Replies

redleghunter:

I am aware of St. Paul’s address to the “overseers” of the Church at Ephesus [could be Bishops or elders/presbyters to guide the Church there] in Acts 20. But the question is what did the Church in Ephesus believe and who were the heretics that he warned them about.

Did what the Church at Ephesus believe differ from what St. Paul did at Troas where “On the first day of week, when we gathered together to Break Bread.” (Acts 20:7) and then again “Break Bread” (Acts 20:11) is consistent with Christians in the NT gathering on Sunday to celebrate a Rite, a Eucharist, a Sacramental Meal, etc.

Was this Eucharistic Celebration in Acts 20:7-11 in line with Jesus and his Apostles on the Road to Emmaus [Luke 24: 28-35] where Christ took bread and Blessed it and Broke it and...their eyes were opened...and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the Bread”

So my contention is that Christ sent his Apostles just as the Father sent Him and the Apostles appointed Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons to guide the various Churches in the Mediterranean world and as those Men died out, they appointed men to carry on the Christian Message

How then can this be linked from Christ to the Apostles to the Early Church Fathers in the early Post-Apostolic era. Developing this idea from Pope Benedict’s work Principles of Catholic Theology we start with the notion that An Apostle is One who is “Sent” From Christ. For example, in the Synpotic Gospels (Mk 3:13-19, Mt 10:7-9; Lk 6:12-16) shows Jesus summoning the Apostles and it is referred to as a calling (c.f., Mk 3:13-19) and thus the Apostles share in Christ Ministry.

Two statements are important notes Pope Benedict (p .273) that link Christ and the Apostles mission are “anyone who rejects you rejects me….and rejects the one who sent me” (c.f., Lk 10:16; Mt 10:40). In St. John’s Gospel, we read “As the Father sent me, I send you” (cf. John 20:21). So, the word “send” or “being sent”, which is what Apostle means is key: If we understand Christ in relation to the Father as being sent by the Father (c.f. John 3:17), then the office of Apostle has an Christological reference point.

In the early NT period as recorded in Acts 14:14, Acts refers to St. Paul as an Apostle {Paul refers to himself as an Apostle in Rom 1:1; Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1} as well as Barnabas but we still see leadership with the 12 [Reconstituted 12 in Acts 1:15-26 and the selection of Maththais] and St. Paul and Barnabas.

Acts 11 thru 13 shows St. Paul and Barnabas’s missionary activity was connected to the Apostles “they sent Barnabas to go to Antioch” (cf Acts 11:22); “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul….then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off” (cf Acts 13:2-3. So in this context, we see Paul and Barnabas and their mission and ministry connected with the other 12 Apostles. It is one Church in communion with each other.

As we read St. Paul’ Letters, we see him develop a strong theology of Apostleship in 2 Corinthians. As Pope Benedict, notes, 2 Cor 5:20-22 illustrates this where St. Paul states “we are ambassadors for Christ as it is as God is appealing through us”. In his letter to the Romans, ST. Paul describes his ministry as “performing the priestly service of the Gospel of God” (cf. Romans 15:16).

As we move later into Acts, we see the start of a development of Bishop and Presbyter to succeed the Apostles. Pope Benedict notes that in St. Paul’s farewell address to the Church at Ephesus (cf. Acts 20:18-35, which you sited), we see an already developed theology of Apostolic Succession and thus the office of presbyter is now linked to Apostle but it is the Holy Spirit who instituted the priesthood (Acts 20:28)

While the distinction between Bishop and Presbyter is not always clear, a distinction does emerge in the NT and a clear linkage between Apostle and Presbyter is made in the NT. For example, a distinction is made between Bishop and Presbyter as it is the “overseer” who installs “presbyters” (cf. Acts 6:6; 2 Tim 1:6) and we see ST. Paul directing Titus to “appoint Presbyters in every town” (cf. Titus 1:5) and while the office of Bishop and his role is not strictly distinguished from the other presbyters (cf. Titus 1:7-10; 1 Tim 3:2-7), as Pope Benedict notes, the transfer of responsibility from ST. Paul to Titus and Timothy is an example of the formulation of the concept of Apostolic Succession.

Pope Benedict notes that the linkage between Apostle and Presbyter (cf. 1 Pet 5: 1-4) is the clearest linkage between the office of Apostle and presbyter and is thus the shows in practice a transfer of the theology of Apostle to presbyter as the Apostle Peter denotes himself as a “fellow presbyter.” Former Pope Benedict notes that The presbyter, receives a gift, through God’s Grace, and as Pope Benedict further writes (Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 204) “he is not the source of his priesthood” it comes from Christ and thus all he is able to do and should do is:

a) Be a “steward of the mysteries of God” (c.f. 1 Cor 4:1).
b) A “good steward of God’s varied Grace” (c.f. 1 Pet 4:10).

Now as we end the Apostolic Age and move to the period of the Early Church Fathers. What do see and believe. Do we believe after the death of the last Apostle, lets say St. John around 90AD that the Church went off the rail and the Church was left an orphan. Obviously, that would contradict numerous passages from the Gospels from the words of Christ himself. So, I as a Catholic reject that the Church went off the rails after the death of the Apostle John., Catholic and Apostolic Church:

In the late 1st century, we see the connection between the early Church and the Apostles as evidenced in St. Clement of Rome’s (3rd successor of St. Peter) Letter to the Church in Corinth to heal the schism there. We also see in the late 1st early 2nd century, the Church is faced with the Early Heresy of Gnosticism: A True God of the Spiritual World and an Anti-God (Lesser God) who created the Material World. [Dualism.

