Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist

[susanlo]

I beg to differ. And leading Protestant scholars over the last century, whose writings I have posted, agree that in the writings of the early Church, the understanding of the Real Presence was held by all the fathers.

Transubstantiation and “Real Presence” are not exactly the same thing. The term “Real Presence” is challenging because it means many different things to many different people and to many different authors. Wasn’t the term “Real Presence” started in Anglicanism as an objection to transubstantiation?

But which Protestant scholar says that the “Real Presence” was held by all the fathers? I am not familiar with that book. JND Kelly uses the term “realism” which incorporates both the symbolic interpretation and the conversion interpretation, but he doesn’t use the term “Real Presence” as far as I am aware.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Susan, please look up how semi-colons are used. When a semi-colon is used in a sentence, EVERYTHING following the semi-colon in that particular sentence directly relates to what came before the semi-colon. To mix phrases that are meant to be taken as literal, with a phrase that the author intends to be metaphorical or symbolic, in one sentence is considered a major grammatical error. This is fifth grade rules of grammar. But that is what you would have us believe that the well educated Justin did. Here is the passage in question: Notice, one sentence, with a semi-colon. To read the last part as symbolic, whilst reading the rest as literal, does violence to the sentence. It would be grammatically correct to just say the whole sentence is symbolic. But that would mean, in Justin’s eyes, that Jesus did not really become flesh.

Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Justin to use the Latin word for digestion, ***concoctionem, *** rather than a word, transmutatione, which means the changing of one substance to another? Wouldn’t this be another blunder for the educated Justin to make using a word, transmutatione, that most Latin scholars admit was the forerunner to transubstantiation, instead of the common word for digestion, concoctionem?If you remember the commercial, a brain is never shown, but an egg instead. And a change clearly takes place to the egg. Justin does not substitute something else for bread, like a watermelon, and call it bread. Either way, both the commercial, and Justin both say a change takes place. The commercial, by the use of drugs. Justin, by the blessing.

Susan, they are talking to a live audience. One that has been raised to know that what is being referred to is symbolic. In writings by these same communities, there are many times where the authors go out of their way to make clear that no change takes place to the bread and juice.

Justin Martyr was also writing to an audience, one that was raised believing that the bread is actually the flesh of Jesus. You are trying to tell me that Catholics within about one century totally misunderstood what he wrote, while Protestants over 1500 years later understand what he wrote. What do you think the odds are that the Catholic Church, which preserved his writings and his relics all these centuries would somehow misunderstand what he wrote, whilst you got it right? A million to one? A billion to one? But to do this, you have to say that though Justin said this is something, he actually meant something else, even though he never says he actually means something else.

He did, look up the definition of transmutation. Really? I clearly stated that the concept was born of the Greek philosophers, well before Justin’s time. I said the concept that was born well before Justin’s time later became known as transubstantiation, but the concept itself was in existence for centuries before his birth. And I said Justin would have been well acquainted with the concept, as he was well versed in Greek philosophy.I beg to differ. And leading Protestant scholars over the last century, whose writings I have posted, agree that in the writings of the early Church, the understanding of the Real Presence was held by all the fathers.

Quite possibly the very best post i have read on CAF, ever. Good job

 

[SyCarl]

Well Ben, the leading Protestant linguistic experts of the last two centuries admit that the way figurative was used is not how we use figure today. They admit for Augustine and Tertullian figure meant an actual participation in the thing symbolized.

You go too far in assuming that an actual participation in the thing symbolized equates to transubstantiation which describes a particular way in how the participation occurs.

Calvin also believed in an actual participation in the thing symbolized but he rejects transubstantiation.

I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth. Therefore, if it is evident that full communion with Christ goes beyond their description, which is too confined, I will attempt briefly to show how far it extends, before proceeding to speak of the contrary vice of excess. …All then that remains is to break forth in admiration of the mystery, which it is plain that the mind is inadequate to comprehend, or the tongue to express. I will, however, give a summary of my view as I best can, not doubting its truth, and therefore trusting that it will not be disapproved by pious breasts. …That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, **and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, **although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude. … There is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified. I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, **we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say that he holds forth an empty symbol. **Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 17, Paragraphs 7 & 10
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xviii.html

Transubstantiation has led to things like the laity being denied the cup for hundreds of years which I am quite sure those in the early church would have found abhorrent even though they may not say such since they would not have conceived of such an idea.

