The Universal Church

[mcq72]

But Jesus also established one of them (PETER) as the leader

Yes, and we the rest ( establishing successors). I would say Jesus would approve of quite a few selections, just as He wouldn’t touch some of them with a ten foot pole.

Satan (present tense) got them into the argument over who is the greatest

I think that is misapplication of text, as if the flesh cant be carnal on its own.

 

[SyCarl]

The chronology of the first bishops of Rome is far from clear.
See this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01446a.htm

Jerome says that the early church government was by councils of presbyters with bishops coming later.

Paul is speaking here to bishops who have the power of placing presbyters in individual towns so they would hear clearly by what kind of rule church order should be maintained…Originally the churches were governed by a common council of presbyters. But after one of their number began to think that those whom he had baptized were his and not Christ’s, it was universally decreed that one of the presbyters should preside over the others, to whom the care of the whole church should pertain, that the seeds of schism should be alleviated.

(Commentary on Titus, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, Volume IX, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 285)

and

And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. Writing to Titus the apostle says: For this cause left I you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I had appointed you: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God. And to Timothy he says: Neglect not the gift that is in you, which was given you by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery … When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself.

(Letter 146)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm

This could help to explain the uncertainty set out in the Catholic Encyclopedia. If the Roman church was initially governed by a council of presbyters, all the men over which the confusion exists could have been on the council at the same time. So the lists would not be wrong but the periods of those men were in office could have overlapped.

 

[lanman87]

Jerome says that the early church government was by councils of presbyters with bishops coming later.

There wasn’t a single bishop over any church for probably 70 years after the resurrection.

We see in the Didache that new Bishops/Elders were not appointed by Bishops and that churches had more than one bishop.

"And so, elect for yourselves bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved” (15.1).

There are several early church writing that point to bishops (plural) being over a church instead of a single bishop.

1 Clement also tells us that bishops/elders/presbyters were appointed “by other reputable men with the entire church giving its approval”. 44.3

I believe the plurality of bishops/presbyters model was the way the church government was setup by the apostles, where new bishops/presbyters were recommended by men of the local church and approved/elected by the local church assembly.

This began to change in the late first century and early second century as assemblies in cities began to choose a “head bishop” to oversee the coordination of the many local assemblies and to be the spokesman for the Christians to churches in other cities. Eventually, this model developed into the Episcopal hierarchy.

This is also a reason why congregational churches elect pastors and deacons. They believe it was the church government instituted by the apostles. In a church with a congregational government, when a Pastor leaves a search team is formed and they recommend a new pastor then the church votes to accept/reject the recommendation. That model seems much closer to what is described in the Didache and 1 Clement than what happens in Episcopal church governments where the church hierarchy chooses the new Pastor/Bishop/Priest and the local church has little to no say in the matter.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jesus said one of THEM will be the greatest.

Did he ?

Someone yes, but again only cites qualifications, not who specifically.

cmon, everybody knows it’s Simon/Peter. Simon/Peter is the only one among “THEM”, Jesus mentions by name. One might ask, why are the apostles even arguing over this? They know Peter is going to get the keys Jesus will give him. And now Jesus mentions AGAIN, in front of THEM, for the purpose of educating THEM…AGAIN, who is the greatest among THEM. It’s PETER. Peter will be the one to strengthen his brothers after everyone has been sifted by Satan, that because Jesus said He will pray for Peter. Really? What about the others? Imagine being in that room at that moment and hearing THAT. It ends their argument FULL STOP!
AND it goes with what Jesus said earlier, at Cesarea Philippi, where Jesus promises the keys of the kingdom, to Peter. AND after Jesus resurrection, who does Jesus speak to singularly, in front of all the apostles, AGAIN, about feeding and ruling Our Lord’s sheep? It’s Peter.

One could say the apostles at this point were still a bit slow on the uptake. That would change at Pentecost…when all comes into action.,

mcq72:

Yes, but does that mean he is the greatest, or to be seated at the Kings right hand?

Jesus, as you see, already answered that.

SO

How did history play out on that point?

5 centuries shortened

HERE

 

[steve-b]

anachronistically

steve-b:

We know from 2000 yrs of history going back to Peter, that we have to date, 266 successors to Peter down to our day.

What is the word, anachronistically ?

Just saying Ignatius and Iranaeus do not cite head bishop, and both had perfect contextual opportunity for such a thing in their writings.

Irenaeus does refer to the head bishops of Rome (12 by name), in succession from Peter, down to Irenaeus’s day.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

But Jesus also established one of them (PETER) as the leader

Yes, and we the rest ( establishing successors). I would say Jesus would approve of quite a few selections, just as He wouldn’t touch some of them with a ten foot pole.

Jesus never promised a sinless Church.

Satan (present tense) got them into the argument over who is the greatest

mcq72:

I think that is misapplication of text, as if the flesh cant be carnal on its own.

?

 

[mcq72]

Irenaeus does refer to the head bishops of Rome (12 by name), in succession from Peter, down to Irenaeus’s day.

