The Early Church III-2: Christology in Scripture

 (Note: My sincere apologies for the giant hiatus on the following part. These were written in April and May of 2013. I had intended to heavily revise parts III and IV, only because as an academic I was dissatisfied with the lack of detail and nuance. I reminded myself that these pieces were intended for general audiences, meant to inspire them to discover the richness of the subject on their own. I have made some revisions, but now plan--against my former wishes--to post them as originally written)

Missed part III-1? I don't blame you! See it here. See also parts I here and II there.

I've edited III-1, taking and revising the Christology section and putting it here.

Christology

Christology is the study of Christ, specifically the person of Christ and his role as Messiah. The Church began reflecting on the phenomenon of Jesus—His incarnation, life, ministry, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension—almost immediately. The earliest written records we have of such activity comes from St. Paul.

Paul, who wrote from about 40AD to 65AD, is a powerful indication to the understanding of the faithful as it developed. Much like the office of bishop, priest, and deacon the understanding of Christ developed over time. Why wasn't the understanding of Christ immediate? Christ is both the savior of all as well as a personal savior. Christ came to call sinners, yet each one of us sins differently. He approaches Christ differently, struggles differently, and lives differently. For indeed he "called us out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet 2:9). Just as the sun rises and its light spreads gradually over the horizon, so too is the life and light of Christ who dawns on each man. But it is not enough that we should simply experience God or even understand Him. Rather, we must also respond to Him. The encounter is important, yes, but so is the journey. In learning and growing with Christ we learn about ourselves in a profound way. This is why there is no immediate understanding of Christ as if one became privy to a secret knowledge. We are not so much called to know as we are called to become pilgrims.

Paul offers to us a window into the Church as a whole and at the same time was himself a master theologian. Scripture will provide the data for our understanding of Christ for the early Christians.

In his letter to the Philippians (written about 49AD) Paul quotes the famous lines, “Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God, something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness … he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. ...[So now may] may every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (cf. Phil 2:5-11). This quote here is said to be a hymn, and hymns in Scripture are often said to be older than their composition date. We see in this shortened form how aspects of Christ's life are mixed with the significance of His life—e.g., he died on the cross and as a result God “greatly exalted him” (2:9).

The structure of this is believed to be a hymn because (1) the style of composition is not Pauline, and (2) it doesn't read like normal prose and ends with a doxology, typical in sung prayer.

This is significant because we have in our possession a prayer of the early Church. Paul writes to the Philippians after doing some significant travel as well as living the life of a Christian for 15 or so years. Paul came to Philippi on his second missionary journey, which would mean that this prayer was already a part of life in many other churches. Similarly, this prayer was given to the people of that church as an exhortation and edification of a life in Christ. We can be confident in this prayer reflecting how the early Christians viewed Christ.

The letter to the Colossians presents a different angle. Whereas Philippi was a growing Church in need of instruction, Paul's letter to the Colossians is meant to safeguard the faith. Paul approaches Christ from a different angle, namely his divinity. Paul here says “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and invisible … he is before all things … he is the head of the body the church … for in him all fullness was pleased to dwell” (cf. Col 1:15-20).

The first passage I've presented emphasizes Jesus' earthly ministry and its significance. In Colossians Paul mentions these things but goes at length to express Christ's divinity here.

Paul was an example of one so saturated in the love of his Jewish faith that the event of the Messiah, the fulfillment of an ago-old promise, prompted him to consider and evaluate a future after the fulfillment of such a promise. What had Christ revealed about God, the world, man, and salvation the the prophets and patriarchs longed for? No easy task.

These were early 'Christologies' and ones that were made to both help others understand Christ while also protecting those same believers from what was false.

As time progressed more elaborate and precise understandings emerged. For our purposes we shall look at one of the most famous: John's Gospel. His Gospel, a work that “soars like an eagle above the clouds of human infirmity, and gazes upon the light of the unchangeable truth with those keenest and steadiest eyes of the heart” (Augustine, De consensu evangelistarum 1.6.9, courtesy of catholic-resources.org).

