The Didache Disproves Apostolic Succession?

[jinc1019]

No, it doesn’t.

Again, selecting and ordaining are two different things.

???

2,000 > 1,800

No, I am not presupposing infallibility. My argument stands: choosing <> ordaining

The writings of the Fathers.

Read up on the Alexandrian Church itself, which had bishops consecrated from Tyre for a number of years:

newadvent.org/cathen/01300b.htm

Read the Fathers.

This is not accurate (see article above). I think you misunerstand the term presybteros, which was used interchangeably for priest and bishop the first several centuries in the Church, episkopos and presbyteros were used interchangeably in writings. The bishop has the fullness of presbyteral ordination, the priest a lesser level.

Again, my question is…Where are you getting the information that says that bishops were always present? You say, “read the fathers.” I have read MANY, MANY letters, etc. and I don’t see that anywhere. I see many statements that suggest bishops were appointed by presbyters, but none that suggest that only bishops could ordain bishops, at least not in the first 200 years of the church. I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you haven’t proven it by any stretch.

I understand that you are arguing that appointing and ordaining are two different things. However, you are arguing that “appointing” doesn’t mean ordaining and you cannot necessarily make that argument. The term “laying on of hands” is also used in similar contexts. You need to show where, in the first 200 years of the Church, it is said that bishops, a higher order than elders, are the only ones who can ordain. I don’t see that anywhere. It may be there, but I have not come across it.

Third, I used the term 1,800 years because I full acknowledge that by the third century, bishops were the only ones ordaining other bishops. So I fully accept that the tradition of bishops ordaining bishops has been around for at least 1,800 years. However, what I want to know is whether this was also happening in the first 200 years, and there is some evidence to suggest that it wasn’t, at least not everywhere.

I do understand that the Church at Alexandria did have valid bishops for many years. That’s not what I said. What I said was that at one point, all of the bishops died without having ordained other bishops, and for two centuries (roughly), the bishops were chosen and ordained by presbyters. This is a well-known historical fact. I will read the link you posted, but scholars have long accepted this as a fact in numerous sources for hundreds of years now.

 

[jinc1019]

It does because you are presupposing the Laity had access to the document.

The laity were on the run, there was no printing press so it was not widely distributed…and just from the plain sense of the document, it was intended for the elders/presbyters/espkopai…instructions for them on how to instruct the laity.

You are assuming the laity were involved in selecting their leaders…but what is the basis for your assumption…considering other historical facts and tradition?

I am not at all assuming the laity had access to the document. I suspect they did indirectly from their local elders, but I don’t know whether they did or not. I am saying it is possible that ELDERS appointed the bishop, or elders with the laity.

 

[jinc1019]

I was not actualy questioning this myself, but rather to set up a basis for this argument.
To
Clarify, this and many other works written early on are not for the average believer, but for elders and episcapoi who many of them were educated and could read.

To address the OP, this would matter because if the average lay person were to get their hands on this document, and could indeed read it; doing so they could read it as the OP did and conclude that said individual lay person has been instructed to elect his/her own bishop.

I understand what you were getting at now yes…I am not trying to suggest the laity were ordaining the bishops. I am saying, the elders could have ordained the bishops. This explains why Paul writes to Timothy and suggests that elders laid hands on him.

However, I fully recognize, as it has been pointed out earlier, that selecting is different than ordaining. I don’t see though where a church father in the first 200 years of the church stated that bishops had to be ordained by other bishops only.

Personally, I believe bishops and presbyters were of the same class with different roles, just as St. Jerome states in his epistle 146: voskrese.info/spl/jerome146.html

 

[steve_b]

Thanks for your post…Where though are you finding the information that bishops had to be ordained by other bishops and were not appointed by the local elders?

“elder” had a wider understanding in the day. Bishops were also called elders as were priests.

For example

Douay Rheems translation

Jas 5: []**14 **](Douay-Rheims Bible, James Chapter 5)“priest” in the Greek is πρεσβύτερος*presbyteros] *in all the various translations out there, that word is usually translated as elder.

however the transaltion of that word is rather fluid

πρεσβύτερος presbyteros
Definition:
**a)**among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b)among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

We can see that from Acts 11:30, 14:23, 15:2, 15:22, 16:4, 20:17, 1 Ti 5:17, etc.

Then we see how those directly ordained by apostles, or who were ordained by those ordained by apostles, viewed the process

Clement First Epistle regard ch 42
Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrnæans Ref: ch 8
Irenaeus Bk3 Chapter 3** vs 3** he names 12 bishops beginning from Peter and Paul down to his day
Cyprian Epistle 54 particularly vs 14, but the entire epistle should be read.

Apostolic succession was orderly.

 

[jinc1019]

“elder” had a wider understanding in the day. Bishops were also called elders as were priests.

