The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[paul_c]

QUOTE]Originally Posted by paul c
Now you are starting to understand. But you are still subject to your anti-catholic biases.

Quote:
First of all, the primacy is clearly stated in Clements letter in 96. You just won’t admit it because you misunderstand the definitiion of the Royal We (to mean the Bishop and all he leads)

There is no clear statement of primacy. The letter states a plurality of bishops, not a singular bishop, as I proved in a previous post.
The letter does not state a plurality of bishops. Lets use the same criteria you use for scriptural interpretation. Does it say, " We the many bishops of Rome?" No, it does not. It simply uses the royal “we”, which means Clement and the whole church at Rome which he leads and represents… No where does it say a word about multiple bishops. This is completely a figment of your imagination. Here is the letter in its totality for you to check: newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Quote:
Secondly, the idea of the holding the Chair of Peter with the keys and binding and loosing comes directly from Jesus as reported in Scripture (Matthew 16). The fact that Peter went to Rome is also in Scripture, when Peter notes he is writing from Babylon, which you know as code for Rome (since you recognize it in Revelations)

I do not deny that Peter went to Rome. The first extant reference to the keys being passed to a successor, is in the spurious Clementine Homilies.

No. that is actually in this letter of Pope Clement Chapter 44 (the website is above, but here is the quote)
Chapter 44. The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office.
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

Quote:
Third, the references to the spurios Clementine Homilies is spurious in itself. Do you really believe that the Papacy is based on a spurious tract?

Yes, I believe the papacy is based largely on this spurious work that appeared in the same period as and prior to papal claims.

Frankly, this is an unsupported opinion that is clearly counterred by the numerous scripture verses and ECF positions that we have already quoted .

Quote:
The listing of Stephen and Damasus are not the only ones that assert the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. We’ve noted probably a dozen other earlier ECF writings that also support that view

.

Victor asserts authority but not primacy. Irenaeus laid foundations of apostolic succession with the focus on Rome but not yet the bishop as head of the whole church. You could list the ECF’s and papal claims with dates and quotes, and we could examine them closely. Remember also that some ECF’s were desperate to counter heretical groups and used the theory of Roman primacy to bolster their arguments.

We could start with this list: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5293862&postcount=379

Quote:
Finally, what does #6 have to do with the Papacy? And seriously, for 313 years, there was legal supression of the Catholic Church in the empire, yet by the time of the Edict of Milan, there were between 15 and 20M Catholics in the Roman empire out of a total population of 60M. Legal suppression can not stop something that comes from God. And Constantine himself preferred Arianism to Catholicism because it was easier to support politically. The fact is, the temporal authorities never defined Catholicism. That Came from Christ and was passed on by the Bishops of Rome

I refer to Theodosius to point out the reason early Catholicism thrived while non-Catholic Christians did not.

Well, its really an invalid point, isn’t it. Because prior to the Edict of Milan, Catholicism was suppressed by the Roman Empire as a whole, and yet it prospered as I mentioned above. Why would the Catholic Church prosper through 300+ years of persecution, while other heretical versions of Christiainity never took hold. Theodosius favored Catholicism, it is true, but Valens, his predecessor favored Arianism. As you would expect, neither could effect the will of God.

 

[paul_c]

Another example of only a plurality of leaders rather than a singular bishop is the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians in which he refers only to a plurality of presbyters in the church at Philippi and refers to himself as Polycarp and “those who with him are presbyters.” I have already noted that Catholic scholarship does not dispute that there was only a plurality of bishops in Rome and generally (see Didache for “bishops and deacons”) at the time of “First Clement.” Therefore Peter was never THE bishop of Rome although he may have been in Rome and served as a co-bishop.

The notion of a singular ruling bishop within a congregation appears by the time of Ignatius and was accepted as the norm by the time of Irenaeus.

