The Didache Disproves Apostolic Succession?

[jinc1019]

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

 

[DavidFilmer]

What’s confusing about that? The Church appoints Bishops and deacons for itself all the time. Heck, we just appointed a Pope for ourselves (and all indications are that we made a good choice).

Can you explain why you find this confusing?

 

[1ke]

Matthias was chosen by lots.
The congregation chose seven men to be deacons in Acts.
The bishop of Rome was chosen by the people of Rome at one time (and other dioceses as well).

Choosing and appointing are not the same as ordaining. Ordination is still done by a valid bishop. The chosen, if not ordained already, would be ordained just as we see in Acts.

Not sure where you would get the idea that the Didache “disproves” apostolic succession. Like no one noticed this for 2000 years?

I am always surprised when people put such an emphasis on one word in one document and disregard the entire body of Church teaching and practice.

 

[PeterJohn]

Was the didache a document writen and designed to be distributed to the lay people? Or an instruction book for the clergy?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Was the didache a document writen and designed to be distributed to the lay people? Or an instruction book for the clergy?

You have a very modern view of documents. In the Apostolic age, there would have been very few copies, if there were any at all (many documents existed only in their originals). It is unlikely that a layperson would have a copy (if he could even read). There was no reason for him to have one - the early Church taught doctrine orally. The Faithful learned directly from their Bishops. The early Church did not pass out documents for people to learn it on their own, and such an idea would be very puzzling to someone of that era.

 

[Rete]

When I began reading through the early Church documents, I came to the opposite conclusion. These documents are devastating to the Protestant that takes the time to really study them and understand their context, not in how he wishes to interpret them today, but according to the authors and the original intended audiences.

I purchased a three-book series that compiles most of these documents (though, you can read many of them on newadvent.org) titled The Faith of the Early Fathers. These texts span from the Didache to Augustus.

As far as the document itself, if you read the entire text, it explicitly warns against heresies, creating schisms, and dealing with fake apostles. One of the greatest threats to the Church at the time was the active co-opting of Christianity by Gnostics and imposters. This text addresses that issue. If it were to instead tell people to just elect their own bishops (like Protestants), then all of the rest of the text would become senseless.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I purchased a three-book series that compiles most of these documents (though, you can read many of them on newadvent.org) titled The Faith of the Early Fathers. These texts span from the Didache to Augustus.

But what you cannot find on newadvent.org (or any other website) is the doctrinal index in the back of Jurgens’ three books.

Suppose you have a protestant who says that Baptism is merely a public ceremony giving witness to a salvation event that has already occurred (when he “accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior”). You, on the other hand, maintain that Baptism is the ordinary means by which we are saved (our conversion experience might lead us to Baptism, but salvation comes through Baptism, not through the prior experience).

What does the Early Church have to say about it? Flip to the Doctrinal Index. Under the section for Sacraments, you will find Baptism. You will see that there are seventeen different Baptismal doctrines covered (including, for example, that the Baptism of John was not a sacrament). Scroll down the list, and you will see:

The effect of Baptism is spiritual regeneration, which consists in the remission of every sin with the punishment due it, and the infusion of first grace (#836)

You will there find forty-nine passages from the Early Fathers which support that doctrine.

You will occasionally find passages which contradict that doctrine (those would be in parenthesis). The Early Fathers were not unanimous. They happened to be unanimous on the topic I mentioned, but on the question of "Even heretics can Baptize validly (#830) there are eight passages contrary to the doctrine, and sixteen supporting it.

The doctrinal index is what makes Jurgens’ books a must-have for all serious Catholic apologists. Amazon currently has all three volumes for $53.50 with free shipping (I’ve seen it on Amazon as low as $33.71).

 

[Rete]

I had not even gone through that doctrinal index yet. I used the second index a few times, but didn’t know about the doctrinal index. :doh2:

The way I have been reading it is text-by-text. Then I try to learn more about the text from sites like New Advent’s encyclopedia. What would be nice is another book which expounds more upon the authors, contexts, and history surrounding each text. That way, when you encounter something like this thread (well, I guess a more difficult one to answer anyway), then you can better explain the context in which the text was composed and its intended audience, as well as the the motives and perspective of the author.

 

[jwinch2]

Clement of Rome & the Didache – A New Translation and Theological Commentary By Dr. Kenneth J. Howell

chnetwork.org/2013/01/clementofrome/

This might be worth looking into for some insight.

Peace,

 

[jinc1019]

What’s confusing about that? The Church appoints Bishops and deacons for itself all the time. Heck, we just appointed a Pope for ourselves (and all indications are that we made a good choice).

Can you explain why you find this confusing?

