degree of this remarkable sort of confusion. . Can we really imagine a Council ignoring the existence of such an ambiguity as proposed by the theory, and not caring about that, just b/c of other issues, and even feeding it, by officially using those very confused expressions ?

 

[pneuma07]

I am still struggling with the belief according to which the leadership of the first post-apostolic generation began leading the church astray, namely by implementing the monarchical episcopacy. ( Consider that if you do not accept that bishops are necessary in order to have a valid Eucharist, your opposition to Ignatius is not only on the monarchical aspect. Bishops are in this view, after the Apostles, the subjects of Jesus’ “touto poeite”, you cannot poiein that apart, without bishops ).

Those people were “only” the most suitable to spread and defend Jesus’ message ( according to the Apostles who selected them). Maybe they were not suitable enough. But that means nobody was.

So, while admitting its theoretical possibility, I wonder how I can find hard evidence of them starting deviating, enough to accept it.

First of all, I could claim that I am guided by the Holy Spirit about that, as many brothers in Christ do. But, as impressive as this could sound, I doubt that it would be persuasive as well for anybody else, unless I can give signs of this special inspiration of mine. And, even for myself, it would be persuasive only if I could know that - at least concerning this issue - I am, let’s say, more God-breathed than those people who had been chosen by those sent by Jesus. Could I ever bet on that ? The Holy Spirit does not protect me from personally embracing error in faith and morals. Clearly, individual believers are subject to error. As such, on my own, I am indeed susceptible to error and to be led away from all truth. So, regarding the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church, there must be one more essential element, some objective and living source of clarifying what is true.

Next, I consider the New Testament. Then I could claim that, for the little we can get about this issue there, the apparent picture of a probable lack of distinction between the roles of episkopoi and presbyters around, say, 60 AD has to be interpreted as having
a permanent and absolutely normative value. What I have here is my interpretation plus the interpretations of a number of learned theologians who studied Scripture.
The other side of the scale has what ? Let’s forget another, likely larger, “number of learned theologians who studied Scripture”. That would lead nowhere. The extraordinary thing, is that those people I am judging using my interpretation of the NT, could not read the NT as we do, as you rightly observed.
For the simple reason, that they were precisely the ones who started collecting and proposing those fresh books, and, first of all, accepting them as faithful written witnesses to Jesus’ message. The message that leadership had received from the Apostles themselves, in a living transmission.No document from 35 AD to my knowledge. We have to wait AD 50 or so I guess.
No surprise about your believing the Church went astray about the points where you disagree with her. Otherwise, you would not disagree. I see you’re comfortable with manifest disagreements between yourself and the V century Church and I understand this position. I wonder if this comfort can cover earlier disagreements as well ( and how earlier).

Denominations which achieve their view by studying history ( many possibly do not unfortunately ) and interpreting Scripture, study essentially the history of the Catholic Church and interpret the Scripture they received through the Catholic Church. Hence
different discourses are built.
I share with you that the choice among them is not an easy one, if that is what you mean. ( I certainly imagine you quite naturally object to the Catholic Church being there in 35 AD , but I do not know when she was founded in your opinion ).
I hope a full debate about Apostolic Succession can be avoided here. , not being sure about that.

(Individuals in the flock struggling with the deposit ( and the behavioral side) are really no surprise, in any time. That is really a different matter from leadership guiding the Church astray.)

It is precisely the claims by protestant brothers , each of them in the respective areas of his own disagreement with the Catholic Church ( different from yours own eg for lutheran or Church of Christ brothers I suppose), that deviating novelties were introduced, without producing evidence of resistance or controversies that I find interesting.
This way you can meet people stating things went seriously astray since 100 AD, with Ignatius or so, as well as people stating the Church was not so bad until the VI century or so. This fan, which is remarkable in itself, is just a mirror IMHO of one’s denominational or personal orthodoxy.

Bless you Radical.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

If I understand your logic, it’s:

1. There is no Real Presence.
2. Therefore Christ and the Apostles cannot have preached it.
3. Therefore doctrine must have changed.