 

[steve_b]

Hi C,

yes very difficult to bring up jeromes quote ,which is from his commentary on Titus…but here is another site and another quotes
newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm

kudos benhur, you’ve been doing your homework

I think you’ll agree, that Jerome still makes a distinction between offices of bishop, priest and deacon, even if, not in this writing, a distinction specific enough as one might want to see, .

Re: bishop and priest

• Jerome shows a bishop is promoted from priest. And A bishop is still a priest.
• a priest otoh, isn’t always a bishop

excerpt from LETTER 146

"For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon**.** For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?

[snip]

In writing both to Titus and to Timothy the apostle speaks of the ordination of bishops and of deacons, but says not a word of the ordination of presbyters; for the fact is that the word bishops includes presbyters also. Again when a man is promoted it is from a lower place to a higher. Either then a presbyter should be ordained a deacon, from the lesser office, that is, to the more important, to prove that a presbyter is inferior to a deacon; or if on the other hand it is the deacon that is ordained presbyter, this latter should recognize that, although he may be less highly paid than a deacon, he is superior to him in virtue of his priesthood. In fact as if to tell us that the traditions handed down by the apostles were taken by them from the old testament, bishops, presbyters and deacons occupy in the church the same positions as those which were occupied by Aaron, his sons, and the Levites in the temple."

 

[Duane1966]

You go too far in assuming that an actual participation in the thing symbolized equates to transubstantiation which describes a particular way in how the participation occurs.

Calvin also believed in an actual participation in the thing symbolized but he rejects transubstantiation.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 17, Paragraphs 7 & 10
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xviii.html

You need to read what I posted carefully. I never said that particular passage of mine, mentioning how Latin linguistic scholars view the term figure that you are responding to, equates to transubstantiation. I did say it equated to a rejection of trying to view certain ECF’S as possibly having a purely symbolic view of the Eucharist, which the poster I was replying to posited.

Nor have I ever stated even once on these forums that participation in something symbolized equates to transubstantiation. Whether transubstantiation occurs or not, has nothing to do with participation.

I am well aware of the view Calvin holds in his Institutes.

Transubstantiation has led to things like the laity being denied the cup for hundreds of years which I am quite sure those in the early church would have found abhorrent even though they may not say such since they would not have conceived of such an idea.

I am sure the early Church would have had no problem with it. They would have accepted the hierarchies decision as part of the binding and loosing authority given to the Church. Having grown up during a time when it was withheld, and then relaxed, for most Catholics it is no big deal. Nor would it have been for those early Catholics. It is only Protestants who make it a fuss about it.

 

[De_Maria]

I was reading some Protestant arguments against the Real Presence in the Eucharist (trying to find a best argument someone would have for rejecting the doctrine). Nearly all of them were pretty easily refutable.

Ok.

One however I found to be a little confusing, and I’m not quite sure how to answer this. The argument essentially boils down to Christ couldn’t be physically present in the Eurcharist because that would require his physical body to in multiple places at any given moment always.

Ask the fellow if he believes that Jesus is God? If he answers, “yes.” Then remind him.

Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”

If he answers, “no.” Then inform him that we do. Then read Matt 19:26.

This is the exact quoted argument…

Quote:
Orthodox Christianity (not Eastern Orthodox) holds to the “Hypostatic Union” of Christ. This means that we believe that Christ is fully God and fully man.

Correct.

This was most acutely defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Important for our conversation is that Christ had to be fully man to fully redeem us.

Correct.

Christ could not be a mixture of God and man, or he could only represent other mixtures of God and man.

I don’t have a clue what that means. Are there any mixtures of God and man in existence?

He is/was one person with two complete natures.

Correct. Does that mean that He can only represent those persons with two complete natures?