Yes, just as he listed head bishops of two other churches.

 

[steve-b]

The chronology of the first bishops of Rome is far from clear.
See this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01446a.htm

And from that link,

"We can accept the list of Irenaeus… "

SyCarl:

Jerome says that the early church government was by councils of presbyters with bishops coming later.

This is the perfect spot to give a reference properly referenced.

SyCarl:

Paul is speaking here to bishops… [snip for space]

(Commentary on Titus, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, Volume IX, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 285)

IOW, bishops were named in the beginning, and did NOT come later,

So

there seems to be a problem with how your reference presents Jerome’s position. .

SyCarl:

[edit for space]

And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. … When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself.

Clements letter to the Corinthians, HERE to settle sedition among their clergy,

when he says “we” , in referring to his instruction to the Corinthian Church, is using it in the royal “we” form of speaking, for the whole Church.

AND

One could ask

How is it Clement, is even attempting to influence, and correct with authority, disorder, in another Church, among their bishops, in another country?

Especially considering

St John hasn’t written the book of revelation yet, and is still alive over on Patmos. That’s a whole lot closer to Corinth than Rome was. Why didn’t Corinth go to John?

ALSO

Athens is 50 miles from Corinth and They have valid bishops. They are mentioned in Acts. Why did Corinth not go to Athens for a solution to their sedition ? Same could be said of going to Thessolonika in Greece. Why did they go specifically to Rome for a solution?

AND

How does Clement in Rome presume to enter into the internal affairs of an independent Church in a different country?

There is almost a presumption that Clement and the Church of Rome, can do this and fix the problem.

Any uproar from anyone, anywhere, over this? No

As an aside

bishops don’t interfere with other bishops, nor do they have authority over other bishops. Except for one Bishop, the successor to St Peter. That bishop is the bishop of Rome. And everybody understands THAT from the beginning, that HE has such authority.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Irenaeus does refer to the head bishops of Rome (12 by name), in succession from Peter, down to Irenaeus’s day.

Yes, just as he listed head bishops of two other churches.

Bishops are over their own Church/diocese. The pope is over all the Churches

 

[mcq72]

Jesus never promised a sinless Church.

Nor does He promise valid successions.

 

[mcq72]

Bishops are over their own Church/diocese. The pope is over all the Churches

Right. That is a developed teaching, which builds upon, uses what Iranaeus and Ignatius taught. Never the less, they themselves taught no such thing.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jesus never promised a sinless Church.

Nor does He promise valid successions.

Since

The Church is protected from teaching error we can depend on what the Church officially teaches when it comes to doctrines and dogmas.

AND

since the Church couldn’t exist without valid succession, I’d say we’re protected there as well.

 

[mcq72]

since the Church couldn’t exist without valid succession, I’d say we’re protected there as well.

Correct. Those that teach correctly are valid successors.

Some popes didnt didnt teach a thing and are not necesarily valid successors.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Bishops are over their own Church/diocese. The pope is over all the Churches

Right. That is a developed teaching, which builds upon, uses what Iranaeus and Ignatius taught. Never the less, they themselves taught no such thing.

How did you miss paragraphs 2 & 3 of the link I gave you on this post -------> HERE

I noticed you didn’t open the link before

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

since the Church couldn’t exist without valid succession, I’d say we’re protected there as well.

Correct. Those that teach correctly are valid successors.

Some popes didnt didnt teach a thing and are not necesarily valid successors.

THAT is YOUR misinterpretation of valid vs invalid

 

[mcq72]

How did you miss paragraphs 2 & 3 of the link I gave you on this post -------> HERE

I noticed you didn’t open the link before

yes i read…again , texts do not say bishop of Rome is head bishop

 

[mcq72]

THAT is YOUR misinterpretation of valid vs invalid

Correct. Can not see Jesus having anything to do with more than a few elected popes, and Peter himself would be very disappointed.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

How did you miss paragraphs 2 & 3 of the link I gave you on this post -------> HERE

I noticed you didn’t open the link before

yes i read…again , texts do not say bishop of Rome is head bishop

Why then does Irenaeus go into naming one bishop at a time, from Rome, in direct succession from Peter at Rome, down to his day? No one else gets named in that succession of bishops.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

THAT is YOUR misinterpretation of valid vs invalid

Correct. Can not see Jesus having anything to do with more than a few elected popes, and Peter himself would be very disappointed.

I’m not following your thought. Please explain

 

[mcq72]

How is it Clement, is even attempting to influence, and correct with authority, disorder, in another Church, among their bishops, in another country?

well, because Corinth asked for the help, having past connection thru Paul, and Peter…not sure John was ever there.

As to John maybe he was alive , maybe not for “Thus one may place the composition of 1 Clement between A.D. 80 and 140.”

bishops don’t interfere with other bishops,

is an epistle "interference’’ ? half the NT might then be considered such.

That bishop is the bishop of Rome. And everybody understands THAT from the beginning, that HE has such authority.

only Catholics understand this in Catholic fashion.