Early Church Papacy

[gitlance]

Can anyone prove to me, using scripture, ECFs, councils, etc, that the Bishop of Rome was never seen as the head of the universal church, but rather only the first among equals with the bishops?

[Philip]

If you can ignore the bickering, there is some useful info in this thread (http://www.christianforums.com/t1498599-theres-something-about-the-papacy.html).

[Radagast]

The Council of Nicea (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm) in 325 (canon 6) said that the Bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch were equals, with a special place for the Bishop of Jerusalem (canon 7).

-- Radagast

[St.Augustine]

Can anyone prove to me, using scripture, ECFs, councils, etc, that the Bishop of Rome was never seen as the head of the universal church, but rather only the first among equals with the bishops?

Can you use the same sources to prove that he was?

[Albion]

Can anyone prove to me, using scripture, ECFs, councils, etc, that the Bishop of Rome was never seen as the head of the universal church, but rather only the first among equals with the bishops?

I understand the question--and it's a good one all right--but I'd say that first we have to establish that he was "first among equals." That doesn't appear from either scripture or history to be so any more than that the place of the bishops of Rome were seen as universal heads of it. A number of ECFs explicitly wrote that the church's leadership was vested in Paul as equal to Peter and/or James, and sometimes, John. We must also be very careful not to think that Rome, being the wealthiest diocese and the seat of government at the time, equates to being the theological or administrative focus of Christianity.

[julian the apostate]

go to google
type the words greek orthodox papacy

brace yourself

[Zacharias]

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

[b]Cyril of Jerusalem

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

[Christ] made answer: "You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . ." Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

[Albion]

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

[b]Cyril of Jerusalem

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

[Christ] made answer: "You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . ." Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Don't be misled by several traps any researcher can fall into.

First, a number of these very men said totally opposite things on the subject at other times...but you have taken a few short selections, some edited to leave words out, that have been chosen by someone wanting to tell his conclusions or beliefs on the subject. Who selected them for you? I'm assuming that you didn't read through all the writings that are extant from each of the above men and then decide for yourself which parts were most persuasive to you. Right?

Second, some of these come at such a later time that although they are commonly called "Early Church Fathers" they are many generations removed from the issue. They are reflecting, we have to consider, views that had become generally accepted by the time they entered onto the scene, even if they speak as if they know what happened hundreds of years before their birth. It's just like any historical research. Primary is more important than secondary evidence. The description of Gettysburg is more reliable if it comes from one who fought there in 1863 than from a grandson, however sincere and respected, telling us what he was taught about it.

And, third, you have to be very careful that you are reading what they were intending. This is always a problem since we come at these materials already having some convictions and knowledge of many other people's arguments. Often what is written is not what the reader thinks is there. For example, the letter of Clement may be seen as claiming some leadership role, but you have nothing that indicates how it was received. Anyone (Clement, perhaps) trying to make himself more important is going to act as if he has that position and right already, hoping to have it then be accepted. The letter in itself proves nothing, not even that he had any particular authority whether or not the rest of the Christian world knew of it. Not even that. Yet, I have read posts from people who, having quoted what you did from Clement, ended by proclaiming it to prove beyond any doubt that the early church accepted the doctrine of Papal Infallibility!

[sin_vladimirov]

Lord Jesus Christ protect and bless your inheritance.


I am at pains trying to figure out what is post by Freak4JC ment to mean.

Couple of months ago I read book called DaVinci Code in which the author on the start of the book says that:

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

By this the author is forming the mind of the reader to accept colossal lies that follow.

This kind of writting is the lowest form of writting as it prejudices the oppinion of the uninformed about oppinion that follows. It is form of psych. warfare.

Why am I saying this?