Your concept that there was only a plurality of bishops and no one leader in early catholicism is inconsistent with Catholic Tradition, and the writings of the early church fathers, even those you quote as examples. Polycarp wrote on the behalf of himself and those priest with him (the presbyters). This does’nt mean that he is sharing power. It means he is speaking for them all as the leader. And when he addresses himself to the Church at Philippi, it doesn’t mean that there were a whole lot of bishops sharing power, it means he is addressing himself to the Church led by a bishop but consisting of the whole body of Christ at that church. As for your claim that Catholic Scholarship " does not dispute there was only a plurality of bishops of Rome at the time of First Clement, you know you are playing it very loose. The Catholic Church is clear that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and there is no debate about this within the church…

Finally, I live in the Diocese of New York. We have an archbishop (Timothy Dolan) and 5 auxiliary bishops. It is clear that Archbishop Dolan is in charge. but you would probably claim that we have a plurality of Bishops…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The notion of a singular ruling bishop within a congregation appears by the time of Ignatius and was accepted as the norm by the time of Irenaeus.

You do realize that St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John and received his appointment from St. Peter, right?

 

[pipper]

It’s important in apologetics to always give the other party he benefit of the doubt. Isn’t Catholicism a religion based on love? Therefore, we need to act that way.

And by the way, I like the fact that Daniel is so diligent about posting. First of all, as long as he is engaged, there is always the possibility that he will see the light and someone as diligent as he is could be very useful as an advocate. Secondly, he allows all of us an opportunity to respond with the truth, which will help lurkers. Third, he is forcing us to investigate his charges, which also helps us to find the truth. This is very valuable as well.

So don’t be so hard on Daniel. He is fulfilling God’s purpose, even if it is not the way that Daniel intends. And if its God’s will for him, he will come to believe in the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, once his heart is open to the truth.

I know of course that we are to return good for evil, and I know we are to love all humanity. I know that but Dan sure makes it difficult when he does a post deliberatly to provoke my ire, in an attempt to get me banned.

Truly, I think he has little to no love for the church, Catholic teachings, tho he might have a little love for individual Catholics, especially those he hopes to convert to his church, and from my years in Cambpellism i have known a lot of Catholics, Orthodox etc. who have converted to his church.

PLEASE EVERYBODY PRAY FOR ME, AND ASK THE HOLY VIRGIN TO PRAY FOR ME, THAT i MAY HAVE THE LOVE, THAT EVERY CHRISTIAN SHOULD HAVE.

 

[pipper]

The American churches of Christ are the result of returning to biblical roots from Protestant sectarianism. However, churches of Christ in Europe pre-date the American movement. I welcome all your criticisms, even those that are disrespectful as I am honoured to participate in the sufferings of Christ. I do not encourage people to leave the Roman Catholic church but to contribute to ongoing movements for change within that historic denomination.

DAN as i have said, I am trying to love you as we should love all human beings, but it is hard, now to your post.

You said that that your church is trying to return from Protestant sectarianism, the truth is that your denomination is only one sect within Protestant sectarianism it’s self. Instead of heeding to your denomination’s call for Christian Unity, you have further divided Christianity.

You say that the “churches of Christ” pre-date the American movement, but that is just campbellite fantasy. Look up the “churches of Christ” in any non-biased secular book of history, even Wickipedia and you will learn they were founded by ultra-conservative members of the Disciples of Christ who broke away in schism due to such “important” things like Missionary Societies, the abadonment of the radical congregationalism held before, calling the ministers Pastors and "reverend"and the earth shattering issue of organs in churches.

What I think Stone and the Campbells should have done was to look for the ecumenical movement to heal the ruptures in the Body of Christ, and that is what the Disciples are doing, but your denomination goes off by it’self and says “if you want unity you will have to abandon the churches of your raising, be RE-baptised by dunking only and only for the remission of Sins, and join our denomination, that way we will have only one denomination” the so called “church of Christ” and there will be unity then.