I prefer something more like:

1. What Christ and the Apostles preached is true.
2. They preached the Real Presence.
3. Therefore we should believe in the Real Presence regardless.
4. But it’s nice the Church Fathers confirm it.

Or even:

1. The Church Fathers were smarter and wiser than me closer historically to Christ and the Apostles.
2. They believed in the Real Presence.
3. Therefore, they are problably right when I disagree with them.
4. Therefore, I should believe in the Real Presence.

 

[prodigal-sun]

After trying to read all that gobbly gook, the only thing that really stands out for me is the fact that even though the ECF,s write in agreement with the Church you want only teachings from the church before 35AD. This is because you presumably surmise that the Catholic Church went into error.

Can you prove any of this, without the use of the Bible of course because that book would also be subject to the church after it fell into error.

Good Luck with that!

 

[Radical]

Hi Pneuma07, welcome aboard my friend!

First let me say that my wife got a trivial accident which she could not escape without injury.
The recovery is going to take, hopefully, a couple of months.
Anybody’s prayers are welcome.

Very sorry to hear about your wife…I’d be honoured to pray for her speedy recovery and for the Lord’s blessing and encouragement for you and yours.

Peace.

 

[NDfan]

I am still struggling with the belief according to which the leadership of the first post-apostolic generation began leading the church astray, namely by implementing the monarchical episcopacy. ( Consider that if you do not accept that bishops are necessary in order to have a valid Eucharist, your opposition to Ignatius is not only on the monarchical aspect. Bishops are in this view, after the Apostles, the subjects of Jesus’ “touto poeite”, you cannot poiein that apart, without bishops ).

Those people were “only” the most suitable to spread and defend Jesus’ message ( according to the Apostles who selected them). Maybe they were not suitable enough. But that means nobody was.

So, while admitting its theoretical possibility, I wonder how I can find hard evidence of them starting deviating, enough to accept it.

Pneuma sorry to impose on your discussion with Radical but I’d like to offer some comments if I may. I’m also praying for your wife

I notice you are referring to Ignatius as a defense for the role of the Bishop. I always see Roman Catholics throw this out as if it somehow exonerates their position. Here are a few key points to bear in mind:

From a strict church history perspective Ignatius was up against the terrible heresy of the gnostics. Where Ignatius was located specifically from a geographic point of view seemed to have the greatest concentration of gnostic influence in the early Christian churches. Marcion who is probably one of the better known gnostics, although his theology differed slightly, started to re-write many of the works of scripture. He did not accept all of the Gospels and what he did like Luke for instance he had already started to re-write so it fit with his theology.

Ignatius discovered that Marcion’s writings were getting into the churches and immediately pushed for a canonized list. He wanted to be able to tell the churches unless you are reading these works you are not reading the true Gospel of Christ. To help combat the conflict being generated by the gnostics, Ignatius wanted to secure a leader within the church that would be responsible for teaching and administering the sacraments. He saw the Bishop as the right person because per Paul’s instructions the Overseer/Bishop was the one responsible for the overall health of the church.

Ignatius used the term Apostolic saying we need people like “us” meaning people who were familiar with Apostolic teachings. He wasn’t referring to Apostolic appointments. His message to the Christian churches in his area was wherever the Bishop is there is the church of Christ, let the multitude follow. That may not be the exact words but it’s close. So if we look at what was happening in this area of the world the best way for Christians to avoid the influence of the gnostics was to follow the Bishop.

But we have no reason to believe these instructions came from John the Apostle who Ignatius may have had contact with. I’m not saying Ignatius was wrong but he does not speak for the entire church. Your comment about the Bishop being the one most qualified to spread the Gospel has no basis whatsoever. If that’s the case then why have Elders/Presbyters? Why would anyone evangelize Christ at all if it’s the sole responsibility of the Bishop? There’s just no evidence at all in any early writings that the Apostles commanded unless you had Apostolic succession you had no valid church. I’ve read other Catholics who say that the folks present at Pentecost had the authority to appoint church leaders. If that’s the case then your Bishop argument falls apart. Additionally its impossible to think every Christian church had a Bishop. Many Christians did not live in the metropolitan areas and could not get to the main church. They therefore worshiped in their houses while sharing dinner together and observing the Lord’s supper. Who was consecrating the bread then?? Certainly not any Bishop.