These nature do not intermingle (they are “without confusion”).

Absolutely true.

In other words, his human nature does not infect or corrupt his divine nature.

Correct.

And his divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature.

A divine nature can neither infect nor corrupt anything. By definition, it is a superior state of being.

The Divine Nature is spiritual. The human nature is material. Matter is no obstacle to Spirit. That is why God could become man. Why God can use water to wash away sins. Why Christ could heal human bodies. Why Christ could use mud and other material things to about healing and why the Apostles could use handkerchiefs and such to do the same.

This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature.

Uh…that is precisely backwards. He says so himself. It means, “Communication of Properties.”

Christ’s humanity did not become divinitized.

Yes. It did. After the resurrection. Otherwise, He could not have appeared to be a ghost and walked through walls.

It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations).

No, it didn’t.

The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other.

Lol!

1. Natures don’t communicate. Persons do. In the case of Jesus Christ, both natures make the one Person of Jesus Christ and are therefore under His complete control. And since He is God, that means that the human nature is subordinate to His Divinity.
2. Scripture says:

1 Corinthians 15:45New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

45 So, too, it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being,” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.

Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent.

First. As shown above, that is wrong. The Divine attributes are not mixed with the human attributes. But just as Jesus multiplied the loaves of material bread, God can multiply Christ’s body.

Second. Omnipresence doesn’t mean that God is multiplied throughout the earth. It means that all that exists, exists in God:

Acts 17:28 For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’[a] as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’

If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature.

No clue what he’s talking about there. Our nature has nothing to do with Christ being present in the Holy Eucharist.

Christ must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith.

Not true either. It is false on both counts. Christ did not remain as He was. Nor will we remain as we are. That is easily disproven by Scripture:

1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.

Notice that our bodies will be spiritualized. This can only happen because Christ’s body was so spiritualized, first.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Notice that we will be divinized. We will be like Him.

What does all of this mean? Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein.

Neh. Its all rubbish. All it means is that he doesn’t understand Chalcedon, the Bible, Christology or anything else that matters in this discussion.

Any takers?

I hope that helps.

 

[Duane1966]

Quite possibly the very best post i have read on CAF, ever. Good job

TYVM

 

[MartinJordan]

Quite possibly the very best post i have read on CAF, ever. Good job

Concur!

MJ

 

[Duane1966]

Transubstantiation and “Real Presence” are not exactly the same thing. …

You are right. The way I am using it is the Catholic understanding defined like this:

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine.

Originally the phrase was always stated like this: the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament of the altar.

Wasn’t the term…

It is found for the first time in the writings of a Catholic theologian of the fourteenth century. And you are also correct that it became en vogue by Anglicans looking to sidestep the doctrine of transubstantiation. I should have said this: And leading Protestant scholars over the last century, whose writings I have posted, agree that in the writings of the early Church, all the church fathers held a realist view of the Eucharist.

But which Protestant scholar says that the “Real Presence” was held by all the fathers…

You are right. Kelly says realist, not Real Presence. Kelly does use the term real presence, with the Catholic understanding of it, when talking about St. Cyprian. He mainly uses the term realist. You are wrong about the realist view incorporating symbolic interpretation, unless you mean that symbolic interpretation as always denoting a corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, something that most who hold to the symbolic view don’t do. Kelly: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist,** i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood**” The following is taken from his book Early Christian Doctrines.

we inquire what the sacrifice was supposed to consist in, the Didache for its part provides no clear answer. Justin, however, makes it plain [Dialogue, 41, 3] that the bread and wine themselves were the ‘pure offering’ foretold by Malachi. Even if he holds [ibid., 117, 2] that ‘prayers and thanksgivings’ (eucharistiai) are the only God-pleasing sacrifices, we must remember that he uses [First Apology, 65, 3-5] **the term ‘thanksgiving’ as technically equivalent to ‘the eucharistized bread and wine.’ **The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnesin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood **implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection. **(p. 196-7)

Ignatius roundly declares [Epistle to the Smyrneans, 6, 2] that ‘the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised.’ The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood. [Epistle to the Romans, 7, 3] Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes [Smyrneans, 6 ff.] it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. (p. 197)