Instead of trying to shut down the Catholic church, you want Catholics to abandon the Holy Father, delay baptism until people are “old enough to decide for themselves” and only then be baptised by submerrsion only, abandon the Real Presence, in other words abandon Catholicism and become members of your denomination in fact if not in name. I ask you in all seriousness, what is the difference?

As for respect, if you mean calling you and members of your denomination by your self appointed name that no-one recognises but other members of your denomination. I cannot, for I do not beleive you are in fact to be what you only call yourself. I you object to being called Campbellites denominationalists or sectarians I can not do that either for I would be telling fibs for you truly are sectarians members of a denomination, and Campbellites.

I have mentioned reality before, and I am just endevoring to be realisitic.

Trying to love, in honesty and reality.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You do realize that St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John and received his appointment from St. Peter, right?

Where is this documented and from what year? Does Ignatius say he was a disciple of John? What is the earliest reference to John being appointed by Peter? Does scripture refer to any Christian as a St.?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Your concept that there was only a plurality of bishops and no one leader in early catholicism is inconsistent with Catholic Tradition, and the writings of the early church fathers, even those you quote as examples. Polycarp wrote on the behalf of himself and those priest with him (the presbyters). This does’nt mean that he is sharing power. It means he is speaking for them all as the leader. And when he addresses himself to the Church at Philippi, it doesn’t mean that there were a whole lot of bishops sharing power, it means he is addressing himself to the Church led by a bishop but consisting of the whole body of Christ at that church. As for your claim that Catholic Scholarship " does not dispute there was only a plurality of bishops of Rome at the time of First Clement, you know you are playing it very loose. The Catholic Church is clear that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and there is no debate about this within the church…

Finally, I live in the Diocese of New York. We have an archbishop (Timothy Dolan) and 5 auxiliary bishops. It is clear that Archbishop Dolan is in charge. but you would probably claim that we have a plurality of Bishops…

The letter called First Clement refers to bishops and deacons and uses bishops interchangeably with the term presbyters. This continues the NT practice of “bishops and deacons” mentioned in Philippians 1:1,

Clement: Chapter 42:
"…they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be **bishops and deacons **of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

Ch.44:
“For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are **those presbyters **who, having finished their course before now…”

Ch.47:
“…sedition against its presbyters…”

Ch.57:
“…submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent…”

Clement NEVER says “submit yourselves to your bishop” (singular) as Ignatius clearly says at a later date. There was no singular office of bishop when Peter was in Rome.

 

[PRmerger]

Does scripture refer to any Christian as a St.?

But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, show much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem”; Acts 9:13

Now as Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda. Acts 9:32

And he gave her his hand and raised her up; and calling the saints and widows, he presented her alive. Acts 9:41

And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them. Acts 26:10

to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1:7

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where is this documented and from what year? Does Ignatius say he was a disciple of John? What is the earliest reference to John being appointed by Peter? Does scripture refer to any Christian as a St.?

You said, “The notion of a singular ruling bishop within a congregation appears by the time of Ignatius…” So, let’s approach the timeline of St. Ignatius.

Ignatius of Antioch (also known as Theophorus) (ca. 35 or 50-between 98 and 117)[1] was among the Apostolic Fathers, was the third Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch, and was possibly a student of John the Apostle. En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which have been preserved as an example of very early Christian theology. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the role of bishops.

St. Ignatius was born before the New Testament letters and epistles were written, and died before the canon of the New Testament had been defined. He lived his adult life while the Apostles were still working their ministry, so the things he learned, he learned from the Apostles.

With this timeline alone, “the notion of a singluar ruling bishop” contradicts your view of of the timeline that singluar ruling bishops was establised after the connection of Church and state.

