There was talk of some sort of ordination liturgy as far back as we have decent records. But as to what it exactly involved is pretty iffy. We just don't know, and the Early Church Fathers only mentioned it in passing here and there. Much like the early liturgy, we have some hints, but not a lot to go on.
Augustine got over ruled in letting the lapsed Bishops back in. He was against it as a lay person, but the local head bishop (I think it was a Metropolitan bishop) said “If they repent and do penance, ok”. There was a major Schism that said “NO!” called the Novatians (spelling). They were causing trouble up to the rise of Islam. But remember also that Augustine was after Constantine. The persecutions had ended well before he was a bishop (at least in the Roman Empire), and he was writing after the fact as a new convert from Manichism. When he was a Bishop (which he became unwillingly) he did spar with Rome at times. They honestly felt they were being ignored and misunderstood, and working at cross purposes. Augustine and Jerome (translator of the Vulgate) REALLY didn't like each other, and would send letters back and forth over the translation of the Bible. That is probably where the letter you read came from. Augustine rejected much of the Vulgate's translation of the Old Testament till his death.
As far as the first bishop of Rome to use Matt 16:18, I think you are to early. Augustine (in City of God and later in Retractions) explicitly states that Matt. 16:18 refers to the confession of Peter, not Peter himself. He got in some hot water over this, but that was the orthodox view then, and still is the Eastern Orthodox view.
Which brings up an interesting point about Augustine. If you read his writings, which few really do, he doesn't make a good Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Orthodox, etc. He is all over the place at times, and changed his opinion on some things. The reason why everyone can use Augustine to defend their position is that he varied some what on the non essentials or speculative theology. His writings on the Trinity were first rate, and remain some of the best.
Yes, you're correct, originally there were no such a thing as a “parish priest” in the early Christian churches. All you had were bishops and deacons. The Apostle Paul is very clear about this. He tells us explicitly what the office of the church were to be. When he called the Ephesian bishops together, as we see in Acts 20, he said some important things to them: “From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the ELDERS of the Church. When they arrived, he said to them: ’… I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole counsel of God. Guard yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you OVERSEERS. Be SHEPHERDS of the Church of God, which He bought with His own blood’.” (Acts 20:17, 27–28).
As anyone can see, and check up for themselves, Paul called them “Elders” (plural) of the “church” (singular). The term “Elders” in the Greek Paul wrote in is the term “presbuterous”, a plural noun which means “a mature or aged person”: this term cannot be translated as “priests”, for there is a definite Greek term for that position. The term “Overseers” (plural) is the Greek term “episkopous” (plural): this is the term commonly called “bishops”. The term “Shepherds” (plural) is the Greek term “poimainein” (plural): it is commonly called “pastors”. All these words have meanings pertinent for one to understand what Paul said.
We have a very similar expression used by the Apostle Peter: “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder … Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, …” (1 Peter 5:1–2). >p> Here we have Peter using the words “presbuterous—elder,” and the word “shepherds,” which Paul used in the plural also to describe the office of the “episkopos—overseer—bishop.” Both Peter and Paul are in complete agreement that the word “presbuterous—elder” describes the character of the one who is an “episkopous—overseer—bishop.” Here, then, are two instances in which the “elders” are commanded to do the work of an “overseer”.
“What about the priests of the church?” That this question is important is beyond question. The office of bishop was never spoken of or insinuated to be a priesthood cut off from the common members of the congregation. The elders who made up this office of the bishops were never spoken of nor called priests. The deacons of the Church were never called priests, nor were the evangelists or Apostles ever call priests. Who then, was a priest? Where did this idea come from?
Checking into the earliest writings of the first and early second century we find none of them speaking of “priests” being an office in the church. They only mention Bishops and Deacons, and most of the time strictly refer to leaders as “servants” of the church. However, later writings that mention offices in the church, of which in the late second and early third century are very few, and the translators of these writings interpolate the Greek term “presbuterous” with the term “priests” in our English language. It was only in the mid to late third century and later that this term was not meant just for “Elders” of the church but for a lower order, priests.
Many historical writers of the 11th century through today, of many religious persuasions, make comments on this change of usage. Lexicons also make us aware of the distinction of the terms being changed, letting us know the original meaning and application of the terms in the New Testament writings. This idea of reading modern usages, i.e., writings later than the second century, into the early writings, IMHO, is unsound and deceptive. Tradition, not withstanding, does not substantiate the idea of “priests” as distinct from “Bishops” when a church started another church in another location.
I find it amazing that the Apostle Paul’s warnings and the prediction to the Ephesian Bishops came true not long after the apostles were no longer on the scene: “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears” (See Acts 20:30–31). History seems to record this very thing.
Opps…Sorry, I have just been yelled at by my wife to get off the computer because our out-of-state company has arrived early – they just pulled into the driveway. I will have to get back to you later on the rest of your response to my rather long post to annalex. Type at you later…
There was talk of some sort of ordination liturgy as far back as we have decent records. But as to what it exactly involved is pretty iffy. We just don't know, and the Early Church Fathers only mentioned it in passing here and there. Much like the early liturgy, we have some hints, but not a lot to go on.