Well, I find Freak4JC's post very similar to Dan Brown's 'introduction' to DaVinci Code. Freak4JC is, possibly unintentionally, forming apology in a way that is superseeded and old fashioned, mostly due to faillings of the Latin Church to convince anybody who is actually doing some form of research in area of historical defence of the following dogma of the Church in communion with Rome, that states:

Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv, holds:
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

I will say again, Latin Church has failed to produce any proof either from the Holy Tradition (Holy Scripture being part of this) or from the History of the Christian Church.

The view that is 'always' presented by Latin Apologists, that is indeed here presented by Freak4JC, the view that somehow connects the Apostolic Primacy of St. Peter and heterodox Dogma od Papal Inafallibility is wrong.

I will not go into explaining the dogma in question, apart from saying that it would be benefitial to correctly understand the true nature of this dogma. That is to say that Papal infallibility is not as broad as many think.

Any serious 'digging' into the Holy Tradition and History of the Church will, absolutely prove, beyond any doubt that Papal Infallibility is a very late development that comes from Latin Pride and ignorance toward the Holy Tradition.

I will not go into repeating why this way of 'proving' that Papal Infallibility streams from Primacy of Saint Peter is incorrect as it has been done of one of the other threads.

It is fair to say that everyone accepts that St. Peter was the leader of the college of the Holy Apostles. It is also fair to say that his leadership has NOTHING to do with the way that his leadership is presented by Rome.

Freak4JC has given us some quotations from the Holy Tradition that, in my mind speak of Primacy of St. Peter. This is an 'unnecessary proof' as this way of arguments it is termed in the common law and scientific methodology.

The problem here is not that Freak4JC's post is unnecessary proof but that it is an invalid proof (proof without substance, connection, parallel, validity) given that:

A) Pope was first among equals (First in honour) NOT because Primacy of St. Peter but because the fact that Rome WAS the Capital of the Empire.

B) Papal infallibility is unheard of in first (certainly) 1000 years of Christian Church. If this was the case we would not have VII Ecumenical Councils. We would have simply waited on Pope of Rome to tell us what to do.

I will not go into proper observation of quoatitons (even though I would so like to do it, due to the fact that some of them are so misplaced and others misunderstood) because I simply do not have time.

In the end I wish to say for the record that I feel rather uncharitable in pointing these out, and I ask for forgiveness for my lack of charity. I am sorry for having to state that somebodys view is incorrect and to have to do it on this forum.

But, I simply think that it is necessary to do it.

May God and all of you forgive me, for I am just a sinner prone to all human weakness and affliction that I indeed indure.

It is not my wish to bring any doubt to any person who is communion with the Patriarch of Rome (blessed may he be) or to downgrade the importance of Geat See of Rome, Primate of the West. I just feel neccessary to fight with incorrect views that are being used in defence of some heterodox teaching that are expressed and held by children of the Great Church of Rome.

Lord have mercy on me, sinner.

Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amin.

in ICXC
stefan+

(please forgive my grammatical and spelling mistakes, english is not my lingua franca)

[Zacharias]

Lord Jesus Christ protect and bless your inheritance.


I am at pains trying to figure out what is post by Freak4JC ment to mean.

Couple of months ago I read book called DaVinci Code in which the author on the start of the book says that:

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

By this the author is forming the mind of the reader to accept colossal lies that follow.

This kind of writting is the lowest form of writting as it prejudices the oppinion of the uninformed about oppinion that follows. It is form of psych. warfare.

Why am I saying this?

Well, I find Freak4JC's post very similar to Dan Brown's 'introduction' to DaVinci Code. Freak4JC is, possibly unintentionally, forming apology in a way that is superseeded and old fashioned, mostly due to faillings of the Latin Church to convince anybody who is actually doing some form of research in area of historical defence of the following dogma of the Church in communion with Rome, that states:

Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv, holds:
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

I will say again, Latin Church has failed to produce any proof either from the Holy Tradition (Holy Scripture being part of this) or from the History of the Christian Church.

The view that is 'always' presented by Latin Apologists, that is indeed here presented by Freak4JC, the view that somehow connects the Apostolic Primacy of St. Peter and heterodox Dogma od Papal Inafallibility is wrong.