If we read the book of Acts and the rest of the writings in scripture that occurred after Pentecost we see nothing from Peter, Paul etc. telling us what you are suggesting. No ECF writings communicate this either. Case in point, Peter tells us himself that he is an elder. He never identifies himself as being a Bishop and he apparently was supposed to be speaking from Rome.

PEACE

 

[pneuma07]

Pneuma sorry to impose on your discussion with Radical but I’d like to offer some comments if I may. I’m also praying for your wife

I notice you are referring to Ignatius as a defense for the role of the Bishop. I always see Roman Catholics throw this out as if it somehow exonerates their position. Here are a few key points to bear in mind:
E

Hi NDfan !

  Thanks for your prayers.

About your contribution, let me first underline that Ignatius IMHO does not “exonerate” catholic positions on anything: rather I’d say he shares them

Since marcionism was born in the 140s AD(, that’s to say some 40 years after Ignatius’ death) it appears there is some non sequitur in the related part of the post.

Following the bishop, is “Probably the best way for Christians to avoid “ negative influences in any time.
Well NOT precisely the best one , but still a very good one.
We know that Ignatius, since he was writing to churches led by a bishop, was not inventing episcopacy, not even monarchical episcopacy. He was strongly supporting it.

As for “Your comment about the Bishop being the one most qualified to spread the Gospel has no basis whatsoever” consider these quotations:
*“(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”. *( First Clement, 42).
We learn what the deacons were appointed for from Acts 6 : It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them.”
Therefore you have that bishops were just appointed by the Apostles, proved by the Spirit, to exercise the ministry of the Word (deacons attending mainly to other duties, auxiliary to this one) . I hope this is a sufficient basis.

Of course Ignatius does agree with you that presbyters share with bishops the task of the ministry of the Word and of sanctification ( the bishop is not considered the only minister of Eucharist), provided they are in communion with the bishop.
This explains how it was possible to celebrate Eucharist outside metropolitan areas. In other case the Holy ( that’s to say the consecrated elements) was sent to those who could not attend the Eucharist.

So you have the sub-apostolic Church, through Clement plus Ignatius, witnessing to the apostolic appointment of bishops, to whom very special responsibility was entrusted about the ministry of the Word and the sanctification, in particular the Eucharist.
In other words Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” ( casually, this is what the Catechism teaches , #888) and the bishop is “the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,” especially in the Eucharist which he offers personally or whose offering he assures through the priests, his co-workers. ( Catechism again , #893).

I hope I had been clear about my sharing the view according to which the role of bishops was not as clear during the apostolic generation as it appears to have been in the following one. (Likely because there was no apostolic succession…before apostolic succession.) Sorry if this was not the case.

About ECFs not communicating anything about that, I guess we’re not speaking about the same thing here:shrug: .
Peter was a presbyter, who in writing would not claim who he was beside that, differently from Paul in this.
Maybe we always speak about interpretations, do we ?

I’m afraid Radical’s thread could soon be derailed.

Bless you-

 

[Radical]

Pneuma07, here’s a start. Contribution to a first assessment of the theory

When different versions of an ancient text are found in two manuscripts, among the rules which are used to choose which is likely to be faithful to the original is the so called “lectio difficilior”, or the more difficult reading, ie the more peculiar or unusual. In other words, the version which looks more “normal” ( in meaning or style) is generally considered the changed one…
That strongly speaks IMHO for an original Real Presence understanding, into which someone would not leap in any century, preferring the more acceptable or managable symbolic understanding. If I am taught “this bread is bread”, that is easy, it is fitting with my categories, with the general non Christian social or intellectual environment, it is “normal” in a word, and I won’t go to invent and spread the “unbelievable” proposal " this bread is Him".

You won’t, unless you are sufficiently motivated…and that is my argument. There is something gained by the belief in a RP so as to give motivation. Karl Rahner, if I am reading him correctly, believes that Hellenistic spirituality also served as a fertile field for a RP view.