At that same time, we see the Church Fathers and the Church of Rome exercising a Primacy in the early Church. Again, back to St. Clement of Rome, 3rd Successor to St. Peter. Pope Benedict in a catechetical lecture (3/7/2007) notes that the most important testimony concerning his life comes from ST. Irenaeus, who was Bishop of Lyons until 202. He attests that St. Clement “had seen the blessed Apostles and “had been conversant with them” and might be said to have had the preaching of the Apostles still echoing in his ears and their tradition before his eyes (Adversus Haer. 3,3,3).

Since Clement was Bishop of Rome, his letters took on importance. One letter that has survived to our times is universally acknowledged as his. Again, Pope Benedict notes that Eusebius of Caesarea, the great “archivist” of Christian beginnings, presents it in these terms:

“There is extant an Epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged as genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. He wrote it in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter Church. We know that this Epistle also has been publicly used in a great many Churches both in former times and our own” (Hist. Eccl 3, 16)

Pope Benedict then writes that Clement’s intervention-—we are still in the 1st century was prompted by a serious problem besetting the Church of Corinth: The elders of the community in fact, had been deposed by some young contestants. The sorrowful event was recalled once again by ST. Irenaeus who wrote “In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren in Corinth, the Church of Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Church of Corinth exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the Apostles” (Adv Haer. 3,3,3).

Pope Benedict concludes: Thus, we could say that this letter was a first exercise of the Roman Primacy after St. Peter’s death. In addition, St. Clement writes about the transition from Christ, to Apostles to the Bishops and Deacons of this time and how the Apostles made provisions to appoint Bishops to lead the Churches and instruct those Bishops that if they die, other approved men should be appointed to continue their ministry, etc [See links below from the Reformed site that has the translations by P. Schaff, the Reformed Patristic Scholar]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xlii.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xliv.html

If we now move to St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD, a Martyr and Apostolic Father who new St. John. He Wrote 7 letters, 6 to Churches including Ephesus, Rome, Philadelphia and Smyrna (both in Revelation). Again, all the of the leading Protestant Patristic Scholars of the 19th century {Schaff, who I have linked his works, Lightfood, Harnak, Funk and Zahn attest to their authenticity, even though at first they all hesitated due to the STRONG CATHOLIC THEOLOGY in them [for emphasis not yelling]. St. Ignatius Calls the Church Catholic at this time. In addition, he was confronting the Heretical Gnostic Sect known as the “Docetist”, who argued that Christ only appeared Human thus the Eucharist made no sense. In response to this Heresy, St. Ignatius’s writings give us many early examples of Catholic Doctrine

A.) Talks about Bishops, Priests and Deacons (Hierarchy 3-tiered ministry)
B.) Particular Churches are Catholic through Communion with One of Them: The Church of Rome, which St. Ignatius writes in his letter to Rome, “Presides in Charity”
C). Strong Eucharistic Language (see letter to Church of Smyrna)
D). Mentions St.’s Peter and Paul as being in Rome.

By the later 2nd century, we have St. Ireneaus of Lyons (Circa 180 AD) writing against Gnostics (One them was Marcion, who was excommunicated in Rome in 144 AD and forced church to begin addressing the Canon of Scripture thus another example of the Primacy of the Church of Rome)

He wrote to orthodox Christians that these Gnostics do not have “Apostolic Tradition”. He uses the Church of Rome to prove his point, since it would be tedious to do all the successions. He writes:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the succession of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; (we do this, I say), by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, also by pointing out that the faith preached to men, which comes down to our times by means of the succession of Bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority-—that is the faithful everywhere inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.

Also in the late 2nd and early 3rd century, another heresy called Modalism [heresy that claimed the Father, Son and Spirit are just different modes or functions of the same Individual. The problem with Modalism is that it stressed the Oneness of God to such and extreme as to distort the Trinity [other extreme is to stress the Trinity of Persons to such a degree as to distort the Oneness of God].

Now its major proponent was Sabellius, who was excommunicated by Pope Callistus in 220 AD and because of Rome and the Pope’s stance, orthodox Christological Doctrine was preserved as was orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine [although it would not be until the later Councils of Nicea, Constantinopile, Ephesus and Chalcedon that these doctrines would be fully defined.] Regardless, all the Church Fathers that followed Pope Callistus would all reject Modalism.

On a related note, Modalism/forms of it have reappeared in certain Protestant groups such as Oneness Pentecostalism and some mainline Protestant groups that are now baptizing in the Name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, which is consistent with Functionalism/Modalism heresy.

Now, this post is long enough but it is on these points that I believe Christ became Incarnate, he founded a Church {Mt 16:18} and which is the pillar and foundation of Truth [1 Timothy 3:15] and he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church [which he did at Pentecost in Acts]. The Apostles carried the message of Christ to the Roman and Greek world in the Mediterranean and they appointed Men to lead the Church after their Deaths and these Men did the same down thru the time period I laid out above. I believe that the Holy Spirit continued to guide the Church thru the Council of Nicea (325 AD), Constantinopile in 381 AD, Ephesus in 431 AD, Chalcedon 451AD, 2nd Constantinopile in 553AD, 3rd Constantinopile in 680-681AD, 2nd Nicea in 787AD, 4th Constantinopile in 869 AD, 1 Lateran 1123 AD, 2nd Lateran 1139AD, 3rd Lateran 1179AD, 4th Lateran 1215 AD, 1st Lyons in 1245 AD, 2nd Lyons in 1274 AD, Council of Vienne 1311-1313 AD, Council of Constance in 1414-1418AD, Council of Florence [also called Ferrara or Basle] in 1431-1439AD, 5th Lateran in 1512 to 1517AD, Council of Trent 1545-1563AD, First Vatican Council 1869-1870 and 2nd Vatican Council 1962 to 1965.

So where do you think the Church went off the tracks?