It is here that we are introduced to the notion that Jesus is the Word, the Logos. John states clearly that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life … grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1:1-4, 17).

John's words incorporate what came before him but more clearly identify who Jesus is. His whole Gospel is dedicated to that prologue and Benedict XVI himself had said that this is the primary creation account in Scripture. Jesus is the Word, the Greek word being “logos,” which carries—intentionally—a Jewish and Greek understanding. In Greek, logos would signify reason, order, harmony, and completeness in certain contexts. In Scripture and Judaism, a word carried power. In Psalm 29 it states “The voice of the Lord is over the waters” which hearkens back to the moment of creation. It continues “the God of glory thunders … the voice of the Lord is power; the voice of the Lord is splendor” (Ps 29:3-4). In creation God speaks and so it is. The “word” is power and might, and creation does not resist the Word or the master who speaks that word. As such, this was the dual-sense of John when he calls Jesus the Word: reason and power, order and splendor. This is just the surface of John's bottomless wisdom on Christ.

The Early Church II-4: The Rule of Faith

 This is the 4th of 4 sections of Part II. The previous sections are:

II-1: The Martyrs
II-2: The Lapsed and the Problem of the Martyrs
II-3: Bishops and Succession

====

After a time a hero arose in the Church by the name of Irenaeus of Lyons. His monumental work “Against Heresies,” written between 182 and 188 AD, is lauded as a Western classic and, while it receives little attention today, the Early Church unanimously consented to its orthodoxy and power of persuasion. Irenaeus was said to have been a follower, or taught in some capacity by Polycarp, whom Irenaeus lavishes with praise as a true, concrete, and powerful proof of the Apostolic faith.

Ireneaus is not the man with whom to mess.

Irenaeus wrote this text, first, to instruct a friend of his of the many and strange beliefs of the Gnostics. Secondly, he wrote to instruct his fellow bishops (and eventually believers) of the truth of the Catholic faith. The Tradition of the Apostles alone, he says, are in harmony with Scripture and both are in harmony with the teachings of the successors to Apostles who are in concord and council with one another. This came to be known as the “Rule of Truth” or and later the “Rule of Faith.” While an exposition upon it is too complicated for our purposes here (it deserves its own treatment), some explanation is useful for us. Irenaeus' work was regarded with a great deal of honor. The historian Eusebius himself quotes it frequently some 150 years later, showing how well know and how much the text had spread in that time.

This Rule was something conceived by Irenaeus in order to protect from error as well as something to guide those seeking to understand our faith: he claims we have a wealth of resources, whether it's the example of the Apostles, the rule of their successors, the writings they all left us, and of course Scripture. The Rule is not a result of knowledge of these things, either, but rather they come about as a result of living one's faith in the Church.

The Rule, then, does not simply safeguard the faith nor is it a tool used exclusively to combat heresies. The Rule really is the expression of the life of the Church which is Christ living in the world.

Irenaeus, in book III of his work, explains that this life, a life of faith according to the Rule, can only exist within the Church which has its origin in the Apostles. The presbyters and bishops of the Church are those who safeguard this tradition and faith. Furthermore all of these bishops owe their example to “the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul … for it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church” (III.3.ii).

These Apostles were not preeminent because of their teaching alone but also because of their witness to the faith; indeed their ultimate witness of martyrdom confirmed their teaching in Christ. Irenaeus attests to the power of their example by affirming that the bishops of Rome have a unique privilege. He refers to Clement of Rome who interfered with the church at Corinth on behalf of the whole Church. Clement, Irenaeus says, wrote firmly and with authority to correct the conduct of those in Corinth. Clement could do this because he “had seen the blessed apostles … [and when dealing with Corinth had] the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears] and their traditions before his eyes” (III.3.iii). The lives of the faithful in Corinth did not correspond to the teaching of the Apostles.

