- May 28, 2015
- 14,603
- 7,108
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Working on Clement.....Lol lots of information I know!
Try starting with either Clement, Polycarp or Ignatius
Upvote
0
Working on Clement.....Lol lots of information I know!
Try starting with either Clement, Polycarp or Ignatius
Which means they are probably not online and certainly not in English. Would have been interesting to get a peek behind the scenes so to speak.
The minutes of Nicaea are not known to exist. Either you're lying, mistaken, or you have something in your possession that historians would love to check out.
Between the lies about possessing a secret copy of the minutes of Nicaea and the patronization by accusing me of "being my own god" because I refuse to interpret history in an anachronistic and biased fashion, I'm tired of this thread.
Take care.
It would be awesome if you could just type a tiny fraction of the minutes of Nicaea. Not all of us have access to ancient mystical libraries.
Most of what is available in English has been translated from the Latin. There is a huge amount of works in Greek which have not been translated. For example, only about one third of St John Chrysostom's works are available in English.The minutes of Nicaea are not known to exist. Either you're lying, mistaken, or you have something in your possession that historians would love to check out.
Ignatius was writing shortly after the New Testament was written and to churches of great geographical distance from one another, and yet he acknowledges the bishop/priest/deacon structure. I find it hard to imagine that churches in both Rome and Asia Minor would suddenly and consistently fall into the same "error." The more likely scenario is that this three-fold ecclesiastical situation in the churches was there from the beginning. There's also a tradition that Ignatius knew the Apostle John. If so, then John seemed accepting of the way churches used bishops, priests and deacons.
Revelation was written in the 90s, shortly before Ignatius' letters, and in that book Christ doesn't seem to have a problem with the way those churches are set up.
I think it's the Protestants who like to believe that it wasn't the case, but all the evidence suggests that it is the case.
yes, and the role of the bishop today is as an overseeing priest. the primary function of the bishop is as the priest. priests are an extension of that ministry. if they were the same order in all ways, they would not make the distinction of an elder and an overseer.
if we defined our bishops like that, then yes, you would be correct. but we don't. our bishops are not monarchial
There are no minutes from Nicea, as far as I know.
The closest thing I can find to the "visible" church is St. Ignatius' definition. The fact there are at least a couple of dozen distinct bodies with apostolic succession all claiming to be the true visible church, and the fact that they can all make a compelling argument, sort of proves that there is no visible church, at least from where I'm standing.
The ancient churches had no way of "pronouncing dogma" until the ecumenical council was invented.
For me, as an inbaptized outsider, it seems as if St. Ignatius makes the most sense. I could enter into any community that has apostolic succession and I would become a member of the true church. I don't see why any one particular apostolic church has more of a claim over the others.
Matt, you have said that a few times. Can you explain further?
Go to a liturgy with a bishop, and you will see that he serves as the presiding priest, surrounded by his other elders
But in Orthodoxy, the office of bishop is still that of a third order of ministry, as in the RCC and Anglicanism, although I know that the concept of a bishop in Orthodoxy is different from the RCC. I'd like to see this discussed more.
He was a presiding presbyter in antiquity, but now the priests are delegates or representatives of the bishops. And the validity of the clergy depends upon the line of succession of the bishops, not anyone else.And in Scripture, you see bishops, priests, and deacons. The presiding priest is a differing function than other priests. If it were not, there would be no need to make any distinction at all.
And in Scripture, you see bishops, priests, and deacons. The presiding priest is a differing function than other priests. If it were not, there would be no need to make any distinction at all.
He was a presiding presbyter in antiquity, but now the priests are delegates or representatives of the bishops. And the validity of the clergy depends upon the line of succession of the bishops, not anyone else.
As I have pointed out, there is no distinction in scripture between "bishop" and "elder", "presbyter", "pastor", "overseer". These were synonymous for one and the same office.
I know, the point was that the bishop's primary function has always been as a priest
I have to disagree about Arians being objectively heretical. Arius and those who held similar views made up a significant chunk of the Christian world, and they, like all the various fractions, considered everyone else a heretic. Arians saw their beliefs as ancient and apostolic, as did the trinitarians.
OK, it's good that you put it that way. The bishop is inherently a pastor and a priest, yes. That the NT speaks of presbyters and bishops as one can be misunderstood because it doesn't actually say they are identical, just of the same order, unlike, for example, deacons.
If that were true, there would not be any distinction in any way between the overseers and the elders. Scripture, while not going into any real detail, does mention them both. If they were merely total synonyms with no distinction in any way, they would not have made any