Bishops and Priests

[D. Medvedev Fan]

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Christian encyclopedia (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=A&t2=p) makes reference to how originally bishops and priests constituted only one order; that the right to ordain was inherent in the priesthood (a principle on which a number of popes of the 15th c., among them Boniface IX, Martin V, and Innocent VIII, acted in authorizing Cistercian abbots who were only priests to ordain).

Is this true? If so, how did they separate?

[Anoetos]

Titus 1:5-9 (ESV) This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you-- if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

In this passage, the Apostle Paul uses the words "elder" (Presbyteros) and "Overseer" (Episkopos, later 'Bishop') to describe the same office.

It is clear that the Apostle did not conceive the expressions as describing two grades of office but one office in two ways.

Later, and yet still very early on, the Church in certain areas which had been responsible for planting other churches began to enjoy greater prestige than their younger, daughter churches. Somewhat naturally, it was accepted that these younger churches would, in at least some way, subordinate themselves to the churches that had mothered them. Likewise, the church in major cities would be understood to have some authority over the other less urban churches of their area. The elders of those 'mothering' churches eventually became "Bishops" in something more like what we understand today.

However, there does not appear to be ANY evidence that an idea of "Apostolic Succession" as taught by the Eastern and Roman churches today was at all prevalent in the very first centuries of this development.

The Bible, if it articulates a particular form of church government, teaches either a plurally led Congregationalist ideal or a Presbyterian model.

The question remaining then, is whether Christians have the right and authority to change this.

[Rusty T]

However, there does not appear to be ANY evidence that an idea of "Apostolic Succession" as taught by the Eastern and Roman churches today was at all prevalent in the very first centuries of this development.

I would take exception to this.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” I Clement 44

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church . . . . I Clement 44

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. Against Heresies III:2:2

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. Against Heresis III

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions 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 . . . . Against Heresies III

And these are just the quotes I found by searching through my .pdf's of the Early Church Fathers for a few minutes.

rusty

[Anoetos]

I see nothing in any of those quotes indicating a specifically 'charismatic' succession; i.e. a transfer of specifically apostolic charism from one generation to the next.

And frankly, this is what "Apostolic Succession" means.

What I do see though is a procession of apostolic teaching recognized as having come from the Apostles through individuals of their approval.

If this latter is all that is meant by the expression then we Presbyterians have such a succession as well since we continue in the Apostle's doctrine as propounded and taught by men approved by each preceding generation of presbyteroi.

Clement's claim that there is Apostolic mandate to establish episcopacy leaves me rather cold, as you might guess, as well as his reference to Scripture saying “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

My Bible doesn't have this passage in it.

At any rate, please remember that Reformed Christians are not of that variety which sees each generation of the Church Catholic as being a creation de novo. Rather, we stand humbly in a long line and understand ourselves to have our roots in the historic Church, redeemed by Christ, preached by the Apostles and martyrs and continuing to this day in the same faith and doctrine.

-Mike

[Rusty T]

At any rate, please remember that Reformed Christians are not of that variety which sees each generation of the Church Catholic as being a creation de novo. Rather, we stand humbly in a long line and understand ourselves to have our roots in the historic Church, redeemed by Christ, preached by the Apostles and martyrs and continuing to this day in the same faith and doctrine.

I'll remember that you see yourselves in that way.

[Anoetos]

Fair enough, because, after all...it's what it all comes down to:

Duelling truth claims.