Posted on 07/15/2015 5:31:40 AM PDT by Gamecock
There is a (seemingly) never-ending debate amongst theologians and pastors about the proper form of government for the church. For generations, Christians have disagreed about what leadership structure the church ought to use. From the bishop-led Anglicans to the informal Brethren churches, there is great diversity.
And one of the fundamental flash points in this debate is the practice of the early church. What form of government did the earliest Christians have? Of course, early Christian polity is a vast and complex subject with many different issues in play. But, I want to focus in upon a narrow one: Were the earliest churches ruled by a plurality of elders or a single bishop?
Now it needs to be noted from the outset that by the end of the second century, most churches were ruled by a single bishop. For whatever set of reasons, monepiscopacy had won the day. Many scholars attribute this development to Ignatius.
But, what about earlier? Was there a single-bishop structure in the first and early second century?
The New Testament evidence itself seems to favor a plurality of elders as the standard model. The book of Acts tells us that as the apostles planted churches, they appointed “elders” (from the Greek term πρεσβυτέρος) to oversee them (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17). Likewise, Titus is told to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5).
A very similar word, ἐπι,σκoπος (“bishop” or “overseer”), is used in other contexts to describe what appears to be the same ruling office (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-7). The overlap between these two terms is evident in Acts 20:28 when Paul, while addressing the Ephesian “elders” (πρεσβυτέρους), declares that “The Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους).” Thus, the New Testament writings indicate that the office of elder/bishop is functionally one and the same.
But, what about the church after the New Testament? Did they maintain the model of multiple elders? Three quick examples suggest they maintained this structure at least for a little while:
1. At one point, the Didache addresses the issue of church government directly, “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). It is noteworthy that the author mentions plural bishops—not a single ruling bishop—and that he places these bishops alongside the office of deacon, as Paul himself does (e.g., Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-13). Thus, as noted above, it appears that the bishops described here are essentially equivalent to the office of “elder.”
2. A letter known as 1 Clement (c.96) also has much to say about early church governance. This letter is attributed to a “Clement”—whose identity remains uncertain—who represents the church in Rome and writes to the church at Corinth to deal with the fallout of a recent turnover in leadership. The author is writing to convince (not command) the Corinthians to reinstate its bishops (elders) who were wrongly deposed. The letter affirms the testimony of the book of Acts when it tells us that the apostles initially appointed “bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons” in the various churches they visited (42.4). After the time of the apostles, bishops were appointed “by other reputable men with the entire church giving its approval” (44.3). This is an echo of the Didache which indicated that bishops were elected by the church.
3. The Shepherd of Hermas (c.150) provides another confirmation of this governance structure in the second century. After Hermas writes down the angelic vision in a book, he is told, “you will read yours in this city, with the presbyters who lead the church” (Vis. 8.3).Here we are told that the church leadership structure is a plurality of “presbyters” (πρεσβυτέρων) or elders. The author also uses the term “bishop,” but always in the plural and often alongside the office of deacon (Vis. 13.1; Sim. 104.2).
In sum, the NT texts and texts from the early second century indicate that a plurality of elders was the standard structure in the earliest stages. But, as noted above, the idea of a singular bishop began to dominate by the end of the second century.
What led to this transition? Most scholars argue that it was the heretical battles fought by the church in the second century that led them to turn to key leaders to defend and represent the church.
This transition is described remarkably well by Jerome himself:
The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord (Comm. Tit. 1.7).
Jerome’s comments provide a great summary of this debate. While the single-bishop model might have developed for practical reasons, the plurality of elders model seems to go back to the very beginning.
and
"Constantine didn’t do anything to the Church except stop persecuting it."
Well, he was responsible for calling the !st Ecumenical Council whence we have the Creed. It was called to deal with the Arian heresy, even though Constantine himself had Arian sympathies. There were over 300 bishops in attendance. During the council, Arius was called upon to support his heretical thesis. As he spoke, +Nicholas (yup, that St. Nicholas) got up from his seat, crossed the floor and slugged Arius!
There was no "Roman Catholic Church" then or for centuries thereafter. What there was was the Church of Rome, just like there was the Church of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem.
Haha, Dan Brown is actually more accurate than that article, is that the best you can do?
I’ll dig into Ignatius more thoroughly and respond then.
Aren't you the guy who uses other scripture to try to prove something that a particular scripture did NOT say??
Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member.
Acts 2:47 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.
Not sure what the concept of "fullness" is here.
I can see (and agree with) the Orthodox formulation insofar as a Bishop is the fullness of Holy Orders. There's no higher-level of ordination. So a Bishop and his diocese around the Eucharist is the fullness of the sacramental faith...you really don't need anything else. A Church accidentally cut off from Rome, say Gardar in Greenland or the Maronites, can hum along just dandy until such time as communion can be restored.
But there's no way I can subscribe to that formula if it means the Bishop and his diocese is the fullness of *orthodoxy.* I doubt you would either...because as you know history is replete with heretical bishops who had to be deposed.
I'm not sure what the "Latin" position on all of this is, because as you indicated, there have been ultramontanist tendencies in the last few centuries that have not been good. We allowed Pius X to butcher the Roman breviary and Paul VI to butcher St. Gregory's Latin Mass (you remember!) under a misguided notion of obedience. Insane! If this happened in Orthodoxy the laity would have thrown their hierarchs *out the door*. Plus in the Middle Ages, each major diocese had its own liturgical books. What in blazes happened to that since Trent? Why weren't there 20 or 100 dioceses that refused the new Mass like Campos did? And who the flip is Cipriano Vaggagini to have the temerity to write new anaphoras in the first place?
I hope I'm not saying anything titanically dumb here, but I would not be surprised if future Latin theologians started making serious motion toward the Orthodox position. Not about the essence of the papacy, but more about it doing its job and not usurping the prerogatives of a bishop in his see.
