The Early Church II-3: Bishops and Succession

If you haven't read section 1 you may find it here:

II-1: The Martyrs
II-2: The Lapsed and the Problem of the Martyrs
II-4: The Rule of Faith

===

 II-3: Bishops and Succession

We'll now move backwards in time and go along a simultaneous track in history. We'll look at the early Church from a different angle at the Church as she developed, namely the office of bishop. We discussed last week that the office of bishop was the highest office in the local Church. While absolute agreement among all bishops is very rare, they did in fact communicate with each other regularly and sought the advice of elder churches. Their concord and meetings with one another on important issues was a tradition kept from the time of the Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem.

Peter, chief among the Apostles, was given a unique ministry by Christ himself to strengthen his brothers and Scripture itself shows how he lead them. Peter and his successors spoke with the final authority on matters concerning the whole Church but, at the same time, he shared this responsibility with his brothers. That he spoke with firmness was not a matter of power but of responsibility.

While some would abuse this responsibility and others call the chair of Peter into question it remains that the Church as a whole in the early centuries of Christianity appealed to Rome (e.g., Clement of Rome) and regarded her as the highest Church.

The model of the Twelve Apostles, their authority, and succession developed over the early centuries of the Church. We would do well to gather a sense for the office of bishop as it developed in the early Church. In order to do this it seems appropriate to see the very prayer for the ordination of a bishop. This prayer is taken from a text called “On the Apostolic Tradition,” which was attributed to the (anti)pope of that time Hippolytus (217-236). His authorship has since been called into question and now stands as a text of unknown authorship, even though it seems widely used. There were conflicts that arose as a result of the “Lapsed” controversy and Hippolytus was set up as a pope, eventually an antipope. He reconciled with the Church at a later time and is listed as a man of learning and eloquence by later saints and authors. He was martyred in 236 AD, and legend says it was being quartered alive by horses.

While it's difficult to date a prayer like this, some have attributed it as early as 215 AD which most of the work is said to have been written. While others have said this work came later (such as the early-middle 300s) we can be somewhat safe in assuming that whatever was written down in this fashion was likely in practice beforehand. Many prayers like this were recorded in handbooks and rulebooks such as this in order to ensure a unity of practice. The prayer, we find, speaks to the bishop receiving the same spirit of governance that Christ received from the Father. Christ, giving this spirit of leadership to the Apostles is similarly handed down to those the Apostles selected. The prayer states,

“Even now pour out from yourself the power of the Spirit of governance, which you gave to your beloved child Jesus Christ, which he gave to the holy Apostles, who set up the Church in every place s your sanctuary, for the unceasing glory and praise of your name. … And let him have the power of high priesthood, to forgive sins according to your command, to assign duties according to your command, to loose every tie according to the power which you gave your apostles, to please you in gentleness and with a pure heart. (On the Apostolic Tradition, ch. 3:3, 5)

This is how the Church regarded the office of bishop: that it was a divine call from God to govern and shepherd his flock. He was to lead them to God and He was to make an account not only for himself but for all he shepherded. Paul tells Timothy, for example, to “attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you” (1 Tim 4:16).

As time marched on, however, new difficulties arose. The Church was spreading rapidly throughout the Empire and in order to keep up with the demands of charity placed upon the Church the Apostles and bishops appointed deacons, priests, and their successors to govern the Church and perform her duties.

Each man, though, is not always endowed with the appropriate skills for the task appointed to him, and even those who are skilled at governance and leadership are subject to chance, accident, deception, and error. Some bishops, because of an overwhelming need, appointed many presbyters yet could not test their character sufficiently. Some presented this or that man as suitable for priesthood and many assented to such a suggestion. The bishop's domain, at times too large for his own good, appointed this man a priest only to have his vices and weaknesses expand under the weight of leadership. Some priests and bishops gave scandal by their deeds whereas others produced error by their words.

Not every priest or bishop did this maliciously, but the effects of error are disunity. Those who are unable to respond with humility when confronted with their error then become susceptible to both pride and anger. The prideful seek to gather others to them. The angry seek to cause dissent and disobedience among the faithful. There were those who claimed at that time, as some even do today, that the 'Holy Spirit is with me' and that by their use of Scripture they were justified in what they said.