New believers must have been struck in IV or V century as in XX or XXI or in the II.The same reasons which play into unacceptability for the first generations, do play more or less for any other, including ours and probably the future ones. No need to underline molecular compositions and so on. Let us not build on the supposition that people are that different from ourselves, and they do not live somehow those struggles with the mystery you can describe so well.

I agree that people are essentially the same and again, that is part of my point. What so attracts the EOs and the RCs to the RP today would have done the same earlier. That being said, I do believe that certain world views could make acceptance of the RP easier and some would make it harder. As indicated above Rahner seems to think Hellenistic spirituality contributed and I think that the modern scientific approach would make it harder. Also, certain versions of the RP are easier to accept than others…and as indicated previously, it is my suspicion that the RP view did not start with full blown transubstantiation, but started with something that would be hard to distinguish from a mere spiritual presence.

We’re speaking about “hard saying” here. That’s it.

It is a very, very “hard saying” if understood to be a literal saying involving actual chewing. It is a “hard saying” to reconcile with the long-standing biblical prohibition against eating human flesh.

You propose RP could be a subtle temptation, a will to glorify God by adding something in this matter to His original message. I guess building unnecessary hurdles to the faith would not only be contrary to the spirit of that Revelation which Church leaders had to preach and preserve, but contrary to a self-serving approach as well.

You believe that Augustine was solidly RP, yet he could declare that the requirement to eat Jesus’s flesh was really “enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” Someone with reservations regarding a RP could easily find comfort behind such a figurative comment.

Consider please another point here. We’re speaking of the very same Church which rejected as apocriphal early Christian literature embellishing the Lord’s life from childhood to Resurrection. So, we do know they precisely could and would resist the temptation to tell more than what was deemed necessary and true.

If I show that Bob resisted the temptation to steal a car on Tuesday does that establish that Bob couldn’t have stolen a digital camera on Wednesday? We would need to know more about the factors influencing each occasion to know if one action would reflect upon the likelihood of the other.

I’m offering a counter-example. We do have Zwyngli. He was certainly able in preaching or debating, no question here. But, I mean…. after a millennium or so of RP teaching, NRP was almost immediately accepted in Zurich. Why ?

Good people are attracted to the truth…what can I say?

In a few years, not centuries or generations, whole communities would turn strongly NRP, not only in Zurich, but in other parts of Switzerland and soon in other parts of Europe. An extraordinary success story. That is history, and not theoretical speculation.

You are not quite comparing apples to apples here. First, Zwingli had the task of opposing transubstantiation. The more flesh you put on the bones of a “real bodily presence”, the easier it is to point out its problems and the harder it is to swallow the whole mouthful. The ECFs left a lot unexplained and many weren’t exactly clear on what did explain. I find that I can agree with what many a ECF wrote, but I simply can’t agree with transubstantiation. Second, the ECF leading the church within an often hostile empire received and deserved respect. In contrast, just before Zwingli came along the Roman bishops and popes had done much to call into question what they did and what they taught.

NRP is thus shown to be the easier way by history too.

I would suggest that people and their organizations are complex things. At a certain time under certain circumstances RP would be more appealing than NRP and at another time with a different set of circumstances NRP would be more appealing than RP. For those that presume that the ECFs or Rome could not possibly go astray, a RP is preferred and even required. For those who do not make that presumption, a NRP is often the (far) easier way.

 

[Radical]

I’m afraid Radical’s thread could soon be derailed.

Bless you-

Any derailment resulting from an interesting/intelligent perspective has my full blessing…plus it gives me more time to craft a response.

 

[Radical]

Pneuma07, …something on Monarchical bishops (for a bit of variety):

Part 1

I am still struggling with the belief according to which the leadership of the first post-apostolic generation began leading the church astray, namely by implementing the monarchical episcopacy.

To me it seems fairly obvious that the monarchal bishop was not there at the beginning. Nowhere in the NT do we see any indication of a single overseer (to be absolutely obeyed) running the show.
As indicated before, Acts 20 refers to Paul calling elders from the church at Ephesus and Paul then declares that the Holy Spirit had made them overseers. No single monarchial bishop at Ephesus.