St. Ignatius in the Catholic Encyclopedia

More than one of the earliest ecclesiastical writers have given credence, though apparently without good reason, to the legend that Ignatius was the child whom the Savior took up in His arms, as described in Mark 9:35. It is also believed, and with great probability, that, with his friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch and the immediate successor of Evodius (Eusebius, Church History II.3.22). Theodoret (“Dial. Immutab.”, I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) is the authority for the statement that St. Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. St. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves (“Hom. in St. Ig.”, IV. 587). Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III, xii, art. xvi, p. 53).

As for your last question, referencing Saints, scriptures refer to many Christians as saints.

**Act 26:18 To open their eyes, that they may be converted from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a lot among the saints, by the faith that is in me.

Rom 1:7 To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you and peace, from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 1:2 To the church of God that is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place of theirs and ours.

1Co 14:33 For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints.**

While I realize you demand “ironclad” proof specifically stating some beliefs, are we to find fault with the way the authors of the New Testament worded their writings, when scriptures clealy show us examples of an oral tradition, in addition to scriptures? That’s what it appears you are doing with some beliefs, because it’s clear you accept other beliefs without the same qualification you demand for those beliefs you have objections too. Why is it you accept a belief not clearly stated to your satisfaction, yet the belief you chose is not clearly stated either?

Our beliefs come from oral tradition and scriptures, which are supported by writings of the earliest Christians. Your beliefs are only supported by a personal view of scriptures and writings from men since the 1500s. It’s hard to see the logic in that approach, especially from someone who has studied history.

 

[utunumsint]

The letter called First Clement refers to bishops and deacons and uses bishops interchangeably with the term presbyters. This continues the NT practice of “bishops and deacons” mentioned in Philippians 1:1,

Clement NEVER says “submit yourselves to your bishop” (singular) as Ignatius clearly says at a later date. There was no singular office of bishop when Peter was in Rome.

1- Can you provide a quote from the new testament or the ECFs that states that the bishops were identical in all ways to the presbyters? All I require is one. Because I can find several from Ignatius that states otherwise.

2-Can you find me one passage from an ECF that denounces and rejects Ignatius’ distintion between bishop and presbyter?

3-Can you find one ECF that denounces and rejects Ireneaus’ declaration that Clement was the bishop of Rome who sent the letter to the Corinthians?

4-Can you find one ECF that dounces and rejects (singular) bishop Dionisius of Corinth’s claim that Clement was the bishop of Rome who sent the letter to the Corinthians?

5-Can you find any statement in Ignatius’ letter to the Romans that indicates a plurality of bishops?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There was no singular office of bishop when Peter was in Rome.

Let me qualify your statement above, since it’s starting to appear you’re only making sport of posting your assertions.

“There was no singular office of bishop when Peter was in Rome, in your opinion.”

Just as there is no specific worded statements, to your satisfaction, you have presented no specific worded statements that support your view. There is a clear double-standard to your arguments.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
Your concept that there was only a plurality of bishops and no one leader in early catholicism is inconsistent with Catholic Tradition, and the writings of the early church fathers, even those you quote as examples. Polycarp wrote on the behalf of himself and those priest with him (the presbyters). This does’nt mean that he is sharing power. It means he is speaking for them all as the leader. And when he addresses himself to the Church at Philippi, it doesn’t mean that there were a whole lot of bishops sharing power, it means he is addressing himself to the Church led by a bishop but consisting of the whole body of Christ at that church. As for your claim that Catholic Scholarship " does not dispute there was only a plurality of bishops of Rome at the time of First Clement, you know you are playing it very loose. The Catholic Church is clear that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and there is no debate about this within the church…

Finally, I live in the Diocese of New York. We have an archbishop (Timothy Dolan) and 5 auxiliary bishops. It is clear that Archbishop Dolan is in charge. but you would probably claim that we have a plurality of Bishops…

Daniel Keeran:

The letter called First Clement refers to bishops and deacons and uses bishops interchangeably with the term presbyters. This continues the NT practice of “bishops and deacons” mentioned in Philippians 1:1,

Clement: Chapter 42:
"…they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

Ch.44:
“For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now…”

Ch.47:
“…sedition against its presbyters…”

Ch.57:
“…submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent…”

Clement NEVER says “submit yourselves to your bishop” (singular) as Ignatius clearly says at a later date. There was no singular office of bishop when Peter was in Rome.