Such people are difficult to deal with—on the one hand one must be gentle with them because the zeal fore their faith is likely real. In turn, one's knowledge of Scripture and ability to connect it to the holy Tradition of the Apostles and Church is essential. In these instances “It is good sense in a man to be slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook and offense” (Prv 20:11).

Another problem was that there were those who were keenly aware of this Tradition. They arose claiming that they were taught by the Apostles and that they themselves were their successors, but then proceeded to preach contrary to them. If they had come from a far-off land how could one dispute with their claim, especially if they were intelligent and charismatic?

It was the holy Tradition that would be the safeguard of our faith at this time. We should always be aware that when the Church emphasizes one thing at a certain time it is likely because the contrary error is most prevalent. During this period of time, the 2^nd century, there were those who claimed to have a special knowledge of God and life (such as the Gnostics). There were others who denied that apostolic authority and Tradition had any weight, but rather their own interpretation of Scripture was sufficient. We'll see this more pronounced in part III when speaking of Christ and the Trinity.

Scripture itself warns us of this problem and how we should deal with it. Paul writes that “We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us” (2 Thes 3:6).

He claims, rather, that “we [your leaders] wanted to present ourselves as a model for you, so you might imitate us” (3:9). He further explains that “If anyone does not obey our word as expressed by this letter, take note of this person not to associate with him, that he may be put to shame. Do not regard him as an enemy but admonish him as a brother” (3:14-15).

Paul also urges, “Therefore, brother, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2:15).

Where Scripture is profitable and useful, it was also the case that the example of the Apostles, not all of which are recorded (just like all the deeds of Christ are not reported), was a test by which one could determine the nature and character of others.

From here we will look at the origin of the “rule of truth” which became later on the “rule of faith” (regula fidei) and how such a notion was used to combat heresy and be a model for unity among the faithful.

The Early Church I-4: The origins of the Pope in Rome

 Wait! Have you read sections 1 - 3? If not you may read them here! Please feel free to comment.

Section 1: Prologue and History
Section 2: Organization of the Early Church 
Section 3: Why are we called "Catholic"?

(Part II is now out! Since this is part I, I'll just link to II-1. If you're interested and enjoy this series, please see the next parts.)

I-4: The rise of Rome

If Peter, the Apostles, and Paul met in Jerusalem when and why did Rome come into the picture? As is the case with the Apostles in general, they went out and preached to a number of towns and cities. Just as Christ gathered a community around him—the Apostles and disciples—the Apostles likewise gathered many to themselves. Communities were founded where the Apostles labored. When the Apostles felt that it was time to move on and that the situation in this or that place was stable they appointed a man to take charge of the community there.

While their labors were important there was something that further solidified their authority in the minds of people. This was martyrdom. The word “martyr” literally means witness, that is a “witness to the faith.” Tradition holds that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. We have already seen the influence Peter and Paul had while they lived. We have numerous written accounts of authors in the early Church who attest to Peter and Paul's labors in Rome and that they ultimately gave their lives.

The throne of the Cross, placed in Rome where Peter sits on His right, Paul His left.

Why should their death in Rome, however, be any source or reason for authority to be placed there? We have seen, first of all, that the Apostles appointed men to be their successors and co-workers within their specific ministry. While the Apostles had a specific mission to all the faithful, the Apostles among themselves also had specific missions. Peter was given the keys, called to strengthen his brothers, and commanded to feed Christ's sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Paul, likewise, was the apostle to the Gentiles (Rm 11:13). This charge was not given to the other Apostles. The early Church believed that God's providence was not coincidental, but very intentional. Christ died in Jerusalem because it was necessary that the perfect sacrifice would be made in the only place sacrifices could be made. Where the Apostles died, for them at least, was not coincidence but deigned by His will.