Justin actually refers to the change. ‘We do not receive these,’ he writes [First Apology, 66, 2], ‘as common bread or common drink. But just as our Saviour Jesus Christ was made flesh through the Word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food which has been eucharistized by the word of prayer from Him … is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus.’ So Irenaeus teaches [Against Heresies, Book IV, cap. 17, 5; Book IV, cap. 18, 4; Book V, cap. 2, 3] that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood … **Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a change, for he remarks [Heresies, Book IV, cap. 18, 5; cf. Book V, cap. 2, 3]: ‘Just as the bread, which comes from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but eucharist, being composed of two elements, a terrestrial one and a celestial, so our bodies are no longer commonplace when they receive the eucharist, since they have the hope of resurrection to eternity.’ **(p. 198)

Hippolytus speaks [Frag. arab. in Gen. 38, 19] of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes [On Prayer, 19; On Idolatry, 7] the bread as ‘the Lord’s body’ … Cyprian’s attitude is similar … he expatiates [The Lapsed, 25 ff.] on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the real presence literally. (p. 211-2)

**Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms ‘body’ and ‘blood’ may after all be merely symbolical. **Tertullian, for example, refers [Against Marcion, 3, 19; 4, 40] to the bread as ‘a figure’ (figura) of Christ’s body, and once speaks [ibid., 1, 14] of ‘the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.’ Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to the ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized. Again, the verb repraesentare, in Tertullian’s vocabulary, [ibid., 4, 22; On Monogamy, 10] retained its original significance of ‘to make present’ … he is trying, with the aid of the concept of figura, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are now Christ’s body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine. (p. 212)

The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their sacrifice. The writers and liturgies of the period are unanimous in recognizing it as such.

 

[Duane1966]

I don’t think it is so simple to understand what Justin Martyr believed about the Eucharist.

The term ‘transmutation’ is referring to the change occurring with digestion after the elements are consumed and not referring to a change before they are eaten. He does call it flesh and blood, but he doesn’t specify a literal conversion or a symbolic representation.

Susan, I want to revisit this passage of Justin’s one last time, to show you something that you may have missed.

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

The subject is that what we are receiving is uncommon bread. Justin then goes onto list the reasons why this bread is uncommon.

1.) That we receive it in a like manner that Christ received it, and that He was made flesh by the Word of God, and that He had both flesh and blood for our salvation.

Okay, the first thing that makes it uncommon is, we receive it in the like manner of Christ. One must wonder though, if they believe that what they are receiving is just a symbol (the bread) , what is the importance of stressing that Jesus really had flesh and blood at this time? Why even mention that Jesus had flesh and blood if what you are eating is not really Jesus’ flesh and blood?

2.) so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,

Okay, second thing that makes the bread uncommon is, it is blessed by His word.

3.) and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,

If, as you say, this part of the passage is simply talking about normal nourishment and digestion, how would that make the bread uncommon? I will come back to this part.

4.) is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

Yep. That would also make the bread uncommon.

So we have four parts:

1. 
   uncommon
   *]uncommon
   *]common
   *]uncommon
   
   Since you are into retro television, do you remember Sesame Street? The song they teach children that says: one of these things is not like the others?
   
   But lets see what actually makes that part uncommon:
   

   3.) and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,

   Okay, he says when we eat that bread, which he calls Christ’s flesh and blood, our flesh and blood changes.
   
   Radical. Or as I heard a Catholic in training for the priesthood put it:
   

   The phrase “from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished” is sometimes rendered, “in order to nourish and transform our flesh and blood,” and the Greek here (kata metabolen) means something very similar to “metabolize.” So just as with physical food, it becomes part of our bodies, through the spiritual food of the Eucharist, we become part of Christ’s. We eat Him, but rather than us metabolizing Him, He “metabolizes” us.- Joe Heschmeyer

   Now there truly is uncommon bread.

 

[Vonsalza]

Duane,

I’d “high-five” you if I could. Nice presentation.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Duane,

I’d “high-five” you if I could. Nice presentation.

