Upon this Rock.... Enter the lists

[steve-b]

steve-b:

St Ignatius, was ordained by the apostles, as Bishop of Antioch in ~69 a.d. Ignatius knew the apostles,

St. Ignatius was also the first “bishop” to divide the NT model of church polity from “elder-bishop” which was the same NT office (same as a pastor), to the pastor-elder being the leader of a local church & the “bishop” as an “overseer” of the churches in a particular city or region. Prior to this, pastor-elder-bishops were leaders in their individual local churches in their cities & regions, and we see a multiplicity of these pastor-elder-bishops in these local churches as seen in the NT, as opposed to a single “bishop” overseeing an entire city or region.

It always depended on the size of the city or region as to number of bishops

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Yes. That was my point. The church is not Israel. God expected the same obedience & worship to Him, but they are still two different institutions, since we are not commanded to observe the OT laws & ceremonial rituals, which Jesus fulfilled, which were imposed solely on Israel, not church. Even the 10 Commandments were solely imposed on Israel according to Deuteronomy 5.

Really?. Well first, yes the Church is the New Israel and I am not saying that we follow the OT rituals but just as there were religious leaders in the OT that called for fasts and ceremonies God gives us leaders today who call for fasts and holy days. Scripture says all authority comes from God.

This is talking about how Jesus, who was from the tribe of Judah could be High Priest even though He was not from the Levitical priesthood, because He was from the “order” of Melchizedek, which was far more superior to the Levitical priesthood. The writer of Hebrews acknowledges the former priesthood was still active (which is how we know it was written before A.D. 70, because the Temple was not destroyed yet, which is where sacrifices were held). But it doesn’t say God “gave us a new priesthood.” The “royal priesthood” Peter talks about pertains to ALL believers in Christ, who can now stand in the presence of the God-Man, Who stands as High Priest in the presence of the Father in the Heavenly Holy of Holies. This occurred when the Temple curtain tore in two after Christ died & said “It is finished!”

So I think we have gone around and around and it seems all I am getting are protestant interpretations of Scripture as if they are fact but again these are misinterpretations of Scripture coming from a protesting point of view though I realize you are saying you just want to let us know what protestants believe.

So since I have stopped doing Bible verse battles, since leaving protestantism, mostly because they can just go on and on, I usually find it best just to link something.

And since this is a Catholic forum, here are some Catholic explanations on the book of Hebrews and the Catholic priesthood and what is correct interpretation. I say the Catholic explanation is correct because God gave the authority to interpret scripture to the Catholic church. We are not to privately interpret Scripture but read Scripture under the guidance of God’s Church.

Hebrews

The Biblical Blueprint for the Priesthood | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[MagdalenaRita]

This is talking about how Jesus, who was from the tribe of Judah . . .

Catechism of the Catholic Church

The one priesthood of Christ

1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men."15 The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique “high priest after the order of Melchizedek”;16 "holy, blameless, unstained,"17 "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,"18 that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."19

Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."21

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit–, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

In the person of Christ the Head . . .

1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts *in persona Christi :

15 2 Tim 2:5.
16 Heb 5:10; cf. 6:20; Gen 14:18.
17 Heb 7:26.
18 Heb 10:14.
19 St. Thomas Aquinas, *Heb. 8,4.
20 Rev 1:6; cf. Rev 5:9-10; 1 Pet 2:5,9.
21 LG 10 1.
22 LG 10 2

 

[RaisedCatholic]

It always depended on the size of the city or region as to number of bishops

Yes, that is true in the centuries that followed, but I was referring to the time prior to the time of Ignatius - meaning the first century. It wasn’t until Ignatius, early second century, that the single elder-bishop office split. If you read 1 Clement, as late as the late first century, there was even a plurality of elder-bishops in Rome.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

And since this is a Catholic forum, here are some Catholic explanations on the book of Hebrews and the Catholic priesthood and what is correct interpretation. I say the Catholic explanation is correct because God gave the authority to interpret scripture to the Catholic church. We are not to privately interpret Scripture but read Scripture under the guidance of God’s Church.

Thank you. And as my name suggests, since I was raised Catholic, I am well aware of these Catholic explanations. And if I believed they were exegetically based on Scripture and taught by Jesus, His disciples,and the early first century church, I would still be Catholic. I think we would both agree this is a matter of authority, and to be clear, I don’t consider “my authority” to be it. With that, I will just respectfully leave it there, so as not to violate forum rules, which I have no desire to do.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It always depended on the size of the city or region as to number of bishops

Yes, that is true in the centuries that followed, but I was referring to the time prior to the time of Ignatius - meaning the first century. It wasn’t until Ignatius, early second century, that the single elder-bishop office split. If you read 1 Clement, as late as the late first century, there was even a plurality of elder-bishops in Rome.

Ignatius WAS bishop in the 1st century.

Another ECF, and Bishop, in the first century, was Clement of Rome. Ordained by apostles, and 3rd successor to St Peter in Rome. His letter to the Corinthians correcting sedition in Corinth, Greece. Corinth is only 50 miles away from Athens, who also had valid bishops, and mentioned by Paul in Acts. I mention that because one has to ask why didn’t Corinth go to Athens, or even Thessalonika Greece, for help? They are much closer to Corinth that Rome Italy.

Not only that,

At this time of Clement’s letter to Corinth, St Paul is still alive, living much closer in distance to Corinth than Clement in Rome, yet Clement, is being asked by the clergy in Corinth, to settle sedition among their clergy in Corinth. This action speaks volumes about authority, and in particular, where one bishop’s authority is seen, from the 1st century, that can be exercised across borders, and even countries. In this case, it’s the bishop who is successor to St Peter, in Rome.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

If you read 1 Clement, as late as the late first century, there was even a plurality of elder-bishops in Rome.