For example

Douay Rheems translation

Jas 5: **14 **]“priest” in the Greek is πρεσβύτεροςpresbyteros] in all the various translations out there, that word is usually translated as elder.

however the transaltion of that word is rather fluid

Then we see how those directly ordained by apostles, or who were ordained by those ordained by apostles, viewed the process

Clement First Epistle regard ch 42
Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrnæans Ref: ch 8
Irenaeus Bk3 Chapter 3** vs 3** he names 12 bishops beginning from Peter and Paul down to his day
Cyprian Epistle 54 particularly vs 14, but the entire epistle should be read.

Apostolic succession was orderly.

I appreciate the information.

You may very well be right about the terms “bishop” and “elder” but some of your argument doesn’t make sense. Essentially, you are suggesting that ALL elders were bishops (in the modern sense) and then eventually, elders became what we know to be priests today because they were ordained but given less authority.

If this is true then, how is it that certain bishops/elders, such as Titus and Timothy, clearly had more authority than the elders of local churches? If “bishop” and “elder” are interchangeable and identical, then Titus and Timothy couldn’t possibly have more authority than the elders they watched over. Instead, it makes far more sense to say that Titus and Timothy had more authority despite being of the same order as the elders they had authority over. In other words, they were all elders, but the bishops had a different role. You cannot make the argument that they were separate orders completely though, because as St. Jerome points out, the terms were used interchangeably.

 

[jinc1019]

“elder” had a wider understanding in the day. Bishops were also called elders as were priests.

For example

Douay Rheems translation

Jas 5: **14 **]“priest” in the Greek is πρεσβύτεροςpresbyteros] in all the various translations out there, that word is usually translated as elder.

however the transaltion of that word is rather fluid

We can see that from Acts 11:30, 14:23, 15:2, 15:22, 16:4, 20:17, 1 Ti 5:17, etc.

Then we see how those directly ordained by apostles, or who were ordained by those ordained by apostles, viewed the process

Clement First Epistle regard ch 42
Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrnæans Ref: ch 8
Irenaeus Bk3 Chapter 3** vs 3** he names 12 bishops beginning from Peter and Paul down to his day
Cyprian Epistle 54 particularly vs 14, but the entire epistle should be read.

Apostolic succession was orderly.

Thank you for the information.

Unfortunately, I am still confused. Even if bishops and elders were interchangeable terms, there still must have been separate roles/powers because we can see that Timothy and Titus had more authority than the “elders” of their communities. This means then that the class of bishop/elder (1 class) was made up of ordained individuals similar to that of modern priests. Outside of that class, there was a higher order, the one Timothy and Titus belonged to, that had more authority than the elders/bishops.

Yet, Titus and Timothy, as well as Peter and others, were called “elders” and “bishops.” This makes no sense to me. It makes far more sense to say that Timothy and Titus were elders/bishops with a higher degree of responsibility. There weren’t 3 classes (elders/bishops, something higher than elders/bishops, and deacons), there were 2 classes (elders/bishops and deacons), with certain elders/bishops who had more authority than others. This is how St. Jerome understood it and it makes sense to me as well.

 

[brb3]

I am not saying it necessarily disproves all apostolic succession (I believe in apostolic succession); it does seem to bring doubt on the whole “bishop appointing bishop” aspect of it though…How do you explain the following passage in one of the oldest Church documents we have?:

“Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers.”

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

Big whoo-eeee. Didn’t Paul say as much in his Epistles. They are just quoting Paul.

 

[steve_b]

Thank you for the information.

Unfortunately, I am still confused. Even if bishops and elders were interchangeable terms, there still must have been separate roles/powers because we can see that Timothy and Titus had more authority than the “elders” of their communities. This means then that the class of bishop/elder (1 class) was made up of ordained individuals similar to that of modern priests. Outside of that class, there was a higher order, the one Timothy and Titus belonged to, that had more authority than the elders/bishops.

All that means is, there is a hierarchy of authority from the beginning. And the Church established and clarified the boundries
j:

Yet, Titus and Timothy, as well as Peter and others, were called “elders” and “bishops.” This makes no sense to me. It makes far more sense to say that Timothy and Titus were elders/bishops with a higher degree of responsibility. There weren’t 3 classes (elders/bishops, something higher than elders/bishops, and deacons), there were 2 classes (elders/bishops and deacons), with certain elders/bishops who had more authority than others. This is how St. Jerome understood it and it makes sense to me as well.

The point is, there is a hierarchy of authority, it came from the apostles, and the Church refined the positions.

 

[brb3]

I am not at all assuming the laity had access to the document. I suspect they did indirectly from their local elders, but I don’t know whether they did or not. I am saying it is possible that ELDERS appointed the bishop, or elders with the laity.

The burden of proof is on u. Not gonna find it…

The 12 valued their role as Bishops … they knew how to replace Judas, and it was them alone … not even Mary (or rest of the 120 disciples) holding a voting share.

 

[tafan]

As I stated in the first post, I am not saying it disproves it completely, or at all, but it does bring doubt on the idea that the early church ALWAYS practiced bishop-to-bishop laying on of hands.

Also, 2,000 years of tradition is meaningless if that tradition deviated from what the earliest Christians were doing 1,800 years ago. You are presupposing infallibility in your argument, and I understand why you are doing this, but it doesn’t make your argument persuasive.