Seriously, he get’s my vote for best Catholic poster on CAF for 2017.

 

[benhur]

Read the link. St. Jerome says something in the letter that clearly shows that he realizes presbyters and bishops are not equal. He admits there is something that bishops can do that presbyters cannot.

Hi D,

Well yes but when does he think this ? All I am saying is that it seems Jerome says at the beginning they were interchangeable, and then changed due to carnal church(divisions I am of Paul you are of Apollos). So of course , later on, bishops are above a presbyter in one function.

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Hi D,

Well yes but when does he think this ? All I am saying is that it seems Jerome says at the beginning they were interchangeable, and then changed due to carnal church(divisions I am of Paul you are of Apollos). So of course , later on, bishops are above a presbyter in one function.

Blessings

benhur,

Given the letter you quote LETTER 146, Jerome said something different than what you are posting. #280,.

 

[benhur]

benhur,

Given the letter you quote LETTER 146, Jerome said something different than what you are posting. #280,.

yes, there are sevearl quotes, letters that deal with the subject i think…the one letter and the commenatry on Titus. They both fit together.

 

[MartinJordan]

yes, there are sevearl quotes, letters that deal with the subject i think…the one letter and the commenatry on Titus. They both fit together.

Benhur, can I ask how are these commentaries important to you? Is it part of your tradition to refer to these Church fathers?

MJ

 

[Duane1966]

All I am saying is that it seems Jerome says at the beginning they were interchangeable, and then changed due to carnal church(divisions I am of Paul you are of Apollos). So of course , later on, bishops are above a presbyter in one function.

Blessings

Hi Ben,

I agree. St. Jerome does seem to say they are interchangeable. He must be talking about interchangeable in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, baptizing, etc. The letter was born out of someone trying to put a deacon above a priest. This may be someone tried to say a deacon was more important. St. Jerome says two things that makes it impossible for them to have been interchangeable from the beginning. He flat out states there is something that a bishop can do that a priest cannot do. And, if you think about it, it must have been that way from the beginning.

 

[steve_b]

Hi Ben,

I agree. St. Jerome does seem to say they are interchangeable. He must be talking about interchangeable in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, baptizing, etc. The letter was born out of someone trying to put a deacon above a priest. This may be someone tried to say a deacon was more important. St. Jerome says two things that makes it impossible for them to have been interchangeable from the beginning. He flat out states there is something that a bishop can do that a priest cannot do. And, if you think about it, it must have been that way from the beginning.

As I’m understanding it, #280,

Jerome is saying a bishop is a priest as well. He is both. So priest and bishop in THAT case, can be interchangeable. Although I think it an irregular usage given the distinctions that are there.

A priest otoh isn’t necessarily a bishop. That’s why a distinction is made in that ordination

LETTER 14 – TO HELIODORUS, MONK (373 OR 374)

LETTER 51 – FROM EPIPHANIUS, BISHOP OF SALAMIS, IN CYPRUS, TO JOHN, )

 

[steve_b]

yes, there are sevearl quotes, letters that deal with the subject i think…the one letter and the commenatry on Titus. They both fit together.

see #294

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

I agree. St. Jerome does seem to say they are interchangeable. He must be talking about interchangeable in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, baptizing, etc. The letter was born out of someone trying to put a deacon above a priest. This may be someone tried to say a deacon was more important. St. Jerome says two things that makes it impossible for them to have been interchangeable from the beginning. He flat out states there is something that a bishop can do that a priest cannot do. And, if you think about it, it must have been that way from the beginning.

Hi D,

Don’t understand for first you say that he does seem to say they are interchangeable, then you say jerome points out why that is impossible, from the beginning. I thought he said interchangeable from the beginning, then absolutely impossible to be the same later, when only one can ordain. Seems to say the differentiation came about in mid or late apostolic period.

As far as ordination, it seems it first came from the apostles, then we hear of congregations appointing them. Some then say a presbytery (a group of elders) appoints them. I think it is a later development to say only a bishop can ordain.

Blessings