B
benhur
Guest
Hi MJ, i mostly read of them when it comes to apologetics. The only one I read for personal edification on its own is Confessions by Augustine.
Blessings
- Status
Blessings
M
MartinJordan
Guest
S
steve_b
Guest
benhur
in the letter you presented from Jerome
LETTER 146
Jerome is writing, this ordination is** from** the time of Mark the apostle meaning, that which is done, came from the apostles, in apostolic succession.
"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."
B
benhur
Guest
Hi m…right , not mainline…but why would level of church father interest show that …curious
B
benhur
Guest
Hi steve.
…this can only fit with Titus commentary which states they were interchangeable at first , but changed, as by the time Mark went to Alexandria 15 to twenty years after the church started. Hence I said it is a mid or late apostolic origin.
“When *subsequently *one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism”…subsequently to what ? I think he answers first they were totally interchangeable , in name and function , overseers. Then , subsequently , they chose one over the others.
Blessings
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Augustine is my patron Saint.
He was extremely spiritual as I’m sure you know and seemed to be less impressed by matter, in general.
Not that he didn’t see a need for the Church, he did, obviously, but his main focus seemed to be on simply worshiping the Lord in spirit and truth. So when I read your comment about reading ‘Confessions’ for edification , I was drawing the same conclusion about you.
B
benhur
Guest
Augustine is my patron Saint.
He was extremely spiritual as I’m sure you know and seemed to be less impressed by matter, in general.
Not that he didn’t see a need for the Church, he did, obviously, but his main focus seemed to be on simply worshiping the Lord in spirit and truth. So when I read your comment about reading ‘Confessions’ for edification , I was drawing the same conclusion about you.
M
MartinJordan
Guest
Since you seem to be taking authentic vested interest the Church fathers, is quite unlike a “Sola scriptura” Christian. Everything you read is available because of the Catholic church. So I do hope you continue working to ascertain the Truth of the Catholic Church. Even the Bible calls on one to learn that the Bulwark of Truth is the Church. Said by Paul the “least of the Apostles”. He understands the hierarchy.
MJ
C
Cathoholic
Guest
benhur.
You appeal to St. Jerome’s letter to Evangelus (Letter 146) to say presbyters are the same as bishops, which I already affirm in a sense (I said that many posts ago–priests and bishops are BOTH priests).
But I affirm it in the sense that BOTH are ministerial Priests. BOTH offer the SACRIFICE. Both offer the bread and wine which becomes the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Christ.
The context of this “sameness” is also in the context of whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are produced!
You said:
In this same passage which you are appealing to (here) . . .St. Jerome ALSO says . . .
Do YOU affirm the “prayers” of presbyters and bishops (but NOT deacons) can produce the body and blood of Christ?
You appeal to St. Jerome’s letter to Evangelus (Letter 146) to say presbyters are the same as bishops, which I already affirm in a sense (I said that many posts ago–priests and bishops are BOTH priests).
But I affirm it in the sense that BOTH are ministerial Priests. BOTH offer the SACRIFICE. Both offer the bread and wine which becomes the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Christ.
The context of this “sameness” is also in the context of whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are produced!
You said:
Can I ask you a question about affirming St. Jerome?
In this same passage which you are appealing to (here) . . .St. Jerome ALSO says . . .
Can I ask you . . . .
Do YOU affirm the “prayers” of presbyters and bishops (but NOT deacons) can produce the body and blood of Christ?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
In the last post benhur, I asked you if you affirm St. Jerome’s words about the sameness of the presbyterate and the episcopacy in the sense of . . . .
. . . . BOTH bishops (episcopoi) and priests (presbyters) who are both ministerial priests are . . .
Do you affirm that there is a function (ANY function) of ordination that belongs to the office of bishop that does NOT belong to the office of the presbyter?
. . . . BOTH bishops (episcopoi) and priests (presbyters) who are both ministerial priests are . . .
Now I want to ask if you ALSO affirm (what was ALSO in this SAME letter of St. Jerome’s) regarding a DIFFERENCE in the office function of bishops and priests . . . .
newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm
Do you affirm that there is a function (ANY function) of ordination that belongs to the office of bishop that does NOT belong to the office of the presbyter?
S
steve_b
Guest
benhur,
Yet the term “promotion” was used by Jerome, from presbyter to bishop. While both are priests, both aren’t necessarily bishops. While both operate as priests, the one promoted, by definition, has different functions.
Re: preside over
that Is the issue of authority and particularly hierarchy of authority which has always been in place. If everyone is equal in authority, then no one is in charge, and that leads to anarchy and schisms. And that is NOT how Jesus established His Church. Jerome understood that
B
benhur
Guest
Hi stev,
Again, when was the term promotion used ? When did they have different functions?
All we have been saying is that at first they did not, then at some point “subsequently” they did, per Jerome.
Yes Jerome uses same defense or argument for a "general’’. Again, he says this is subsequent , to when there was no “general”. Jerome does not show how Jesus established a “general” from the beginning, at least not here with bishops…
Even if Peter was a “general”, schism of sorts developed ,and was not directly quenched by a “general” but a a meeting of the overseers, of the presbytery, as in council (Jerusalem).