In Clement's letter Irenaeus claims that Clement did not clarify Scripture for them, rather it declared “the tradition which it [Corinth] had lately received from the apostles” (Idem.) Furthermore from “this document … [one] may understand the apostolic tradition of the Church” (Idem).

A further example of the Rule being a lived faith is Irenaeus' treatment of Polycarp. Although the space dedicated to Polycarp is small the import is great. Polycarp was instructed by the apostles, was appointed bishop, exercised his role for a long time, and then suffered a glorious martyrdom “having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true” (III.3.iv) Polycarp was a supreme witness to the Rule by virtue of his martyrdom. His whole life up to that point, however, had made him “a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness to the truth [than the other heretics mentioned in books I and II]” Idem). The bishops who are in union with the teaching and lives of the Apostles, both in Rome and elsewhere, are a living example of that same faith of the Apostles and protect it from those who add or subtract from them.

The example and martyrdom of St. Bartholomew, produced just as profound effect as his teaching, you can imagine.

Should one doubt his claims, however, Irenaeus points to the “barbarians” (most likely the Germanic and Gallic tribes near Lyon) who have “salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully [preserve] the ancient tradition” (III.4.ii) Without written documents for reference all they can rely on is what they were taught. This is so because “what is in Scripture and what is in tradition are the same, the truth about God and Christ; both contain the apostolic preaching.”*

Irenaeus calls these barbarians crude with respect to the written language but wise with respect to their love of the same apostolic faith of the Church: “Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language, but as regards to doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed” (III.4.ii.).

What they were taught is that to which Scripture attests. The barbarians, in a sense, are less susceptible to error because in living the traditions of the apostles they can more easily detect incongruent words and actions: “If anyone were to preach to these men inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established” (III.4.ii).

Those, such as the Apostle John, and Polycarp, would be revolted at the sight of one who corrupted the truth and taught falsely. Those who lived their faith in an exemplary way could readily detect those who would poison it by their teaching or example. “Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth” (III.3.iv).

Irenaeus also speculates that if the Apostles had not left their writings behind the Church would not lack for guidance or instruction. On top of the men mentioned above who maintained the teaching of the Apostles by virtue of their authority Irenaeus argues that the churches united with Rome act in accord with one another. He advises that if “a dispute relative to some important dispute among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the Apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear[?]” (III.4.i). In the case of important questions that are under dispute, it is not enough to consult the creed or interpret Scripture. Rather Irenaeus says, “[Should we not] follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?” (Idem.). One resolves disputes, when he does not have the Scriptures, by looking at how faithful men in union with the apostles conduct themselves (and how their ancestors conducted themselves).

At this point it is important to note the pattern that Irenaeus adopts with regard to disputes in the Church. The Gnostics that he argues against are considered as “thieves and robbers,” (Idem.) but even among the faithful there are legitimate disagreements on how to handle new errors or problems. One may, looking closely at the text, see a method for how Irenaeus approaches them. His approach is to invoke and use the example of the Apostles, then Scripture. The first mention of the Rule is in Book I, chapter 9. Irenaeus in the previous chapters, gives and exposition on the sayings of the Gnostics and how they use Scripture. Irenaeus claims that when one encounters those who use Scripture falsely he can easily reject them if he “retains [as] unchangeable the rule of truth which he received by means of baptism[.]” (I.9.iv.).

(Note: It should be worth noting that receiving the Rule at Baptism would be incoherent if it were a mere reception of the sacrament (and thus receiving a special knowledge by the sacrament). It is more likely that Irenaeus means catechetical instruction since what follows in this quote is that “he [the baptized] will no doubt recognize the names, expressions, and the parables from the Scriptures, but will not means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these men make of them.” Irenaeus, however, offers no exposition on baptism or catechesis in Against Heresies, so this point is speculation. He does, however, offer some description of the initiation rites of the Gnostics, including their version of Baptism which is laced with false doctrine and shrouded in mysteries not expressed by the Apostles or Scripture (cf. I.21.iii-v). As a result, what I propose here is not an unfounded speculation.)