Secondly, we find in Scripture that the blood of the just and holy turn the Lord's ear most of all. From the very beginning the blood of Abel cried to God from the soil (Gen 4:10). Indeed, all sacrifices made by the Jews were meant to be clean and without blemish. Their blood was spilled on the altar to be symbolic, among many things, of the contrition of a people. Eventually this this blood offering was modified. Psalm 51 states “My sacrifice, God, is a broken spirit; God, do not spurn a broken, humbled heart … [and] then you will be pleased with proper sacrifice” (51:19, 20). Christ's blood was offered as sacrifice, first at the holy Eucharist he gave us and then on the Cross. Finally in heaven, those who stand before God's throne are the ones who “have survived the time of great distress; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev 7:14).

The blood of the martyrs became holy ground. Their intercession was sought and miracles were worked in Christ name through devotion to them.
(Perpetua and Felicity)

All this being said, the place where someone was martyred was considered holy ground. The place of Christ's crucifixion was a source of veneration and prayer. The same became true of the saints and martyrs. To this very day the places of their death have churches erected in their place. This practice is an ancient one, originating with the Apostles and early Christians who venerated the death of holy men and women who gave their lives for the faith. The blood that was shed because of Christ became holy ground. The bishops who were killed because they were leaders and followers of Christ became especially important. The blood of Peter and Paul carried great weight as a result.

But even if some aren't convinced of this argument, it only stands to look at how the early Church regarded the ministry of Peter and Paul, those Peter chose as his successor in Rome, and how Rome was regarded.

Tertullian, writing in Carthage at about 200 AD, said, “Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the Apostles are still preeminent in their places … since you [in Carthage] are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority of apostles themselves. How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood … against such a discipline thus maintained admits no gainsayer” (Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, quoted from Sommer (We Look for a Kingdom) 186. Gainsayer means “one who opposes or contradicts.”)

Irenaeus of Lyons (in France), writing in the late 2^nd century (about 175-180 AD), claims that one can dispel rumor and error “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; … It is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority" (Against Heresies, III.iii.2).

Irenaeus is also a great help to our understanding of those who succeeded Peter as successor in Rome. His influential work is one I will return to when I discuss Apostolic succession and his work stands as one of the most significant works in our entire history.

The bishops from among the churches across the Empire often sought each others advice. We saw already that Paul sought out Peter in Jerusalem (cf. Gal 1:18) and he again went to Jerusalem with others to decide on matters pertaining to the whole Church (cf. Acts 15). We have numerous letters of bishops consulting one another. Often times new communities and newly elected bishops would seek the advice of older bishops and older communities.

The most powerful example of this, and the only one I'll focus on (out of concern for length) is Clement's letter to the church in Corinth. This a benchmark letter, written around 96 AD, and one that was so revered by early Christians that many saints considered it to be Scripture. So powerful was its message that numerous churches throughout the Empire sought to make a copy for themselves.

A brief background to the situation in Corinth. There had been a sort of uprising in the church at Corinth where younger men from the presbytery and community deposed and turned against the bishop, older presbyterate, and the elders of Corinth. Those in Corinth could not resolve the issue internally and the scandal caused by the whole ordeal became a large concern to the surrounding communities. Many, including those in Corinth, contacted Rome to interfere and Clement and those on Rome did. This letter stands as proof of other Churches going to Rome, even after the death of the Apostles, to seek counsel and authoritative speech. Not much is known about this uprising, perhaps because of the successful resolution that Clement's letter had among them.

The letter opens up in a telling way. It is not a letter from one man to another, but rather from one Church to another. It says “The Church of God which resides as a stranger in Rome to the Church of God which is a stranger at Corinth.” This is important because it is not at the bequest of a man, but a letter that demands a response. He says “You, therefore, prime movers of the schism, submit to the presbyters, and bending the knees of your hearts, accept correction and change your minds" (1 Cor sec. 57). These words echo Peter who said “Likewise you younger members, be subject to the presbyters … the chosen one at Babylon [i.e., the Church in Rome] sends you greeting” (1 Pet 5:5, 13).

Clement further cements the sternness of his letter as well as his expectations for a speedy resolution. He writes, “But should any disobey what has been said by Him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger" (1 Cor sec. 59).

Clement wrote this letter in order to reestablish peace among the Corinthians and secure order for all the faithful there. He sent an entourage of prominent men from (most likely) his presbyterate to them, men who were “worthy and prudent men, who have led blameless lives among us from youth to old age” and this was done “to make you feel that our whole care has been, and is, directed toward establishing speedy peace in your midst" (1 Cor sec. 63).