I agree here. To me the “early church fathers,” when I mention them, refer to those who wrote from the first century through the end of the second century, with special attention to those called “apostolic fathers.”
Augustine got over ruled in letting the lapsed Bishops back in. He was against it as a lay person, but the local head bishop (I think it was a Metropolitan bishop) said “If they repent and do penance, ok”. There was a major Schism that said “NO!” called the Novatians (spelling). They were causing trouble up to the rise of Islam. But remember also that Augustine was after Constantine. The persecutions had ended well before he was a bishop (at least in the Roman Empire), and he was writing after the fact as a new convert from Manichism. When he was a Bishop (which he became unwillingly) he did spar with Rome at times. They honestly felt they were being ignored and misunderstood, and working at cross purposes. Augustine and Jerome (translator of the Vulgate) REALLY didn't like each other, and would send letters back and forth over the translation of the Bible. That is probably where the letter you read came from. Augustine rejected much of the Vulgate's translation of the Old Testament till his death.
Augustine was against letting “lapsed” bishops (and others holding offices) to retain their office, but did accept their repentance (did not mean “penance”) when they turned back to the faith. He was asked, then “appointed to help” Valerius, the bishop of Hippo, to “aid in administering” the local church ( a single church): there was no “ordination procedure” that we know of from Augustine’s own writings, or other historical records of that particular time period concerning this. Part of his “administering aid” was to preach and teach the congregation (which was not all that large) from the “pulpit.” Augustine did this, using his knowledge of rhetoric that he was so comfortable with in the past, and he spoke so convincingly that his popularity rivaled Varlerius. Four years after Augustine began his “aid,” Valerius, alleging his age, asked the congregation to “elect” a new bishop (quite different from being chosen by a church hierarchy). It was at this time, according to Augustine’s own writings, that he said he regretted being so foolish as to become a pastor (priest), and didn’t want to be their bishop. However, the congregation would have none of that and literally forced him into taking the office. From that time on he records that he had no real leisure time of his own. His writings tell us that he didn’t like the interruptions of those who demanded to see him. Sometimes he responded harshly: “Discedite a me, maligni! Go far from me, you wicked ones! Let me study in peace the commandments of my God.”
As far as the first bishop of Rome to use Matt 16:18, I think you are to early. Augustine (in City of God and later in Retractions) explicitly states that Matt. 16:18 refers to the confession of Peter, not Peter himself. He got in some hot water over this, but that was the orthodox view then, and still is the Eastern Orthodox view.
Cyprian in 254 (before Damasus) argued with the bishop of Rome, demanding under what rule he regarded himself as the successor of Peter, especially since all bishops were apostolic successors, and that they were all of equal rank in the church. When Damasus took over the developing semi-political papal office, he quoted Mt. 16:18 to enforce his claim to be the chief bishop of Christianity (having “primacy” over all other bishops). While I admit his claims were scoffed at by the greater number of church bishops — Eastern and African in the main, eventually a system of “proofs” were put forth to emphasize it. Yes, Augustine didn’t accept that the church was built on Peter, but on the acknowledgment that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, the “rock” of truth the church was built upon. As for that quote attributed to Augustine, I couldn’t find it in his letters to Jerome. But, anyway, all the writings of those called “church fathers” are strictly their own opinions and not inspired as were the writers of the NT. Even Augustine tells us that when he said, “Do not follow my writings as holy scripture. When you find in holy scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt; but in my writings, you should hold nothing for certain.” (See his preface to his “Treatise on the Trinity”). In many place he urges his readers to always test what he says by the Scriptures, and to choose the teachings of Scripture over anything he might say or write. Now that, IMHO, is what makes him great.
Which brings up an interesting point about Augustine. If you read his writings, which few really do, he doesn't make a good Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Orthodox, etc. He is all over the place at times, and changed his opinion on some things. The reason why everyone can use Augustine to defend their position is that he varied some what on the non essentials or speculative theology. His writings on the Trinity were first rate, and remain some of the best.
I agree here. He was a voluminous writer, producing some 230 books and many letters. His works fill fifty huge volumes and I seriously doubt that anyone has really read them all, or ever will. I’ve read a quite a few dozen of them, and his major work, “The City of God”, thoroughly: and because of a debate with a local minister, gave an in depth critique of Book 21 of “The City of God” to show why I arrived at my conclusion on his and Augustine’s beliefs on the “immortal soul” concept now believed by a majority of Christianity. In doing this I also critiqued what Calvin had to say, which was very similar to Augustine. Suffice to say, that minister backed away from what he was teaching because of the evidence I produced.
BTW, I found a very good quote from Augustine that all should consider. "You are not to suppose, brethren, that heresis are produced by small minds; on the contrary, only great minds can produce them." I have my own list of those who are considered "great minds." :-)