Another ECF, and Bishop, in the first century, was Clement of Rome.

I don’t think you read all of my post. As I said, there was a PLURALITY of bishops in Rome if you read 1 Clement, not a single bishopric. The establishment of a single bishopric in Rome came later, and then the belief it also existed in the first century too was a later extrapolation back into the first century. Although 1 Clement is commonly believed to have been written by the sole bishop of Rome, in reality it was written by the church leaders in Rome at the time.

As far as Ignatius, he is the first church leader to separate the SINGLE elder-bishop office, and divide it into the pastor-elder as the individual church leader, and bishop as the overseer of all the local churches in the area, which deviated from Paul’s and Luke’s church polity models as being synonymous. The belief this division goes back to the apostles is a later tradition imputed back into the first century. Ignatius became the sole “bishop” in the early second century (or at the very latest, the late first century).

 

[JimG]

Most cities have more than one bishop and more than one diocese. I don’t know which bishops might have resided in Rome during Clement’s time, but only one was the successor to Peter.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I don’t know which bishops might have resided in Rome during Clement’s time, but only one was the successor to Peter.

That’s a new one for me - it sounds like you are acknowledging that were a multiplicity of bishops of Rome, yet only one who was the successor of Peter? How does that work? Was this taught to you, or are you just assuming this? I really am asking, because I’d like to know.

 

[JimG]

I’m not a Church historian, so I can’t give a detailed outline of history. Peter was appointed by Christ as head of the Church. He was not in Rome at the time. When he moved to Rome, he remained the head of the Church. He appointed Linus as his successor, who was succeeded by Anacletus, then Clement. I don’t know if other bishops were ordained in Rome during that time; I think St. Paul was there. But the succession of Peter as well as other major dioceses was preserved in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Clement was obviously recognized as the valid successor to Peter, since they directed their inquiries to him rather than other bishops who were closer to Corinth.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

But the succession of Peter as well as other major dioceses was preserved in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History.

According to Book 3.1 of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, the first mention of Peter AND PAUL appointing Linus as bishop of Rome, was by Origen (~A.D. 254). But keep in mind, Origen is not recognized as an ECF by the Catholic Church. And Eusebius never once refers to the bishop of Rome as “Pope,” like he does the bishop of Alexandria cited by Dionysius as “our blessed pope Heraclas.” This means the term “Pope” to describe the bishop of Alexandria had been in use for over 200 years before the bishop of Rome began using the title exclusively towards himself.

And, again, when you read 1 Clement (A.D. 95) there was still a plurality of bishops in Rome by his time. This means Clement wasn’t “the” bishop of Rome, but “a” bishop of Rome, just as you see a multiplicity of bishops in the NT churches. And, again, Ignatius was the first “bishop” to separate the “elder-bishop” NT office into two separate offices into an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Prior to Ignatius, they were the same office, including in Rome.

Clement was obviously recognized as the valid successor to Peter, since they directed their inquiries to him rather than other bishops who were closer to Corinth.

Actually, 1 Clement was written to the church of Corinth. We also have letters in the early church to the church of Rome, as well as to other local churches.

 

[JimG]

Yes, Clement wrote to Corinth to settle matters which had been in dispute there. He writes to the church at Corinth: "we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved” (Epistle to the Corinthians, circa A.D. 80]). This is a function of his office as successor to Peter.

 

[JimG]

Here is an article about Peter and his earliest successors:

Peter, His Bones, and His Earliest Successors | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Usagi]

Yeah, we know. At least up to Clement’s time, there appear to have been multiple bishops residing in Rome rather than a single bishop of Rome. Indeed, since Clement is honored for being one of the last to have heard the Apostles speak, presumably Peter (and Paul), Linus, Anacletus, and Clement were at some point all alive at the same time. The earliest lists of bishops of Rome do not always agree on the order in which the subsequent three succeeded Peter, possibly because they were actually all serving at the same time and the notion of one being “the” successor of Peter was applied afterward, perhaps based on the order of their deaths. That doesn’t mean the papacy wasn’t a real thing or didn’t legitimately pass from one to the next upon death … but it does mean things are less clear in the very early decades than the orderly list of Popes makes it appear. Remember, you don’t need to be ordained by the previous guy to be a legitimate successor … you’re succeeding to the office, like the POTUS, not by direct inheritance. So as long as the first “monarchical” bishop of Rome held the office legitimately, he would also hold the papacy as it came to be understood.

As you note, it took awhile, and perhaps different amounts of time in different places, for the Church to determine that there was a need for presbyters who weren’t also bishops, presumably around the time there wasn’t just “a” church in Rome or Antioch or whatever, but many congregations, and so the distinction between what we now call dioceses (overseen by singular bishops) and parishes (ministered to by presbyters) began to take shape. Not too different from the reason for creating a separate diaconate to handle practical duties, as recorded in the book of Acts. Jesus only made bishops (or rather apostles, an even more exclusive group that could pass on the episcopal office); the other offices devolved from that as the Church’s needs changed.

 

[jmgi1957]

At this time of Clement’s letter to Corinth, St Paul is still alive,

How could this be when Paul died no later than late 60’s? Clement’s letter to the Corinthians is dated to the 70’s or later. Clement died in about 100 AD.

 

[ArchStanton]

I think he means St. John

 

[ArchStanton]

Irenaeus

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . .and handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus *" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).