I will not go into explaining the dogma in question, apart from saying that it would be benefitial to correctly understand the true nature of this dogma. That is to say that Papal infallibility is not as broad as many think.

Any serious 'digging' into the Holy Tradition and History of the Church will, absolutely prove, beyond any doubt that Papal Infallibility is a very late development that comes from Latin Pride and ignorance toward the Holy Tradition.

I will not go into repeating why this way of 'proving' that Papal Infallibility streams from Primacy of Saint Peter is incorrect as it has been done of one of the other threads.

It is fair to say that everyone accepts that St. Peter was the leader of the college of the Holy Apostles. It is also fair to say that his leadership has NOTHING to do with the way that his leadership is presented by Rome.

Freak4JC has given us some quotations from the Holy Tradition that, in my mind speak of Primacy of St. Peter. This is an 'unnecessary proof' as this way of arguments it is termed in the common law and scientific methodology.

The problem here is not that Freak4JC's post is unnecessary proof but that it is an invalid proof (proof without substance, connection, parallel, validity) given that:

A) Pope was first among equals (First in honour) NOT because Primacy of St. Peter but because the fact that Rome WAS the Capital of the Empire.

B) Papal infallibility is unheard of in first (certainly) 1000 years of Christian Church. If this was the case we would not have VII Ecumenical Councils. We would have simply waited on Pope of Rome to tell us what to do.

I will not go into proper observation of quoatitons (even though I would so like to do it, due to the fact that some of them are so misplaced and others misunderstood) because I simply do not have time.

In the end I wish to say for the record that I feel rather uncharitable in pointing these out, and I ask for forgiveness for my lack of charity. I am sorry for having to state that somebodys view is incorrect and to have to do it on this forum.

But, I simply think that it is necessary to do it.

May God and all of you forgive me, for I am just a sinner prone to all human weakness and affliction that I indeed indure.

It is not my wish to bring any doubt to any person who is communion with the Patriarch of Rome (blessed may he be) or to downgrade the importance of Geat See of Rome, Primate of the West. I just feel neccessary to fight with incorrect views that are being used in defence of some heterodox teaching that are expressed and held by children of the Great Church of Rome.

Lord have mercy on me, sinner.

Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amin.

in ICXC
stefan+

(please forgive my grammatical and spelling mistakes, english is not my lingua franca)

I only copied a page that had ECF quotes on the Pope. :)

God bless, Freak4JC

[Simon_Templar]

I think its pretty hard to show the primacy of the bishop of rome from the ante-nicean fathers (I only say ante-nicean because "early" is used so broadly), let alone supremacy or infallibility.

In scripture itself, it seems clear that no one apostle was supreme over the others, and that if any one apostle had more authority it was james, not peter. However, it does seem that Peter, James, and John together formed a leadership council that headed both the apostles and the church.

However, there are some benefits (as well as some drawbacks) to having a more centralized authority of leadership than simply each bishop for himself. This can be seen in the difference between the catholic church and the orthodox church and their roles in society. The catholic church is able to speak with a firm clear voice on issues and in leadership. This enables them more to action and gives them vision. The orthodox on the other hand while they may agree, often seem incapable of speaking with a clear, unified or strong voice on any issue, except their opposition to catholicism. Also, there has been little visible action or vision on their part in recent history. I think this stems from a lack of unity of vision among the leadership.

[St.Augustine]

Can anyone prove to me, using scripture, ECFs, councils, etc, that the Bishop of Rome was never seen as the head of the universal church, but rather only the first among equals with the bishops?