In the following chapter Irenaeus first says that the Church, through spread throughout the whole world, has

received from the apostles and their disciples this faith … [and none of the rulers of these various churches] however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these [mentioned in I.10.i]; nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition (I.10.i, ii. The emphasis, in italics, is mine.).

Even here, with respect to the creed in chapter 9.i, Irenaeus first defers to the faith and tradition of the Apostles before he speaks about Scriptures. This is said explicitly at the opening of Book III:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures. (III.1.i)

Let this brief exposition suffice, for it is much larger than this. In summary, the Rule of faith in my estimation is a life lived in harmony with the Apostles, their successors, the teachings of the Church, and Scripture, all of which derive their power, meaning, and life from God Himself. Apostolic succession is essential for the makeup of the Church and our own personal faiths.

If this is your face, I understand that it's complicated. But you made it through part II!

Epilogue

We were not born with power over ourselves and, as we grow older, we have those whom we must guide and others must guide us. Indeed, with regard to faith or tradition, “what do you possess that you have not received?” (1 Cor 4:7). Moreover Paul says “An athlete cannot receive the winner's crown except by competing according to the rules” (2 Tim 2:5). Likewise Paul reminds Timothy, as he does us, “You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, and sufferings … that I endured. … Remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from who you learned it” (2 Tim 3:10, 14).

The example of the Apostles, the authority given to them and their successors, is an aspect of our faith that we would all do well to reexamine in our hearts and live more fully. While deacon, priest, and bishop may be over us in the Lord (cf. 1 Thes 5:13) as both father and brother, this does not mean that we as children, brothers, sisters, and mothers have no effect or purpose. What mother or father among you would say your child, by their disobedience, their mistakes, their successes, and their virtues has not changed you? Is it not the case that a faithful child is a source of glory and joy for a parent and uplifts them in their own faith. Is it not also the case that even their waywardness and lack of faith, however distressing, is reason to redouble your prayer and love? The same is true of our relationship with those in charge of leading us—they rejoice in us as if we were their own children, and are troubled for many nights when we fall away, cause scandal, and remain distant. Again, as I said before, God uses all these things to strengthen us if we allow Him to be with us.

I hope the examples of the martyrs inspire us, as they should, but may the beauty of our Church and the strength of her leadership, then and now, inspire us to be grateful sons and daughters to our spiritual fathers. Where we must make an account of ourselves to the Father, they must make an account of all of us. Indeed, “obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you” (Heb 13:17).

May we pray in gratitude for the martyrs whose courage emboldened the Church and the bishops, priests, and spiritual leaders of past generations guided her in her zeal. May all the work we do today be as one body working, no one considering his or her work—however small—apart from the work of the whole Church. If we work in her, according to her, even the smallest task receives the glory of the whole project. Have no contempt for those who lead or those who are highly regarded, for the wage received from the Master is the same (cf. Mt 20:1-16). Let us work, then, as one giving thanks to the Father, Son, and Spirit who give us all that is good.

*Everett Ferguson, “Paradosis and Traditio: A Word Study” in Tradition & the Rule of Faith in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Joseph T. Leinhard, S.J., ed. Ronnie J. Rombs and Alexander Y. Hwang (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010) 13.

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 II-2: The Lapsed and the Problem of the Martyrs

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

II-1: The Martyrs
II-3: Bishops and Succession
II-4: The Rule of Faith
====

The 'Martyrdom of Polycarp' is a powerful example of how Christians regarded martyrs and the practices that surrounded those who were martyred. We'll recall what was said of blessed Polycarp:

“Of the elect the most wonderful Polycarp was certainly one—an apostolic and prophetic teacher in our times, and a bishop of the Catholic Church at Smyrna” (sec. 16).

