The Didache Disproves Apostolic Succession?

[jinc1019]

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

Dear Usagi, thank you for the response. I think you are missing something here though. For starters, if all elders were what we consider to be modern day bishops, then why would there be many elders in the same small Christian communities? Secondly, why would they stop this practice of ordaining lots of bishops in place of a system where there are very few modern bishops? Third, it is clear that some elders/bishops, such as Timothy, had power or authority over elders in other communities…He was definitely a step up. But how can this be if he is just a bishop, in the modern sense, the same as every other elder? It just doesn’t make sense. It makes a lot more sense to follow St. Jerome’s view of both bishops and elders being one order, with some set aside for additional responsibilities.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not saying the laity can ordain ANYONE. What I am saying is, you can reasonably read into those sections of the New Testament I mentioned that elders chose bishops for themselves and ordained them themselves, just as they did in Alexandria for many years.

However, I am coming to the conclusion that there simply isn’t enough evidence on either side to definitively say anything. And in that case, one should walk cautiously and go with tradition, at least when it comes to the requirement of bishops in the ordination of bishops and priests. However, I do believe there is enough evidence to show they are one order, separated only by function. This is, however, not what the Catholic Church teaches. They do teach three orders and I think that, as St. Jerome did, this is an error.

With that said, whether there are three separate orders or two orders is really pointless if you accept that only bishops can ordain validly in apostolic succession.

 

[guanophore]

The Didache is addressed as a manual for Christians…guidelines for they should do and shouldn’t do.

Yes, but specifically clergy. The reason it was not included in the NT is because it is a liturgical guide, rather than addressed to laypeople.

Of course it is the ordained/elders/bishops that “choose from among themselves” those to be ordained. Following the example of Paul, the Gospel was committed to faithful men who were able to teach others also. After a period of testing those who were found worhty were ordained.

These duties were specifically assigned to those in the Apostolic succession, so including the Didache in the NT was not really as relevant as are those books and letters addressed to all the faithful.

 

[brb3]

Yes, but specifically clergy. The reason it was not included in the NT is because it is a liturgical guide, rather than addressed to laypeople.

Of course it is the ordained/elders/bishops that “choose from among themselves” those to be ordained. Following the example of Paul, the Gospel was committed to faithful men who were able to teach others also. After a period of testing those who were found worhty were ordained.

These duties were specifically assigned to those in the Apostolic succession, so including the Didache in the NT was not really as relevant as are those books and letters addressed to all the faithful.

Good point …on it being guide for the Bishops/Elders. Those educated, who read, wrote & taught the laity.

Same as our Pope & Bishops do today. We don’t pick them…the Pope picked by his peers, the Cards …and the Bishops & Cards, by Popes.

This insures that Tradition is always followed…

 

[Tomyris]

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

My first concern with approaching the Didache is what it is. Is it a regional document, a univeral one, or even something outside the mainstream of the church? For it to be in a position of affirming or disproving anything in particular, its authority must be measured. How did others view it, in particular church leaders? I’m not sure.

Even if there was an ancient practice of electing bishops (which I would argue, but that is off topic), from the Catholic perspective that may have been a historical anomaly that was reflected in this one document, and later corrected in the church. The Didache has some curious features that I am not sure are really helpful in giving us an idea as to what the universal practices were in the church.

 

[Usagi]

Dear Usagi, thank you for the response. I think you are missing something here though. For starters, if all elders were what we consider to be modern day bishops, then why would there be many elders in the same small Christian communities? Secondly, why would they stop this practice of ordaining lots of bishops in place of a system where there are very few modern bishops? Third, it is clear that some elders/bishops, such as Timothy, had power or authority over elders in other communities…He was definitely a step up. But how can this be if he is just a bishop, in the modern sense, the same as every other elder? It just doesn’t make sense. It makes a lot more sense to follow St. Jerome’s view of both bishops and elders being one order, with some set aside for additional responsibilities.

Your last sentence seems to contradict the rest of the paragraph.

I am arguing that elders and overseers were originally one order, but that some of them were chosen to bear authority over the others.

You seem to be arguing that elders and overseers are still one order, with some of them chosen to bear authority over the others. (Let me know if I am wrong.)

Your objections to my argument seem to work just as well against your own. Please clarify for me how your view of what clergy were like in the first couple centuries differs from mine (other than that you seem to think the same situation is still in effect, while I think it changed very shortly thereafter).

Usagi

 

[steve_b]

For starters, if all elders were what we consider to be modern day bishops, then why would there be many elders in the same small Christian communities? Secondly, why would they stop this practice of ordaining lots of bishops in place of a system where there are very few modern bishops? Third, it is clear that some elders/bishops, such as Timothy, had power or authority over elders in other communities…He was definitely a step up. But how can this be if he is just a bishop, in the modern sense, the same as every other elder? It just doesn’t make sense. It makes a lot more sense to follow St. Jerome’s view of both bishops and elders being one order, with some set aside for additional responsibilities.

from the beginning, there is hierarchy of authority, and you’re seeing that described in scripture.

1. • πρεσβύτερος presbyteros = bishop, priest, elder Acts 15:2,4,6,22…
   • διάκονος diakonos = deacon 1Tim 3:8
   • ἐπισκοπή episkopē = bishop, elder 1 Tim 3:1
   Out of the 3 offices in the Church mentioned in scripture, bishop, priest, deacon, there is an overlap between 1 & 3 … presbyteros & episkope = elder. “Elder” can mean priest or bishop as its been said before.
   
   therefore, we can say
   • hierarchy came from the apostles,
   • bishops and priests are also called elders. And we see one elder can have more authority than others of the same rank.
   • As the Church grew, the Church refined and clarified the position of bishop, priest, deacon. The bishop is the highest in authority in his own community.
   • Ignatius for example, in his letter to Smyrna, [Epistle to the Smyrnæans (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm) provides information about the bishop. Ignatius was ordained by apostles, and disciple of St John the apostle. And we see from Ignatius, out of the Churches he wrote to, Rome held the presidency. [Epistle to the Romans (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm)
   • Irenaeus, wrote, all must agree with the Bishop of Rome. [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) So we see one bishop has more authority than other bishops.
   • These Fathers are writing about what is already in place, they are not inventing for the first time what they write about. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John. So Irenaeus was only 1 man away from an apostle.
   • Re: Irenaeus, credits his teaching coming from Peter and Paul at Rome (see Ch 3 from link above) and then he named 12 bishops of Rome, in order of succession from Peter and Paul, down to his day (year ~180 ) who passed on the faith and information faithfully, that he gives in “Against Heresies”,
   Now we have Bp Francis, year 2013, 266th successor to Peter at Rome, passing the faith onto us faithfully from the apostle Peter.
   
   [The Didache (c. 100) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm) names ministerial offices, (as we know, already named in scripture), but how one is ordained for the office is not mentioned. Thus Re: the topic, this document doesn’t disprove apostolic succession.