This whole letter is about submitting to your leaders. It discusses the problem that usurpers were throwing out rigthfully ordained men. Even the quote you pull out above, tells the people to submit to the priests and repent (He’s telling them to go to confession).
Notice the below, where he likens the body of Christ to an army where you follow the hierarchy… So don’t try to suggest that their was no hierarchy. There clearly was.

Chapter 37. Christ is Our Leader, and We His Soldiers

.
Let us then, men and brethren, with all energy act the part of soldiers, in accordance with His holy commandments. Let us consider those who serve under our generals, with what order, obedience, and submissiveness they perform the things which are commanded them. All are not prefects, nor commanders of a thousand, nor of a hundred, nor of fifty, nor the like, but each one in his own rank performs the things commanded by the king and the generals. The great cannot subsist without the small, nor the small without the great. There is a kind of mixture in all things, and thence arises mutual advantage. Let us take our body for an example. The head is nothing without the feet, and the feet are nothing without the head; yea, the very smallest members of our body are necessary and useful to the whole body. But all work harmoniously together, and are under one common rule for the preservation of the whole body.

Chapter 38. Let the Members of the Church Submit Themselves, and No One Exalt Himself Above Another.
Let our whole body, then, be preserved in Christ Jesus; and let every one be subject to his neighbour, according to the special gift bestowed upon him. Let the strong not despise the weak, and let the weak show respect unto the strong. Let the rich man provide for the wants of the poor; and let the poor man bless God, because He has given him one by whom his need may be supplied. Let the wise man display his wisdom, not by [mere] words, but through good deeds. Let the humble not bear testimony to himself, but leave witness to be borne to him by another. Proverbs 27:2 Let him that is pure in the flesh not grow proud of it, and boast, knowing that it was another who bestowed on him the gift of continence. Let us consider, then, brethren, of what matter we were made—who and what manner of beings we came into the world, as it were out of a sepulchre, and from utter darkness. He who made us and fashioned us, having prepared His bountiful gifts for us before we were born, introduced us into His world. Since, therefore, we receive all these things from Him, we ought for everything to give Him thanks; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

As for interchangabily using Deacon, Bishop and Presbyter, this is simply not true. It could only appear to be true if you were predisposed to make it so. When he talks about bishops and deacons, he talks about them differently. Notice, the bishops are appointed in righteousness, but the Deacons are appointed in faith. That’s because they had different roles. And there is no proof that Clement uses Bishop and presbyter interchangeably either. Presbyters were the chief aids of the bishops.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, show much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem”; Acts 9:13

Now as Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda. Acts 9:32

And he gave her his hand and raised her up; and calling the saints and widows, he presented her alive. Acts 9:41

And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them. Acts 26:10

to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1:7

Does this mean everyone was a saint at that time or just certain Christians called St.So-and-So?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You said, “The notion of a singular ruling bishop within a congregation appears by the time of Ignatius…” So, let’s approach the timeline of St. Ignatius.

St. Ignatius was born before the New Testament letters and epistles were written, and died before the canon of the New Testament had been defined. He lived his adult life while the Apostles were still working their ministry, so the things he learned, he learned from the Apostles.

With this timeline alone, “the notion of a singluar ruling bishop” contradicts your view of of the timeline that singluar ruling bishops was establised after the connection of Church and state.

I have NEVER said the idea of a singular ruling bishop was establised after the connection of Church and state but rather by the time of Ignatius. A more likely possibility is that Ignatius was one who loved to be first as John says of Diotrephes. The notion of a singular ruling bishop is against the pattern and spirit of the New Testament idea of leadership, and there is no singular ruling bishop in the NT other than the arrogant example of Diotrephes.