Acts 14 records that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders (or had elders elected) in each of a number of churches. It appears that they weren’t appointing single bishops.

Philippians 1:1 refers to overseers at Philippi. No single monarchial bishop at Phillippi.

Titus 1 speaks of appointing elders in every town. No single overseer where Titus went.

The Didache tells the believers to appoint for themselves bishops/overseers and deacons worthy of the Lord. Appointment from below seems to be an early practice.

1st Clement is not presented as the work of a monarchical overseer telling another church how to conduct itself. Further, paragraph 44 recognizes the consent of the whole church is involved in the appointment of a bishop (which seems to be synonymous with presbyter). That paragraph also mentions the removal of people from their office (as opposed to the removal of a monarchical bishop). It appears that there was no single monarchial bishop at Corinth either.

To me it is not a question of whether Ignatius was elevating/had elevated the office of the bishop to a new, much higher level, but it is a question of why and how much.

( Consider that if you do not accept that bishops are necessary in order to have a valid Eucharist, your opposition to Ignatius is not only on the monarchical aspect. Bishops are in this view, after the Apostles, the subjects of Jesus’ “touto poeite”, you cannot poiein that apart, without bishops ).

Those people were “only” the most suitable to spread and defend Jesus’ message ( according to the Apostles who selected them). Maybe they were not suitable enough. But that means nobody was.

Exactly, nobody is suitable without guidance from the Holy Spirit…and giving someone an office isn’t giving someone the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Everyone in the church benefits from the Holy Spirit and serves a role in fulfilling the church’s purpose. Paul wrote: * Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts.*
Please note that overseers aren’t named. No doubt some would be prophets or teachers, but it is not as if the second and third positions were somehow restricted to overseers. In Paul’s church prophets and the congregation played a major role in presenting the Message. As per the Bereans, the people as a whole were to examine and evaluate (as legitimate or not) what they were taught by an apostle…which would seem to mean that an overseer’s teaching would be subject to even greater review by the congregation. Paul instructs " When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation…If anyone speaks in a tongue, two–or at the most three–should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged." Here again, everyone (except women, it would seem) was involved in speaking and evaluating what was said. It isn’t a matter of where the bishop is, there is the church. Rather it is a matter of all Christians possessing the Holy Spirit and making them part of a unified church…unified through the same, one Spirit. In contrast, it would seem that Ignatius seeks unity through obedience to a single bishop.
I might add that, yes (as stated in Titus 1) the overseer was charged with holding and defending sound doctrine, but I would suggest that he was not alone in that task…originally he had other overseers and a congregation standing with him. The church described in the NT seems a very much more democratic institution than the one advocated by Ignatius.

 

[Radical]

First of all, I could claim that I am guided by the Holy Spirit about that, as many brothers in Christ do. But, as impressive as this could sound, I doubt that it would be persuasive as well for anybody else, unless I can give signs of this special inspiration of mine. … So, regarding the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church, there must be one more essential element, some objective and living source of clarifying what is true.

Must? I don’t see how the must “follows”. Why “must” God have worked according to your requirements here? That being said, originally the Holy Spirit acting within the entire congregation served as the means of determining “what is true” (from Acts 17 and 1 Cor 14 as stated above) with the overseers leading.
Further, (IMHO) that which the Holy Spirit protected from corruption was the original deposit of faith which Irenaeus (at Heresies 1.10) describes as:
The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith:
[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.
The creeds that were developed to relay and preserve the original deposit do not possess those things that I see to be variations and additions…same, of course with the NT.

No surprise about your believing the Church went astray about the points where you disagree with her. Otherwise, you would not disagree.

exactly

I see you’re comfortable with manifest disagreements between yourself and the V century Church and I understand this position. I wonder if this comfort can cover earlier disagreements as well ( and how earlier).

As early as anything after the NT. I have no doubt whatsoever that the RCC leadership was in serious error at 1500 AD. From there it is only logical to ask, “If a major portion of the church was in error at 1500 AD, why would I presume that earlier leaders would somehow be free from error?”

I share with you that the choice among them is not an easy one, if that is what you mean. ( I certainly imagine you quite naturally object to the Catholic Church being there in 35 AD , but I do not know when she was founded in your opinion ).

