I have an idea, Rob. Would you consider a different approach? You would not sound so recalcitrant if you would consider saying something like “what evidence to you use to base your conclusion that Timothy/Titus was a Bishop?”.
Or “What evidence to Catholics use to support the claim that ordination occurred in the NT”?
You are on a Catholic Answers Forum, but you don’t seem much interested in Catholic answers. I say that because you seem to continue with your broken record response of “no evidence”. I can assure you that the Church has had 2000 years to read and discuss these texts.
guano,
I dont think the Catholic church has any official teachings on that anyway. So there is no official answer. Do you mean I have to make a point the way YOU want me to so I can get YOUR answer.
I am sure if you had evidence that Titus or Timothy were bishops you would provide it. But I know my history well enough to know there is no such evidence.
T
here are two aspects to clerical service. One is ordination, in which the individual is brought into the authority of the Church through the laying on of hands, when their vocation to office has been confirmed. The second is “appointment”, which is the perimssion of the Bishop to serve in a given area. These are presently called “faculties” in the Latin Church. A person can be ordained, but have no faculties (authority to minister in a given area).
There was nothing like that back then.
Do you wish to stubbornly hold to this errant view, or are you willing to open your mind to look at the evidence? You don’t have to AGREE with the way Catholics read and understand the NT, but it would be polite, since you are on a Catholic Answers Forum, to at least be open to the way Catholics see the evidence, don’t you think?
You are free to provide whatever evidence you have. I only care about the truth and I frankly think you are teaching presumptions and not historical facts. Excuse me for that opinion but it is an honest opinion.
Otherwise, it appears that you are forwarding a private agenda, which is against the forum rules. here.
My agenda is the truth and enjoyment of discussing the history of our church in a charitable manner. I dont think I have broken any rules and I dont know why you would not want me here.
Can you honestly read those passages and claim that sounds "democratic’?
The plain tradition in the NT is electing ones leaders and the Didache backs that up so yes.
Old enough so that you may consider giving up your tiresome denial, and be willing to really look with integrity at the evidence, instead of denying it exists?
I just want the evidence and the truth. No presumptions please.
This is true, but the opposite is also true. The practices in the first two centuries most certainly dicatated what was formalized in the third.
Once again that is your presumption. But traditions can develop and evolve and have very little to do with what went on before.
Rob, consider at least pretending to be more open minded. What about “can you show me your sources on ordination in the NT?” instead of “you have no sources”. It just makes you appear as if you are not really interested in learning or dialogue
Here is an opinion from Fr Raymond Brown.
"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.
That seems plain enough to me and follows the evidence we know. He plainly says we do not know of any formal action designating bishops. His opinion is good enough for me.
We do know however from the Didache at least one church group elected their bishops witout any mention of ordination. Most historians I read agree with Fr. Brown. Here is another.
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon page 172.
"The primitive bishops were considered only as the first of their equals,
and the honorable servants of a free people. Whenever the episcopal chair
became vacant by death, a new president was chosen among the presbyters
by the suffrage of the whole congregation, every member of which
supposed himself invested with a sacred and sacerdotal character.
Such was the mild and equal constitution by which the Christians were
governed more than a hundred years after the death of the apostles. Every
society formed within itself a separate and independant republic; and
although the most distant of these little states maintained a mutual as
well as a friendly intercourse of letters and deputations, the Christian
world was not yet connected by any supreme authority
or legislative assembly."
Do you have any historians of the same caliber to refute them?
Please understand I am not attacking Catholic doctrine or teachings. I frankly do not think they even teach what you propose. Obviously they read these historians and experts just like I do.
Rob