I have been reading a book on Apostolistic Succession and it seems as if the doctrine only gained currency almost 150/200 years after the Apostles. If it had been the will of God and/or the Apostles surely it would be a little more obvious? :)

[gitlance]

I have been reading a book on Apostolistic Succession and it seems as if the doctrine only gained currency almost 150/200 years after the Apostles. If it had been the will of God and/or the Apostles surely it would be a little more obvious? :)

But that is in many ways irrelevant. Afterall, the doctrines of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union were not formally written down and developed until hundreds of years after the Apostles. In fact, the Apostolic Succession seems to have more historical precedence in belief than that of the Trinity and the Hypostatic union. Yet of course those doctrines existed and were beleived by the apostles, but they had not been formalized as they were later in the Chalcedonian formula or the Athanasian creed.

[Albion]

But that is in many ways irrelevant. Afterall, the doctrines of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union were not formally written down and developed until hundreds of years after the Apostles. In fact, the Apostolic Succession seems to have more historical precedence in belief than that of the Trinity and the Hypostatic union. Yet of course those doctrines existed and were beleived by the apostles, but they had not been formalized as they were later in the Chalcedonian formula or the Athanasian creed

According to the historic record, Apostolic Succession was only created, not developed, sometime well after there were Christian churches operating. If the early Christians did without all that which people later claimed for Apostolic Succession as being ESSENTIAL to a valid ministry and valid sacraments, it is not in the same category as a doctrine like the Trinity.

[Simon_Templar]

In line with what Albion just said, a number of the early church writers comment on churches that sprang up outside of the influence of the aposltes and the bishops appointed by the apostles. It was not uncommon for churches to spring up in areas where official missionaries and apostles had never been. Yet these churches had leadership, and they were recognized by the rest of the church as valid, including their sacrements.
I think it was hagesippus (sp) who described this situation as one of the halmarks of the truth of the gospel. That churches sprang up from one end of the empire to the other, often times not connected to each other at first, and yet they all held essentially the same beliefs and held the pure gospel.

[Fish and Bread]

I look at it this way: Apostolic Succession is a wonderful tradition. It may even be a holy tradition. If we're using it as a way to exclude people and to try to claim the eucharist as our own private property, though, then we're not using it in a very Christian way. The bread and the wine becomes body and blood through the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. It has nothing to do with the worth of person consecrating it, the color of the robe he or she is wearing, or whether he or she had hands laid on him by the right person in some sort of magical chain. It's not a magic spell through which people with special powers force God to manifest himself, it's a rememberance through which God *chooses* to manifest himself to the faithful. I don't think God discriminates on the basis of Apostolic Succession. It's a nice tradition that I'm glad we're preserved, because I like nice historical traditions, but let's not make it more than it is -- to do so, I believe, is to fall into an error perpetuated by the Roman church in an attempt to consolidate power for political purposes.

John

[St.Augustine]

But that is in many ways irrelevant. Afterall, the doctrines of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union were not formally written down and developed until hundreds of years after the Apostles. In fact, the Apostolic Succession seems to have more historical precedence in belief than that of the Trinity and the Hypostatic union. Yet of course those doctrines existed and were beleived by the apostles, but they had not been formalized as they were later in the Chalcedonian formula or the Athanasian creed.

Yet the trinity can be proven from scripture alone whilst the doctrine of apostolistic succession can not. :scratch:

[St.Augustine]

According to the historic record, Apostolic Succession was only created, not developed, sometime well after there were Christian churches operating. If the early Christians did without all that which people later claimed for Apostolic Succession as being ESSENTIAL to a valid ministry and valid sacraments, it is not in the same category as a doctrine like the Trinity.

If I may add: http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/ECCLESIA/20024E.html

[St.Augustine]

I look at it this way: Apostolic Succession is a wonderful tradition. It may even be a holy tradition. If we're using it as a way to exclude people and to try to claim the eucharist as our own private property, though, then we're not using it in a very Christian way. The bread and the wine becomes body and blood through the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. It has nothing to do with the worth of person consecrating it, the color of the robe he or she is wearing, or whether he or she had hands laid on him by the right person in some sort of magical chain. It's not a magic spell through which people with special powers force God to manifest himself, it's a rememberance through which God *chooses* to manifest himself to the faithful. I don't think God discriminates on the basis of Apostolic Succession. It's a nice tradition that I'm glad we're preserved, because I like nice historical traditions, but let's not make it more than it is -- to do so, I believe, is to fall into an error perpetuated by the Roman church in an attempt to consolidate power for political purposes.