The letter produced its effect. The power of its reasoning, the influence of Rome, and the mixture of charity and discipline in its writing established in Rome what was expected of it—an authoritative voice, founded on the unique ministry of Peter, that helped to direct the many communities of Christianity when disagreement, error, or dissent arose.

As such, the notions put forth by some that the papacy was a medieval invention, the scheming of those who desired power, or that it is worthless was not the opinion of the early Church, nor should it be ours.

Epilogue: Lessons

What are some of the lessons we can learn from all of this? The early Church concerned itself with electing good and holy men to the presbyterate and the office of bishop. The bishops exemplified, more so than the presbyters, the succession of the Apostles and the highest authority on faith and morals in that local area. St. Ignatius of Antioch was going to his death and still he preached constantly of obedience to the bishop and harmony of life together.

The early Church understood, perhaps more than us, that disunity is one of the greatest evils for the faithful. Ignatius of Antioch says that one must “shun division as the beginning of evil" (Letter to the Smyrnians, sec. 7).

When a presbyter, Valens, caused some scandal involving money (little more is known), St. Polycarp (bishop and martyr, d. 155 AD) wrote that those from that community should “be considerate in this matter: do not treat such persons as enemies, but reclaim them as diseased and straying members, so that you may preserve the whole your community intact. In fact, by acting thus, you promote your personal spiritual growth" (Letter to the Phillipians, sec. 11).

Clement of Rome further states that “Love unites us with God; love covers a multitude of sins (cf. Prv 10:12, 1 Pet 4:8, James 5:20); … love creates no schism, love does not quarrel; love preserves perfect harmony" (1 Cor, sec. 49).

The Didache, written as early as 75 AD (in parts), states that “Day and night remember him who preaches God's word to you (cf. Heb 13:7) and honor him as the Lord, for where His lordship is spoken of, there is the Lord. … Do not start a schism, but pacify contending parties" (Didache, sec. 4:1, 3).

Finally, Ignatius writes to Polycarp as a fellow bishop and says “Do justice to your office with the utmost solicitude, both physical and spiritual. Be concerned about unity, the greatest blessing" (Letter to Polycarp, sec. 1:2).

Christ the King, who reigns forever and ever. Around him the holy Apostles who built His Church.

As such, unity was indeed a primary concern of the Church. If we, the Body of Christ were not united in thought, heart, and action we would be a Body that spoke with two or many voices. Music was a favorite example among many authors in the early Church and for good reason. We notice rather quickly when someone is off key—the voices of many are heard as contrasting and conflicting with one another. When many voices join together in harmony the one sound they produce is indistinguishable from the many. The harmony of the Church is her doctrine, her disciplines, her leaders, her members, and their concord with one another and with the blessed Trinity.

The music that the early Church sung was still a work in progress. The Church is human and divine, so while it has the benefit of divinity it also has the difficulties of being human. The Church is divine insofar as “Christ is ultimately always the one who calls people forth to ministry; [it is] human in that it is always human persons who are called, and human offices to which they are called" (Sommer, We Look for a Kingdom, 159). We should not fear this human aspect of our Church however, not should we be too strict with those who falter in morals or faith. It is that faltering humanity that Christ came to redeem. Likewise, it is that limited humanity that Christ assumed in the flesh. Finally, it is that humanity to whom He entrusted His mission, namely the salvation of all in His name. I hope that this simple look at the faith of our ancestors inspires you to see how we and they are one in Christ and that we should strive see their urgings as applicable today as well. May we pray for unity and that each one submit him and herself to correction from each other and, as Paul says, from those “over us in the Lord and who admonish you” (1 Thes 5:12). May we all endure in our labors and rejoice in the harvest promised to us.

===

Next time, we will look at Apostolic succession and how the early saints and martyrs affected the structure and look of the Church. Where the martyrs were powerful witnesses to the faith they also posed problems for bishops at times. I will endeavor to explore the facets, how both bishop and witness shaped the Church for the better but how challenges arose as a result.