You are right to think that I would distinguish between the church of 35 AD and the catholic church of 400 AD and then again between the RC church of 1500 AD. I won’t use the word “founded” with regard to the RCC. Its history is one of evolution (or development if you prefer) as it gradually took on its current form.

I hope a full debate about Apostolic Succession can be avoided here. , not being sure about that.

I share your hope.

It is precisely the claims by protestant brothers , each of them in the respective areas of his own disagreement with the Catholic Church ( different from yours own eg for lutheran or Church of Christ brothers I suppose), that deviating novelties were introduced, without producing evidence of resistance or controversies that I find interesting.

The silence that is of greater concern to me, is the silence one finds in the NT and in the creeds and in the apostolic fathers with regard to the Areas of Disagreement. Except for a very few (questionable) exceptions in the apostolic fathers, these sources are void of any express support for doctrine that the RCC claims is of vital importance. Given the purposes of the NT gospels and epistles, given the purposes for the creeds and given the reasons the writings of the apostolic fathers were produced, that silence is far too significant for me to disregard.

This way you can meet people stating things went seriously astray since 100 AD, with Ignatius or so, as well as people stating the Church was not so bad until the VI century or so. This fan, which is remarkable in itself, is just a mirror IMHO of one’s denominational or personal orthodoxy.

…as you have similarly noted, if it wasn’t a mirror, one wouldn’t hold to it.

Bless you and your good wife Pneuma07

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

m.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit led the apostles into all truth?

Do you believe that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church Jesus started?

Do you believe that the people who followed the apostles, many of whom were brutally killed for their desire to protect the truth, got it wrong?

Do you believe that John, who wrote his gospel many years after the death of Jesus, and who had probably participated in at least dozens by more likely hundreds of Eucharistic feasts, DID NOT understand what he was writing in John 6?

 

[Radical]

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit led the apostles into all truth?

Yes, which is why I accept the NT. One, of course, must use some common sense in understanding the verse in question. For example, all truth (taken too literally) would include the date of Christ’s second coming…I don’t believe that the 12 were led into that truth.

Do you believe that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church Jesus started?

Absolutely. What I don’t believe is that the RCC is the Church Jesus started…it merely contains a good many members of that Church. What I also do not believe is that the phrase “the gates of hell will not prevail against” amounts to a promise to be kept free from doctrinal error. Further, what I also believe is that the RCC has not been kept free from doctrinal error. We could argue about the validity of various RC doctrines, but neither of us would change his mind. I believe that RC error can be demonstrated from its history. As I have noted in another thread (in case you missed it), at the start of 1 Tim 3 Paul sets out the requirements for one to be an overseer of the church. Various bishops of Rome (particularly prior to the reformation) did not come anywhere near to meeting those requirements. A good number were downright terrible. St Francis is credited with saying, “Always proclaim the gospel. If necessary, use words.” I agree with Francis that actions proclaim and teach. By appointing downright terrible popes contrary to the provisions of 1 Tim 3 the Church of Rome taught/proclaimed that it could ignore scripture/God’s commands. By not removing such popes the Church of Rome taught/proclaimed that it could ignore scripture/God’s commands. Therefore, (IMHO) Rome has taught error. I would suggest that it is disingenuous to suggest that verbally teaching error would amount to a breach of the Matt 16:18 promise while such actions on the part of the RCC would not.

Do you believe that the people who followed the apostles, many of whom were brutally killed for their desire to protect the truth, got it wrong?

I believe that they were human, motivated by sinful desires on occasion and not entirely free from error. Do you believe otherwise? What I believe they (with the help of God) managed to preserve is the core deposit of faith (see summary by Irenaeus above).

Do you believe that John, who wrote his gospel many years after the death of Jesus, and who had probably participated in at least dozens by more likely hundreds of Eucharistic feasts, DID NOT understand what he was writing in John 6?