The Didache is addressed as a manual for Christians…guidelines for they should do and shouldn’t do. You just answered your own question. The “Church appoints Bishops,” but in this passage, it clearly states that the local church is electing its own bishops. It doesn’t say “elect for ourselves,” it says “elect for yourselves.” I don’t understand how you can read that and interpret it the way you are.

 

[jinc1019]

Matthias was chosen by lots.
The congregation chose seven men to be deacons in Acts.
The bishop of Rome was chosen by the people of Rome at one time (and other dioceses as well).

Choosing and appointing are not the same as ordaining. Ordination is still done by a valid bishop. The chosen, if not ordained already, would be ordained just as we see in Acts.

Not sure where you would get the idea that the Didache “disproves” apostolic succession. Like no one noticed this for 2000 years?

I am always surprised when people put such an emphasis on one word in one document and disregard the entire body of Church teaching and practice.

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.

 

[jinc1019]

Was the didache a document writen and designed to be distributed to the lay people? Or an instruction book for the clergy?

I am not sure why this would matter.

 

[jinc1019]

You have a very modern view of documents. In the Apostolic age, there would have been very few copies, if there were any at all (many documents existed only in their originals). It is unlikely that a layperson would have a copy (if he could even read). There was no reason for him to have one - the early Church taught doctrine orally. The Faithful learned directly from their Bishops. The early Church did not pass out documents for people to learn it on their own, and such an idea would be very puzzling to someone of that era.

Very true. That’s not the point. The point is what the didache is telling people to teach orally. And in the didache, it says it should be taught that churches should appoint bishops for themselves.

 

[jinc1019]

When I began reading through the early Church documents, I came to the opposite conclusion. These documents are devastating to the Protestant that takes the time to really study them and understand their context, not in how he wishes to interpret them today, but according to the authors and the original intended audiences.

I purchased a three-book series that compiles most of these documents (though, you can read many of them on newadvent.org) titled The Faith of the Early Fathers. These texts span from the Didache to Augustus.

As far as the document itself, if you read the entire text, it explicitly warns against heresies, creating schisms, and dealing with fake apostles. One of the greatest threats to the Church at the time was the active co-opting of Christianity by Gnostics and imposters. This text addresses that issue. If it were to instead tell people to just elect their own bishops (like Protestants), then all of the rest of the text would become senseless.

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.”

 

[mercytruth]

Matthias was chosen by lots.
The congregation chose seven men to be deacons in Acts.
The bishop of Rome was chosen by the people of Rome at one time (and other dioceses as well).

Choosing and appointing are not the same as ordaining. Ordination is still done by a valid bishop. The chosen, if not ordained already, would be ordained just as we see in Acts.

Not sure where you would get the idea that the Didache “disproves” apostolic succession. Like no one noticed this for 2000 years?

I am always surprised when people put such an emphasis on one word in one document and disregard the entire body of Church teaching and practice.

Yes, the appointment, or choosing by all of the local laity and clergy for a succeeding bishop, followed by public ordination by other bishops was the norm in the first three centuries of the church. The bishop chose the deacons and presbyters.

It seems as though the Didache was written in sections, an instruction manual for catechumens prior to their baptism, a liturgical and ecclessiastic section, and an eschatolgical section.

God’s peace

 

[ahs]

(snip) …The doctrinal index is what makes Jurgens’ books a must-have for all serious Catholic apologists. Amazon currently has all three volumes for $53.50 with free shipping (I’ve seen it on Amazon as low as $33.71).

YES!! I have barely cracked open my set just yet (recently gifted to me), but they are a wealth of infomation and the index is a priceless gem in the world of apologetics. Akin’s “The Fathers Know Best” has a simialr index as well, and his introductory portion (about the first 1/6 (or so) of the book) gives a brief insight into each source, author, council, etc…to give you some more perspective as you read the writings.

 

[1ke]

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.

No, it doesn’t.

Again, selecting and ordaining are two different things.

Also, 2,000 years of tradition is meaningless if that tradition deviated from what the earliest Christians were doing 1,800 years ago.

???

2,000 > 1,800

You are presupposing infallibility in your argument, and I understand why you are doing this, but it doesn’t make your argument persuasive.

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

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?

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

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.

Read the Fathers.

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.

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.

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by PeterJohn
Was the didache a document writen and designed to be distributed to the lay people? Or an instruction book for the clergy?

I am not sure why this would matter.

I am not sure why this would matter.

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?

 

[PeterJohn]

I am not sure why this would matter.

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.

 

[jinc1019]

Yes, the appointment, or choosing by all of the local laity and clergy for a succeeding bishop, followed by public ordination by other bishops was the norm in the first three centuries of the church. The bishop chose the deacons and presbyters.

It seems as though the Didache was written in sections, an instruction manual for catechumens prior to their baptism, a liturgical and ecclessiastic section, and an eschatolgical section.

God’s peace

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?