As for your last question, referencing Saints, scriptures refer to many Christians as saints.

**Act 26:18 To open their eyes, that they may be converted from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a lot among the saints, by the faith that is in me.

Rom 1:7 To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you and peace, from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 1:2 To the church of God that is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place of theirs and ours.

1Co 14:33 For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints.**

While I realize you demand “ironclad” proof specifically stating some beliefs, are we to find fault with the way the authors of the New Testament worded their writings, when scriptures clealy show us examples of an oral tradition, in addition to scriptures? That’s what it appears you are doing with some beliefs, because it’s clear you accept other beliefs without the same qualification you demand for those beliefs you have objections too. Why is it you accept a belief not clearly stated to your satisfaction, yet the belief you chose is not clearly stated either?

Were all Christians called saints in the NT period or just certain ones?

 

[PRmerger]

Does this mean everyone was a saint at that time or just certain Christians called St.So-and-So?

Certainly not everyone was a saint at that time!

And certainly not just certain Christians called St. So and So.

If by saint you mean “holy one”, or those “separated and set apart”, then anyone who meets that description is a saint on earth.

Then there are those who are blessed in heaven with eternal life, that the Church recognizes for their holiness and communion with His Will.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

1- Can you provide a quote from the new testament or the ECFs that states that the bishops were identical in all ways to the presbyters? All I require is one. Because I can find several from Ignatius that states otherwise.

I appreciate your numbering of points/questions. Ignatius certainly represents a change from the NT re bishops and presbyters. Here are relevant NT passages:

Acts 14:23
Paul and Barnabas **appointed presbyters for them in each church **and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

Plurality of presbyters in “each church” with no mention of bishops.

Acts 20:17
From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for **the presbyters **of the church. 18When they arrived, he said to them: "You know …28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Plurality of presybters also called bishops and shepherds.

Philippians 1:1
Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the bishops and deacons.

Plurality of “bishops and deacons” in Philippi but no mention of bishops.

1 Timothy 3:1
Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being a bishop, he desires a noble task…8Deacons, likewise, are to be men … let them serve as deacons… 12 A deacon must be

Singular reference to bishop (with the same qualifications as for presbyters in Titus 5), mentioned with deacons but with no mention of presbyters.

1 Timothy 5:17
The **presbyters who direct the affairs of the church **well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

Plurality of presbyters direct the church with no mention of bishop(s).

Titus 1:5-7
5The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you. 6 **A presbyter **must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since **a bishop **is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless…

Plurality of presbyters also called bishops.

1 Peter 5:1-2
1To the presbyters among you, I appeal as a fellow presbyter, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 **Be shepherds **of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as bishops—not because you must, but because you are willing…

Plurality of presbyters also called bishops and shepherds as in Acts 20. In view if the above, Peter would not have been a singular bishop of Rome as there were none during the life of the apostles. The only singular ruler of any church was Diotrephes condemned because he loved to be first.

Regarding your other questions:

2-Can you find me one passage from an ECF that denounces and rejects Ignatius’ distintion between bishop and presbyter?

Jerome notes that bishops are the same as presbyters in the NT and that they are plural in their rule over a church. Ignatius avoids referring to a singular bishop in Rome. Does any ECF contemporary with Ignatius even mention Ignatius?

3-Can you find one ECF that denounces and rejects Ireneaus’ declaration that Clement was the bishop of Rome who sent the letter to the Corinthians?

By the time of Irenaeus in 190AD the singular bishop was well established. And the tradition had already developed that Clement was THE bishop of Rome at the time of the letter.

4-Can you find one ECF that dounces and rejects (singular) bishop Dionisius of Corinth’s claim that Clement was the bishop of Rome who sent the letter to the Corinthians?

See above.