What is persuasive in your argument is that you are suggesting the bishops could have been chosen locally but were still officially ordained by bishops. Do you have any early source that suggests this is what happened? I don’t see that anywhere. I see passages where bishops appoint other bishops, but nothing that shows that the local church elects the bishop and then another bishop ordains.

In Alexandria, for instance, bishops were ordained and chosen by presbyters, without a bishop, for two hundred years in the early church because all of the bishops were killed off at once early on there. This is well-documented. And nowhere does the Church, to my knowledge, ever claim their apostolic line was invalid for a period of time.

Please provide a reference for your claim about Bishops being ordained by petabytes in Alexandria. It is not well known to all of us.

 

[PeterJohn]

Once again, I’m setting someone else up for a good point-to-be made here.

Aren’t all Bishops, priests first?

 

[Ignatius]

I am not saying it necessarily disproves all apostolic succession (I believe in apostolic succession); it does seem to bring doubt on the whole “bishop appointing bishop” aspect of it though…How do you explain the following passage in one of the oldest Church documents we have?:

“Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers.”

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

It doesn’t how they are appointed, it is when they are ordained and consecrated that they receive Apostolic succession

 

[jinc1019]

The burden of proof is on u. Not gonna find it…

The 12 valued their role as Bishops … they knew how to replace Judas, and it was them alone … not even Mary (or rest of the 120 disciples) holding a voting share.

Actually no, the burden of proof should be on the Church, who makes this argument…not me.

 

[jinc1019]

It doesn’t how they are appointed, it is when they are ordained and consecrated that they receive Apostolic succession

You are assuming that “appoint” doesn’t mean ordain, and I am not sure we can definitively say this.

 

[jinc1019]

All that means is, there is a hierarchy of authority from the beginning. And the Church established and clarified the boundries

The point is, there is a hierarchy of authority, it came from the apostles, and the Church refined the positions.

You may be right. But, I think it does matter whether priests today are of the same order as bishops or not, and that’s really at the heart of this question.

 

[brb3]

Actually no, the burden of proof should be on the Church, who makes this argument…not me.

And they have proven it to all faithful, believing Catholics. Do u not believe too ?

Has some Korah rebellion tickled your ears ?

 

[Rete]

First of all, thank you for the sources! I always appreciate reading good historic works on this topic.

Secondly, I think you are making a very big assumption. It says “appoint for yourselves bishops (overseers).” You are assuming bishops and presbyters are of a different order entirely when all of the evidence suggests the early church viewed bishops and presbyters as the same, with the only potential difference being bishops were given extra responsibilities.

So in other words, if bishops did ordain presbyters, and presbyters together chose a bishop among themselves in a community, then none of the concerns you mentioned are relevant. I have read the entire didache and nothing in it disproves this statement at all. I am NOT suggesting independent churches were told to just disavow apostolic succession completely, I am saying the evidence seems to indicate that succession was necessary but that it wasn’t necessary that bishops ordain bishops, elders could appoint bishops “for themselves.”

Well, no. Even if one were to take your interpretation of the text, which I do question, one cannot then conclude that anybody but bishops ordained bishops.

For instance, laity could select from among themselves persons they wanted as presbyters. Then they could select from among the existing presbyters the presbyters they want as bishops. But that doesn’t make those lay persons presbyters or the presbyters bishops. A bishop still needs to do that.

I don’t agree this is what happened, but that’s how it would work if your interpretation is correct.

 

[steve_b]

You may be right. But, I think it does matter whether priests today are of the same order as bishops or not, and that’s really at the heart of this question.

All bishops are priests, but obviously only a few priests are elevated to bishops.

 

[Usagi]

There is one interpretation that allows for both things (elders both appointing and ordaining their own bishops, and only bishops being able to ordain bishops).

As you note, in the earliest times the degrees of “bishop” and “presbyter” were not clearly distinguished. What we would now call “the local ordinary” held authority over the other clergy in the region, but he did not hold a distinct and higher degree of holy orders.

However, as I understand it (and of course this is an interpretation made in retrospect by writers accustomed to the three degrees of holy orders; I’m not sure that conclusive evidence either way could be found in the sources, since they use the terms differently than we do), the “missing” degree of holy orders in those days was what we now call the priesthood or the presbyterate. Back then, you were either what we now call a bishop (though you might have called yourself an elder) or what we now call a deacon. The church had not yet experienced a need for clergy with full priestly powers but without the complete endowment of a successor of the apostles.

Under this view, those elders could indeed have elected their local ordinary, and if necessary (if their choice were a deacon or a lay man) they could have ordained him to the episcopacy too – because whatever their title, they were all what we would now call bishops. So we still have only bishops making bishops, and we can have those elders choosing their own bishops without postulating a bishop from outside having to come in and do the job.

Usagi

 

[jinc1019]

And they have proven it to all faithful, believing Catholics. Do u not believe too ?

Has some Korah rebellion tickled your ears ?

I don’t even know what that is referencing, first of all. Secondly, proven is not the same thing as declared. If they have proven it, show it to me.