You keep returning to this as if it is some sort of argument. Yes John understood what he wrote (or his assistant wrote) in John 6. The problem, (IMHO) lies entirely with your understanding of John 6. Do you understand that Jesus is actually bread? If not, then you are taking Christ’s words figuratively. Do you understand that anyone actually chews on the flesh of Jesus? If so, then your understanding would make the Eucharist out to be a cannibalistic act. If not, then you are taking Christ’s words figuratively. Do you understand that Jesus flesh is real food? If so, how is it real food without the presence of molecules by which energy and nutrients are provided? If not, then you are taking Christ’s words figuratively. When you yourself take so much of John 6 figuratively why would you think it in any way establishes a non-figurative presence in the Eucharist?

I hope that explains where I am coming from. I fully understand that you will think me very misguided….and I can live with that as comfortably as you can live with knowing that I believe your view to be mistaken. Fortunately we can agree that Jesus is Lord and that the RCC has done many a good thing.

 

[pneuma07]

To me it seems fairly obvious that the monarchal bishop was not there at the beginning. … The church described in the NT seems a very much more democratic institution than the one advocated by Ignatius.

Dear Radical,

 thanks for any prayer for my wife.

I repeat again that IMHO too we don’t see monarchical episcopacy in the NT (I would not enter the question whether we see somewhere any distinction or not between episkopos and presbyteros. It is not part of my perspective here), and agree that the church in Corinth in 1 Clement doesn’t seem a monoepiscopacy. . Not only you and me, but possibly everyone could concur with Henry Cardinal Newman on the monarchical episcopacy we see through Ignatius and supported by him being a development. The question is, as you note, the nature of this development.
And, more specifically, on what source can I claim in 2009 the sub-apostolic Church began going astray ?

The issue of the appointment is to the point.

“Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons” in Didache is to be put into scriptural and historic perspective IMHO.

What model can we see ? The above quoted appointment of the deacons. In Acts 6.

3Brothers, choose seven men from among you ….
they presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

The choice by the group does not make them ordained. As you note, the consent appears involved reading Clement, who also plainly states that bishops and deacons were appointed by the Apostles. The popular involvement appears a sort of nomination. I’m inclined, in this framework, to propose this is the way we should read those words in Didache, the “appoint” being likely short for “play the role you are given in the process of appointment”.

The Apostolic Tradition by Hyppolitus , which has a quite detailed description of appointments within the Church tells us:* 2 He who is ordained as a bishop, being chosen by all the people, must be irreproachable.
2When his name is announced and approved, the people will gather on the Lord’s day with the
council of elders and the bishops who are present. 3With the assent of all, the bishops will place
their hands upon him, with the council of elders standing by, quietly. 4Everyone will keep silent,
praying in their hearts for the descent of the Spirit. 5After this, one of the bishops present, at the
request of all, shall lay his hand upon him who is being ordained bishop, and pray, saying….
3pour out upon him the power which is from you, the princely Spirit,
which you gave to your beloved Sonb Jesus Christ,
which he gave to your holy apostles,
who founded the Church in every place as your sanctuary,
for the glory and endless praise of your name.
4Grant, Father who knows the heart,
to your servant whom you chose for the episcopate, that he will feed your holy flock,
that he will wear your high priesthood without reproach,
serving night and day, incessantly making your face favorable,
and offering the gifts of your holy church;
5in the spirit of high priesthood having the power to forgive sins according to your command;
to assign lots according to your command;
to loose any bond according to the authority which you gave to the apostles;
to please you in mildness and a pure heart, offering to you a sweet scent, *

As for Exactly, nobody is suitable without guidance from the Holy Spirit…and giving someone an office isn’t giving someone the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Everyone in the church benefits from the Holy Spirit and serves a role in fulfilling the church’s purpose

I am completely with you on the second bit, while objecting about the first one, if that is to deny that laying the hands upon the appointed has precisely the meaning
of conferring accordingly the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Aren’t the bishops in “Apostolic tradition” doing precisely this for their new “colleague” ?
If you say every member of the Church receives in his own part the Holy Spirit I am again with you, if we look at *Acts 8. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into[c] the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. * Philipp had baptized them, but the Apostles had to come so that they could receive the HS by having hands with apostolic authority placed upon them. That appears the normal way by which we receive the Holy Spirit.
Who certainly blows wherever he wants.