5-Can you find any statement in Ignatius’ letter to the Romans that indicates a plurality of bishops?

His lack of mention of a singular bishop in Rome in contrast to singular bishops mentioned for other churches, indicates the probability there was no singular bishop in Rome also because Rome tended to be most conservative and would have moved later toward a singular bishop.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have NEVER said the idea of a singular ruling bishop was establised after the connection of Church and state but rather by the time of Ignatius. A more likely possibility is that Ignatius was one who loved to be first as John says of Diotrephes. The notion of a singular ruling bishop is against the pattern and spirit of the New Testament idea of leadership, and there is no singular ruling bishop in the NT other than the arrogant example of Diotrephes.

I just came off a long shift and apologize if I was mistaken. It seems I remember you, more than, insinuating that the office of Pope was developed during the time of Constantine.

Knowing this thread was started by you and entitled, “The Office the Papacy in Scripture”, I also assumed that your statement of, “The notion of a singular ruling bishop within a congregation appears by the time of Ignatius…” was to insinuate the idea of the office of Pope might have been originally developed by Ignatius, which I took as your argument was to point out that the idea had come about after scritpures. This is why I wanted to point out the timeline of Ignatius’ life and the origin of scriptures.

It seems my pointing out the timeline might have struck a nerve with you, because now you’ve responded with “a more likely possibility is that Ignatius was one who loved to be first as John says of Diotrephes”, which is no more than speculation, or an assumption, on your part.

This is what you’ve been doing with scriptures, in my opinion. Something that doesn’t fit your theology, or your idea of what the Church Christ started is, as stated in scriptures is no more than speculated, or assumed to be something else, by you.

This is why I keep pointing out that there is nothing in scriptures specifically stated to support your view, just as you say there is nothing specifically stated in scriptures to support the Catholic view. Your entire argument is based on speculation/assumption derived from a personal interpretation of scriptures and appears to be fitting scriptures to a theology, as opposed to fitting a theology to scriptures and a tradition as passed through the early Church fathers.

I do not believe this is as much an honest discussion, as it is maintaining an agenda to push a view of an anti-Catholic nature. How else can one explain an argument based on statements like, “a more likely possibility”, with absolutely no supporting sources?

 

[paul_c]

Daniel,

This is the NAB version of Philipians 1:1 ==>
Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and ministers:

This is the note that describes it:

Slaves: Paul usually refers to himself at the start of a letter as an apostle. Here he substitutes a term suggesting the unconditional obligation of himself and Timothy to the service of Christ, probably because, in view of the good relationship with the Philippians, he wishes to stress his status as a co-servant rather than emphasize his apostolic authority. Reference to Timothy is a courtesy: Paul alone writes the letter, as the singular verb throughout shows (Philippians 1:3-26), and the reference (Philippians 2:19-24) to Timothy in the third person. Overseers: the Greek term episkopos literally means “one who oversees” or “one who supervises,” but since the second century it has come to designate the “bishop,” the official who heads a local church. In New Testament times this office had not yet developed into the form that it later assumed, though it seems to be well on the way to such development in the Pastorals; see 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:7, where it is translated bishop. At Philippi, however (and at Ephesus, according to Acts 20:28), there was more than one episkopos, and the precise function of these officials is uncertain. In order to distinguish this office from the later stages into which it developed, the term is here translated as overseers. Ministers: the Greek term diakonoi is used frequently in the New Testament to designate “servants,” “attendants,” or “ministers.” Paul refers to himself and to other apostles as “ministers of God” (2 Cor 6:4) or “ministers of Christ” (2 Cor 11:23). In the Pastorals (1 Tim 3:8, 12) the diakonos has become an established official in the local church; hence the term is there translated as deacon. The diakonoi at Philippi seem to represent an earlier stage of development of the office; we are uncertain about their precise functions. Hence the term is here translated as ministers. See Romans 16:1, where Phoebe is described as a diakonos (minister) of the church of Cenchreae. 1, 2: The gifts come from Christ the Lord, not simply through him from the Father; compare the christology in Philippians 2:6-11.