How, then, could problems arise from such courageous and promising examples of our faith? Justin Martyr said of martyrdom, “He who denies anything [of our Catholic faith], either denies it because he has condemned it, or shrinks from confessing it, because he knows himself to be unworthy of and alien to it; neither of which is that of a true Christian” (2^nd Apology, sec. 2).

Herein lies our problem: it was the case that many on account of fear, coercion, and violence fled from the Church, fled from persecution, or renounced the faith. These men and women became known as the “lapsed” for they did not proclaim Christ in times of trial. When persecutions died down they, on account of love of Christ sought to return but were in many places rejected. You can understand the zeal of those who stood before the flames of persecution: they and their loved ones died and were disfigured for the One they loved. Those who were scattered, some out of cowardice, sought to share in the same Eucharist again.

Martyrdom is difficult to witness and accept in all ages. Not all are prepared at this moment to accept Christ's life even unto death. Some were and became glorious examples as a result. Here is one depiction of the martyrdom of Paul Miki and companions, Japan 1597.

There were many disputes, as a result, of what to do. Some admitted these 'lapsed Catholics' back into the Church, but only after a lengthy period of penitence which included fasting, intense prayer, moral scrutinies, and being kept from the Eucharist for a period of time, sometimes 7 years or until they were on their deathbed. Others, harsher still, said that all men have only one chance—to deny Christ is to permanently cast one out from His presence.

Those who had witnessed many cruel martyrdoms were intolerant with those who wished to return. Bishops and believers in many churches held such a stance because of (1) the high esteem they held the martyrs in and (2) the lesson of the martyrs was that it was better to choose death than life. Those who ran, they believed, chose 'life' and thus forfeited it.

The zeal of the martyrs was well-founded, but the devil—ever the deceiver—seeks to use even our zeal and courage to cause division. The martyrs and their followers wanted to protect the Church from those who would perhaps again apostatize and give the others into slavery and death. A martyr, it should be stated, does not seek death but rather accepts it when it comes to him. Of of the great phrases describing saints and martyrs in found in Revelations: “Love of life did not deter them from death” (Rev 12:1). Those who were confessors, ones who survived torture, could be strict in regards to the lapsed. It was backed by the scars, dismemberment, and disfigurement they wore. Likewise, many sought them for spiritual courage and advice.

Satan does not deceive us by revealing what is evil, he uses our love of what is good and turns it against us. C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters is a good allegory/reflection of that.
"Satan Exulting Over Eve" by William Blake, c. 1795.

The bishops, some sympathetic and others not, had to decide how to deal with these Catholics who had fallen away. Cyprian, in his work “On the Unity of the Church,” claimed that those martyred outside the Church had no merit and that even confessors could be subject to error and sin. While his words, to numerous to write here, may seem harsh his message is a sound one: even those of us who have proven ourselves courageous in faith and steadfast in truth are subject to error. Zeal for the faith is a trust in what that faith teaches, but there are times when that trust becomes not a trust in faith but a trust in ourselves.

An additional lesson is that experience is valuable, but not infallible. Those who are experts in patience are not necessarily experts in teaching patience through their words. God has given certain gifts to each of us, but we must be on guard that this gift does not become a source of pride. Likewise, each gift must be attended by humility and obedience. Bishops and priests had been given the gift, that is the grace, of leadership and governance. It does not mean they are without error, but it does mean that division is the direct result of those who outright deny the priest or bishop. Priests and bishops are, in turn, accountable to those whom they serve as well as the counsel and concord of their brother presbyters and the whole Church.

We should, however, look with sympathy upon the martyrs just as we look with understanding upon those who fled. The decision of the pope (Stephen at this time, 256 AD) was that the Lapsed were to be readmitted as penitents in the Church.

One thing, among many, was made clear: In this period the Church had “to deal with the all-too-human phenomenon of failure” (Sommer 248). Even the lapsed felt guilt and shame for their former renunciations. The order of the bishops—many bishops disagreed and dissented all the same—was that they be readmitted, albeit slowly. It's possible that they took their cue from the Apostles who scattered when Christ was struck down. Peter himself denied Christ three times and afterward wept bitterly. His sorrow, and his restoration by Christ, in turn made him a powerful advocate for the faith. This was the hope of the bishops and others who sought reconciliation: that the Lapsed might become even stronger in their faith by means of forgiveness, penance, and instruction—we can see the seeds of the sacrament of confession arise from this situation.