John

Well put :)

[pmcleanj]

.

[pmcleanj]

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=31230&stc=1This is an official moderator post.

Just as most of us Anglicans (who are, by definition, Catholic) already know the Roman Catholic dogmas and are able to go to OBOB to read them, most of us (who are also, by definition, Reformed) already know the non-Anglican reformed doctrines, and are able to go to, for example, Semper Reformanda, to read them.

Although, given the diversity of the Anglican Church, both visiting Roman Catholics and visiting non-Anglican Calvinists will be able to find Anglicans with whom they agree, promoting doctrine from these non-Anglican perspectives is not acceptable in STR. Anglicanism is hard to define and hard to understand without living it; so I do understand that the nuance between supporting a questioning Anglican with answers from outside sources, and promoting non-Anglican perspectives, may be subtle and hard to distinguish. Just as promoting hierarchical clericalism as per the Vatican stance crosses that fine line; so does posting denials of the episcopacy, which is one leg of the Lambeth Quadrilateral.

Anglicans may legitimately explore possibly-heterodox positions on this forum, but non-Anglicans may not. But you may post fellowship posts and questions, and indeed are very welcome to do so.

[Slammer]

Can anyone prove to me, using scripture, ECFs, councils, etc, that the Bishop of Rome was never seen as the head of the universal church, but rather only the first among equals with the bishops?

Why in the world do you want to know that? :eek:

[gitlance]

Why in the world do you want to know that? :eek:

Because I wish to see what my fellow Anglicans (and my Orthodox brother, thank you!) have to say.

[gitlance]

I look at it this way: Apostolic Succession is a wonderful tradition. It may even be a holy tradition. If we're using it as a way to exclude people and to try to claim the eucharist as our own private property, though, then we're not using it in a very Christian way. The bread and the wine becomes body and blood through the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. It has nothing to do with the worth of person consecrating it, the color of the robe he or she is wearing, or whether he or she had hands laid on him by the right person in some sort of magical chain. It's not a magic spell through which people with special powers force God to manifest himself, it's a rememberance through which God *chooses* to manifest himself to the faithful. I don't think God discriminates on the basis of Apostolic Succession. It's a nice tradition that I'm glad we're preserved, because I like nice historical traditions, but let's not make it more than it is -- to do so, I believe, is to fall into an error perpetuated by the Roman church in an attempt to consolidate power for political purposes.

John

Some would take that line of reasoning and say that it's pretty un-Christian to say that Christ is the only way to heaven. If Christ instituted something, his apostles and their successors believed it to be true, I don't think it's worth throwing away. They obviously believed in the succession, or else we wouldn't be able to prove that we have it today all the way back to 33 AD. Just go over to TAW or OBOB and ask them to show you records about who was bishop when, where, and for how long. Unless you believe that all those records are falsified (which is a pretty hefty claim to make, and one I would not wish to answer to God on), the succession was obviously very important.

Also, if it weren't so important, how come the Anglicans, the Romans, and the Orthodox have continued to keep it for 2000 years, even in the midst of "reformations?" How come the English Church didn't do away with it like the rest of the reformers did? How come, as part of the agreement between ELCA and ECUSA, ELCA must now be brought in to the Apostolic Succession? How come the Lambeth Quadrilateral says that there cannot be full Christian unity without it? How come? Because it is essential.

[Albion]

If Christ instituted something, his apostles and their successors believed it to be true, I don't think it's worth throwing away. They obviously believed in the succession, or else we wouldn't be able to prove that we have it today all the way back to 33 AD.