Councils of Bishops decided by determining if the books were read aloud in the Church and whether what the book teaches agrees with the Faith received from Apostles. Of course the Holy Spirit was guiding them to all truth as promised by Jesus.
Now for those who reject Catholic Sacred Tradition, what criteria do you use? ( or do you follow Catholic Sacred Tradition in this case, but just don’t say it out loud because Bible believers don’t accept Catholic Sacred Tradition.....shh I won’t tell )
Wow.
Look at this new thread that just showed up......interesting, and amazing.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3312855/posts
Here's St. Ignatius, from the Epistle to the Magnesians:
Chapter 3. Honour your youthful bishopThis is what I'm talking about. Ignatius doesn't give us any ground for believing that a council of elders was running the show. He makes the presbytery subject to the bishop. Kruger (the author) acknowledges this...he just thinks it's unique to St. Ignatius.Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance, but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. It is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey, in honour of Him who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets.
In Orthodoxy, the bishop is pretty much a monarch in his diocese/metropolis, but as even the unlamented Archbishop Spyridin discovered, in the end it is the People of God who decide whether or not a hierarch is “Worthy” or “Unworthy”. Of course, the various Synods can also deal with an errant bishop/metropolitan/patriarch, but the real ultimate authority is the Laos tou Theou.
As for +Ignatius, I think you’ve got it right. For +Ignatius, the totality of The Church, the complete Church if you will, is found in a single diocese as defined. This is not to say that The Church is not universal, catholic. Clearly it is. But that worldwide Church is no “more Church”, a more complete Church, than a single diocese. This is, as I understand it, different from the Latin understanding.
Yep. But it would be a fatal mistake to restrict the Laos to just the laity, as liberals do.
The Laos tou Theou includes the hierarchs and works through the hierarchs...so that creeds, Ecumenical Councils, and depositions, at which the laity are not present, are still actions of the Laos.
Nothing that any council, local or ecumenical, does is true dogma or binding discipline unless the Laos tou Theou accept it. Every hierarch in Orthodoxy could say black is white but unless the people live that out in their lives, it simply isn't so.
To give you examples, if Latins were Orthodox, Humanae Vitae would not be dogma, Papal Infallibilty would not be dogma, the Assumption likely would be. The Laos tou Theou don't and haven't lived out the first two but have the third.
BTW, The Church in the East has proclaimed very little dogma, in no small measure because most of us believe that the last truly ecumenical council was held in the 8th century.
If I'm getting this correctly enough --- the U.S. Southern Baptists of the 1950's would have it be that they did not have pastors imposed upon their various individual assemblies of churches, from outside.
They held that they would not need be subject to having some organization or another send to themselves ruling overseer, without forms of right of refusal.
Instead they would "call" those, whom through networking of information it would be decided among deacons --- who may be "worthy" to pastor any one of their churches.
The deacons could fire the guy, too. I don't think that occurred all that much, but it could. I seem to recall hearing of scant few mentions of it, but not many. Preachers could circulate somewhat also, serving a few, or many years here, or there, than serve yet some other individual Southern Baptist congregation...
So in that, other than some amount of circulating/traveling around of *some* preachers, and that circulating sort of affair being as much exception than as rule, they would be directly electing a localized, minor "bishop" of sorts (and in that, being arguably more precisely biblical, for having themselves --the people of the church-- electing who would be overseer of the church amongst themselves, in the first place) and as the 'Laos tou Theou', as you put it, in function could act similar to Orthodox, but a bit more directly, if need be.
This puts responsibility on the deacons to live true to the Gospel, instead of them being able to shuffle off that burden, too much onto others. They too would have call on their own lives, and call to act as shepherds to others, although by encouragement and example, rather than by command.
Nothing less would be at stake than their own families and wider communities futures before God. Does that sound in a way to be like Israel of old, to anyone other than myself? Do right and be right, or else everything would fall to pieces...eventually, if not sooner.
Can you see what I mean? Does it make sense, regardless if it doesn't match up exactly with other [ahem] more "developed" ecclesiolgies?
So TRADITION is used to VERIFY Scripture.
Interesting.
I am still waiting to find out how you determine Scripture, since there is no Scripture saying what Scripture is.
Why is the book of Hebrews “scripture”, but the Gospels of Thomas, Mary and Peter are not?
Cue the crickets...........
The Bible contians more than 27 books.
Brilliant, you read post #90.
Now I will really be impressed if you can show brilliance answering the question in post #136.
It has been answered numerous times previously, on other threads, even though the question itself is something of a non-sequiter, both coming, and going...
You may now bash me with communion loaves.
We do not hire or fire our priests. We do pay them, however. Priests are assigned to parishes by the bishop or metropolitan. Our opinion on a potential priest is always sought and so far as I can remember, is always honored. Similarly, though we cannot fire a priest, we certainly can complain to the bishop or metropolitan znd if it is the sense of the parishioners that a priest ought to go, the bishop usually will remove the priest. If a hierarch didn’t do the foregoing, it likely wouldn’t be worth the hassle of a troublesome parish. On the other hand, the hierarch can always, at least arguably, close the parish and try to take the assets. Priests cannot serve without the permission of the bishop nor can they travel from parish to parish to celebrate the Divine Liturgy without his permission. Once they are in a particular diocese or metropolis, they cannot transfer to another without the permission of his hierarch and the receiving hierarch.
The laity has no say at all over the sacramental life of the parish. That is solely the province of the priest and/or the bishop...but we can always complain and we are usually listened to.
I have seen it happen that a parish gets into a fight with its bishop and loses big time. In that instance, the parish was simply wrong and arrogant and deserved what I got. No other parish in the metropolis supported it against the bishop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.