It was through forgiveness that Peter was restored to Christ and it was because of this Peter was prepared to give his entire person to Christ. An important lesson for us when we fail, and especially when others fail.

We see that God works in all things, that even the zeal of the martyrs and scandal (for some) of the Lapsed produced a conflict that would force the Church and her leaders to consider more carefully the extent and character of her forgiveness and unity. Truly, it reaffirms that God uses all of our affections and triumphs to draw us closer to him, despite the trials we and every generation must undergo.

We have observed that “there arose no little dissension and debate” (Acts 15:3) on the issues mentioned above. Dissension arose among the lay faithful, priests, and bishops alike. People's lives and souls were at stake, but at the same time the Church emphasized proper teaching and took her faith seriously. How did the Church address such problems? Moreover, how did the Church maintain unity of churches and thought? It all stems from our notion of “Tradition” (mentioned in part I) which comes from Apostolic succession. What developed in response to this and many other conflicts was the “Rule of Truth,” which we'll explore in the next section.

The Early Church I-2: Organization of the Church

If you haven't read part I-1, you can read it here: History, Morality
You can find I-3 here: Why "Catholic"? 
Section I-4: The Origins of the Pope in Rome, Lessons 
 

(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.)

Part I-2: Organization of the Church

Understanding Christ as the foundation of the Church is of the utmost importance. From there, however, it is important to understand that it was the Apostles, their example and their actions, that laid the bricks of the Church we dwell in today. This is what we mean by “Tradition” most accurately: the beliefs, practices, and precedents left to us by the Apostles and those men to whom they entrusted their ministry. Our “Tradition” is faith in Christ as handed down and protected by the Apostles, the ones whom Jesus personally taught and authorized. For it is written “he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, and whose sins you retain are retained” (Jn 20:22-23). The Apostles, or the Twelve, were distinguished by name.  

 

The men whom build our Catholic faith firmly upon the foundation of Christ.

(A side note to consider:When Peter calls for the Apostles to choose Judas' successor he quotes Psalm 109 in Greek. While it translates “Let another take his office” the word for office is “episkopein” which became the word for bishop. One could reasonably conceive that the Apostles at this point saw themselves as having a unique office.)

The Acts of the Apostles in Scripture is our best and most explicit source for early Christian life. It says that those who came to believe “devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to communal life, to the breaking of the bread, and prayers” (Acts 2:42).

Clement of Rome, in his letter to the Corinthians (written about 96 AD), says “Christ … comes with a message from God, and the Apostles with a message from Christ. … After receiving their instructions and being fully assured through the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ … they went forth, fully equipped with the fullness of the Holy Spirit, to preach the good news" (1 Cor, sec. 42)

The earliest Christian communities were founded by the Apostles and Paul. As the early communities grew the Apostles recognized that they could no longer labor alone. Those who followed them began to complain that they were being neglected. The Apostles gathered together and said “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men … whom we shall appoint to this task whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and ministry of the word” (Acts 6:2-5). All those present approved and brought forth seven men. It then says that the Apostles “prayed and laid hands on them” (6:6).

This is our foundational story of ordination. While these men were deacons who were called to serve in practical ministries, the Apostles distinguished their own ministry as that of prayer and ministry of the Word above that of a ministry of just service. While the Apostles certain did various ministries among those who believed they felt the need to pray (breaking bread was considered a prayer and ritual), to proclaim the Word, and to teach. As the Church grew more and more the Apostles needed others to carry out their own ministry as overseers of the people of God.

We have indication in Scripture of a gradual progression and understanding of the Apostles and human leadership in the Church. As we just saw, the Apostles were distinguished from the deacons that they appointed. The Apostles conferred authority to those selected from among the people.