Ah. There's where the problems lie. First, we have no way of saying that Christ instituted Apostolic Succession. We can fairly say that Christ called his Apostles, but not that "succession" was his intent. the succession everyone refers to was thought of and occurred later.

Also, remember that although there IS an identifiable line of succession that we adhere to, that fact in itself does not establish WHAT IT MEANS or should imply.

I agree with you, as all Anglicans do, that it's worth retaining, but that is a far cry from using it to create a validity that other ministers of the Gospel do not have and so are invalid, etc., etc. Apostolic Succession is a good thing, but not essential to the church's mission.

How come the Lambeth Quadrilateral says that there cannot be full Christian unity without it? How come? Because it is essential.

I think it would be a good idea for you to go back and read the Lambeth Quadrilateral again.

It does not speak of Apostolic Succession any more than the Articles of Religion do. It speaks of the "Historic Episcopate," and further, it says nothing about any powers believed to be inherent in the historic episcopate, nor does it say that Apostolic Succession is "essential." You'll see that you've made a mistake there.

The historic episcopate is retained by us because of good order in the church, not because it is essential to valid sacraments or minstries.

[gitlance]

Albion, how has the historic episcopate been understood for 2000 years? The Church has understood it as being one of the main bonds of unity, a protector of doctrine, and absolutely essential for the apostolic Church. The Church cannot even be apostolic without it. And yet some come in here and decide that, 2000 years later, it isn't really all that important, and so we shouldn't worry about it. No wonder we have all these problems in Christianity today: many Christians have abandoned the apostolicity of the Church.

[Fish and Bread]

If Christ instituted something, his apostles and their successors believed it to be true, I don't think it's worth throwing away. They obviously believed in the succession, or else we wouldn't be able to prove that we have it today all the way back to 33 AD. Just go over to TAW or OBOB and ask them to show you records about who was bishop when, where, and for how long. Unless you believe that all those records are falsified (which is a pretty hefty claim to make, and one I would not wish to answer to God on), the succession was obviously very important.

I think Apostolic Succession is an important symbol. I was actually a little upset that the 2001 agreement with ELCA theoretically allows priests not ordained in Apostolic Succession to serve in an ECUSA parish. However, that is a far cry from saying that Apostolic Succession is necessary to confect valid sacraments. I see the evidence for Apostolic Succession as a sign of ministry steeped in apostolic tradition in the early church, but I don't see any evidence that the early church felt it was necessary for valid sacraments and so forth. My feeling is that that sort of thinking came later as a way to reinforce the power of the powerful and discredit those who oppose the powerful. It is taking something that is fundamentally a good tradition and taking it a step too far, in my view -- like reverence for the Bishop of Rome becoming a dictatorship of the Bishop of Rome. The reverence was probably a good thing, but it was abused and taken way too far to the point where it became something almost completely different and distorted.

Also, if it weren't so important, how come the Anglicans, the Romans, and the Orthodox have continued to keep it for 2000 years, even in the midst of "reformations?"

In some of those churches, it's an issue of reinforcing power and authority. In others, it's a matter of simply keeping intact a tradition handed down to us that harms no one, which I think is a good thing.

How come the English Church didn't do away with it like the rest of the reformers did?

I've heard that it may have been considered at one point, but, again, why get rid of an ancient tradition without cause?

John

[Albion]

Albion, how has the historic episcopate been understood for 2000 years?

The question is: "How has the Anglican church understood the historic episcopate?" I am an Anglican. If I were a Roman Catholic, Orthodox, etc. I might have a different POV.

The Church has understood it as being one of the main bonds of unity, a protector of doctrine, and absolutely essential for the apostolic Church.

A proper undersanding of the Anglican view of the historic episcopate doesn't reject any of that. In fact, my post was entirely compatible with the essence of that observation of yours.

And yet some come in here and decide that, 2000 years later, it isn't really all that important, and so we shouldn't worry about it.

Well, I didn't say that...and you are writing to me, not to someone else.