Nothing stops schism. …head bishop/pope/council/presbytery
Blessing
B
benhur
Guest
Hi C,
Good point…But while he may be right on with history presbytery evolving to episcopate , he may also testate to an evolving “remembrance”. Clearly Writ says the the apostles ministered the word of God at fellowship gatherings, not changing wine into His blood.
But your quote may truly suggest Jerome’s belief in a type of real presence. I do not doubt his view may be from the beginning ,along with other views.That is just as episcopacy was an evolving so was the congealing of one communion view gaining dominance over the others.
Blessings
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Hi C,
as i told steve, he says the role separation is subsequent to when they were equal in all facets. Your quote is after the change occurs. It is not of divine origin (Writ or apostolic), but certainly decided by later successors to stem schism.
Blessings
PS I still am not sure if “ordination” refers to only the bishop ordaining presbyters or that the bishop has a special ordination, by the presbyters , to be “general” ( a separate , ordination, above and beyond presbyteral ordination).
S
steve_b
Guest
that’s just the way Jerome is expressing this.
As far as one greater than another, when it comes to office, that argument was settled BY JESUS in the upper room.
b:
from the beginning
catholic.com/qa/can-priests-ordain-priests
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/bishop-priest-deacon
catholic.com/qa/did-the-apostles-ordain-priests
b:
Jerome certainly knew there was from the beginning, a hierarchy of authority.
As far as schisms, heresies, divisions of all sorts, they happened. And as you’ll note, those who do/did it are condemned in scripture.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi steve,
what was from the beginning, episcopacy ? For sure we have apostles and prophets , and appointment of presbyters=bishops, and then deacons (like Stephen).Do not see appointment of one bishop over other bishops/presbyter.
Jerome testifies to this, but later , subsequently , much later …
Blessings
S
steve_b
Guest
benhur,
did you not read this link I gave? It answers your question
catholic.com/magazine/pr…-priest-deacon
the distinction is there and it is clear.
As you know, Ignatius was made bishop by the apostles. He was a direct disciple of John
that said, Acts 1:20 the word for office is episcopos or bishop
S
steve_b
Guest
benhur,
did you miss this link I gave? It answers your question
catholic.com/magazine/pr…-priest-deacon
the distinction is there and it is clear.
As you know, Ignatius was made bishop by the apostles. He was a direct disciple of John
In addition , Acts 1:20 “let his office another take” the word for office from the Greek NT, is ἐπισκοπὴν , which means episkopé which means
Strong’s
"the office of a bishop. From episkeptomai; inspection (for relief); by implication, superintendence; specially, the Christian “episcopate” – the office of a “bishop”, bishoprick, visitation.
see GREEK episkeptomai "
B
benhur
Guest
Hi steve,
Acts verse is the appointment of an apostle, and the greek is of an “overseer” , or bishop. Peter refers himself as a fellow presbyter, like an overseer.
So Acts is ambiguous to setting up episcopacy. The apostles themselves could be shown to be like a presbytery. A city may also have bishops, presbyters appointed by several apostles (such is the possible case for Antioch-Peter, Paul and John ).
Yet I see your point, where he speaks of three offices that a single church may have. However it may not have been a universal practice , for two cities he does not mention a bishop (Rome, Phillipi).
As you know a few historians do not trust anything of Ignatius , citing forgeries, interpolations,changes etc.
Finally, Didache cites a church having a plurality of bishops, and Polycarp a plurality of presbyters, both writings of close proximity in history.
Blessings
S
steve_b
Guest
benhur,
there is a ton of ink spilled on this. If this doesn’t answer your question just let me know, and I’ll recapture some of that ink.
catholic.com/qa/did-st-peter-view-his-authority-as-equal-to-other-church-leaders
bh:
Bishops might move around. We see that today as well. Bishops might be in one diocese for x number of years then moved to another diocese. But they have authority only in their specific area when moved. They don’t have authority in another bishop’s area nor in their previous diocese when a new bishop is appointed for that diocese…
Peter is a bit different of course. He is over the entire Church worldwide. That is how Jesus established Peter’s office
bh:
If we’re still talking about Ignatius, there is a range of dates given for his letters. Either way, Ignatius writing to Rome, on his way to Rome to be thrown to the lions, probably left out the name of the bishop for his safety.
we know who the popes were in that range of dates
- St. Clement I (88-97)
- St. Evaristus (97-105)
- St. Alexander I (105-115)
spurious writings are identified as spurious.
[Ignatius of Antioch (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm) [SAINT]
- Epistle to the Ephesians
- Epistle to the Magnesians
- Epistle to the Trallians
- Epistle to the Romans
- Epistle to the Philadelphians
- Epistle to the Smyrnæans
- Epistle to Polycarp
- The Martyrdom of Ignatius
- The Spurious Epistles
benhur,
The Didache (c. 100) , is written to the Nations
Re:
Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof
Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, 1 Timothy 3:4 and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel; Matthew 18:15-17 but to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.
I don’t see it saying what you have it saying.
- Status