Eventually, the Apostles appointed men to be like them, that is to say that these men would be the chief authority in their own assemblies. In the beginning these were the only two offices that were distinct. Communities, while growing, were still local and needed only one bishop and his attendant deacons (cf. 1 Tim 3:1-13). Bishops at this early point were also considered “presbyters” which in Greek was typically translated as “elder.” This term was used among the Jews when referring to the elders who were charged with leading and teaching their people.

While many presbyters among the early Christians were older, Paul indicates to us a change occurring in this vocabulary: “Command and teach these things. Let no one have contempt for your youth, but set an example for those who believe. … Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate” (1 Tim 4:11-12a, 14). Timothy must have been a younger man, certainly not old enough to be called an “elder” in the traditional sense. Elder, or presbyter, was now changing to refer to the authority and responsibility one had in a community and not simply age. Paul additionally warns Timothy that with his new authority that he may also lay hands upon another and transfer authority to them. Paul says “Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching. … [Do] nothing out of favoritism. Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another's sins” (1 Tim 5:21b-22).

The epistle of James, dated around 90-100 AD, recounts that if anyone is sick “he should summon the presbyters of the Church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person” (James 5:14). The presbyters were local ministers and performed special tasks with regard to both prayer, authority, and teaching.

While these passages, a few among many more, show how Scripture regards the hierarchy of the Church, we have literature outside of Scripture that helps us understand how the early Christians enacted what the Apostles entrusted to them.

The early bishops also played an important role in establishing themselves as head of their representative churches. Ignatius of Antioch is a pivotal figure in this development. He is believed to be the third bishop of Antioch, to have been taught for a time by John the Apostle, and was martyred around 110-115 AD. He wrote a number of letters to various churches on his way to Rome, the place of his martyrdom. Many have survived the centuries and offer us a keen insight in two ways: the first is the content of the letters themselves since they tell us what Ignatius believed to be important. The second is that these letters survived. In the first centuries of the Church distribution was not only time-consuming but also dangerous since carrying such letters could expose one as Christian to persecutors. Nevertheless these letters became influential across the entire Church in a very short period.

"The proper thing, then, is not merely to be styled Christians, but also to be such--just as there are those who style a man a bishop, but completely disregard him in their conduct. Such persons do not seem to me to have a good conscience, inasmuch as they do not assemble in the fixed order ascribed to them" (Letter to the Magnesians, sec. 4).
Follow the bishop, and he will lead you to God, as Ignatius did.

In one letter he says “It is proper for you to act in agreement with the bishop ...Certain it is that your presbytery, which is a credit to its name, is a credit to God; for it harmonizes with the bishop as completely as the strings of a harp. This is why in the symphony of your concord and love the praises of Jesus Christ are sung" (Letter to the Ephesians, sec. 4)

He says elsewhere “he that does anything apart from bishop, presbyter, or deacon has no pure conscience" (Letter to the Trallians, sec. 7).

He says once more, “Surely, when you submit to the bishop as representing Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are not living the life of men, but that of Jesus Christ, who died for us … It is needful, then … that you do nothing without your bishop; but be subject also to the presbytery as representing the Apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope, in whom we are expected to live forever" (Letter to the Trallians, sec. 2).

Clement of Rome, who will be important in understanding the papacy and Rome in the next segment, wrote that the Apostles “appointed men whom they had tested by the Spirit to act as bishops and deacons for the future believers" (1 Cor, sec. 42). Furthermore, while the Apostles lived “they appointed the men mentioned before, and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry" (1 Cor, sec. 44). Note that it says those men approved by the Apostles, and as a rule, those men that the successors approve would inherit that unique authority.

The man whose writing solidified the primacy of Rome and the chair of Peter. The martyrdom of Peter's successors helped also, but their martyrdom was coupled with their knowledge, their leadership, and the seriousness with which they claimed to be the Bishop of Rome.