So as you can see in this view, the offices of bishop, priests and deacons developed between the time of the letter of the Phillipians and the time of the Pastorals, a period of 5-10 years. It is not surprising that the church structure was modified in those first decades to accomodate the rapid growth in membership. At first, one leader (Peter) and a group of Apostles was all that was required. As they expanded they church they added Deacons (who preached and handled adminstrative functions) and Presbetyrs ( to handle the sacraments for the growing population). As the church grew bigger, a level of leadership was added in the middle, the bishop, and then later still another, the archbishop/cardinal. But there was always the supreme leader, Peter’ and his successors, who have run the overall church from Rome for 2000 years.

 

[LionHeart777]

“The fact that Clement’s letter is from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth does not exclude the possibility of there being a single Bishop at each. I refer you (again) to Irenaus’ Against Heresies , for the sucessive list of Roman Bishops. I believe that St. Ignatius doesn’t address singular Bishops in his letters to Churches, yet he clearly believes in the validity of singular Bishops…” (abridged)

I originally posted this (above) before I realized that Ignatius mentions the Bishops of the Curches in most of his letters. So, in a way, I’m glad you mentioned this below:

His lack of mention of a singular bishop in Rome in contrast to singular bishops mentioned for other churches, indicates the probability there was no singular bishop in Rome also because Rome tended to be most conservative and would have moved later toward a singular bishop.

One thing that is interesting is that I think all of the Bishops of all the Churches he writes to met with him personally along his way to Rome, except maybe Polycarp, to whom he writes an individual letter to besides the letter to the Smyrnians. He wasn’t met by the Roman Bishop possibly because that’s where he was heading to, in mmy opinion. Just my $0.02, I’ll have to go back and research it more.

We can see, in my opinion, from the letter to the Smyrneans alone that there is a singular Bishop and the same 3 tiered hierarch headed by the Bishop that we see in all the other letters (except Rome, as you pointed out.) Here is my evidence:

“…I salute your most worthy bishop, and your very venerable presbytery, and your deacons, my fellow-servants, and all of you individually, as well as generally, in the name of Jesus Christ…” (newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm -accessed 6/ 16/ 09)

It is widely known and accepted that St. Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna, so I take it this is who Ignatius is referring to as “…your…Bishop…” It is also widely known that Polycarp was a disciple of St. John. So if Ignatius “loved to be first” as you accuse him of, then so did all the other Bishops including St. Polycarp who I believe was known for his holiness.

I know it doesn’t matter to you that Polycarp was a disciple of John, as I believe that you have stated before Apostolic proximity doesn’t do much for you (my paraphrase.) But think about this:

According to you (IF I understand you correctly):

Ignatius was wrong
Irenaeus was wrong

by implication it appears to me that all of the singular Bishops that Ignatius mentions explicitly (including St. Polycarp and the Philippian Bishop) were wrong in their idea of Church governance. Unless you believe that Ignatius invented theses singular Bishops either by an honest mistake or by lying? Or you have another idea?

To me, the more plausible explanation is that you are mistaken, albeit honestly mistaken and that there is another plausible explanation.

Here is one thing that seems plausible to me:

“… the terms ‘bishop,’ ‘priest,’ and ‘deacon’ were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament…” ([urlhttp://www.catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp) (accessed 6/ 16/ 09)

I’ve also posted this (below) before by Jimmy Akin, which is relevent to the terms “Bishop”, “Presbyters”, and “Deacons”

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

 

[LionHeart777]

hey Paul I realize you posted something similar above, I haven’t investigated the history of these offices and terminology much. What do you think of the view above (the one I posted which appears to be alitlle different)? Or…on 2nd thought, maybe it’s not as different as I thought it was since I’ve read some of the commentary you posted?