Running With Blind Faith

The Church History of Eusebuis

Indeed we must believe with a blind faith that the pure motivations of those who ruled the newly organized church weren’t susceptible to normal human failings that included greed, need for power, and the greatest motivator of all within religious circles: fear. For without fear, religion simply cannot exist.

Not surprisingly then, the entire papacy tradition is now being held on very unstable ground. In the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace in 1995) we find a footnote — associated with Euseibus’ Church History in regards to the first three bishops of Rome — that adequately reflects this suspicion.

“The actual order of the first three so-called bishops of Rome is a greatly disputed matter. The oldest tradition is that given by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 3. 3) and followed here by Eusebius, according to which the order was Linus, Anencletus, Clement. 

Hippolytus gives a different order, in which he is followed by many Fathers; and  in addition to these two chief arrangements all possible combinations of the three names, and all sorts of theories to account for the difficulties and to reconcile the discrepancies in the earlier lists, have been proposed. 

In the second chapter of the so-called Epistle of Clement to James (a part of the Pseudo-Clementine Literature prefixed to the Homilies) it is said that Clement was ordained by Peter, and  Salmon thinks that this caused Hippolytus to change the order, putting Clement first. Gieseler (Eccles. Hist., Eng. Trans., I. p. 107, note 10) explains the disagreements in the various traditions by supposing that the three were presbyters together at Rome, and that later, in the endeavor to make out a complete list of bishops, they were each successively elevated by tradition to the episcopal chair.

It is at least certain that Rome at that early date had no monarchical bishop, and therefore the question as to the order of these first three so-called bishops is not a question as to a fact, but simply as to which is the oldest of various unfounded traditions.

The Roman Church gives the following order: Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus, following  Hippolytus in making Cletus and Anacletus out of the single Anencletus of the original tradition. The apocryphal martyrdoms of Peter and Paul are falsely ascribed to Linus (see Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apocr. p xix. sq.).

Eusebius (chap. 13, below) says that Linus was bishop for twelve years. In his Chron. (Armen.) he says fourteen years, while Jerome says eleven. These dates are about as reliable as the episcopal succession itself. We have no trustworthy information as to the personal character and history of Linus. Upon the subjects discussed in this note see especially Salmon’s articles, Clemens Romanus, and Linus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. (1)

Rather than spend more time debating the legitimacy of Apostolic Succession, let’s take a closer look at the prevailing concerns and beliefs of the early church fathers and those who “led” the church throughout the first several hundred years. As motivations are made clear, perhaps we will gain a new interpretation to Paul’s words,

“For I now this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29 – NKJV).

How ironic is it that the fear borne within the Christian community from these very words, would prove to open the door and pave an easy pathway for wolves to undisputedly rule the Christian world for many generations future.

___________________________

Next up: The Apostolic Church — AD 30-100
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

___________________________________________________________
Footnote References:

(1) Eusebuis, The Church History of Eusebuis, NPNF2-01 Eusebuis Pamphilius: III. 3. 2
(Footnote on Linus No. 1)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Monarchial Episcopate — Three is a Very Good Number

The “monarchial episcopate” was a three-tiered structure that placed a single bishop as the authoritative leader over a particular city. Beneath him were lower authoritative positions: elders and deacons.

Monarchial: Pertaining to, characteristic of, befitting to or having the status of a monarch (a hereditary sovereign, as a king, queen, or emperor; one who holds a dominant position).

Episcopate: the territorial jurisdiction of a bishop.

Image via Wikipedia

American Christians might well wonder why a system of church government didn’t involve a more democratic approach. Why trickle down government — the division of clergy and laity — in preference to spreading the gospel as equals, or at least the process of “electing” one’s leaders? But when you consider the time period in which church government evolved, there was no democratic government from which to model it. As Jesse Hurlbut comments, “Christianity arose not in a republic where citizens chose their own rulers, but in an empire ruled by authority.” (1)

As church government became more and more necessary, bishops rose to fill the leadership void. The church willingly submitted to this leadership because they were accustomed to a similar form outside the church.

The monarchial episcopate system worked well in governing a particular city — but what do you do when you have doctrinal disputes between cities? Well, that was the next hurdle to be overcome. Enter the Pope.

Over the slow course of three centuries, “the church” moved from a body of believers (ecclesia) — to a people who were loosely governed by a ruling presbytery (elders) — to the addition of an overseeing bishop for each city (bishop) — to a full-blown Catholic structure where the Pope was the ultimate authority at the very top.

Soon Christianity would have a new King — or at least the earthly representation of such — and for all practical purposes the same thing.

___________________________

Next up: Papal Infallibility
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

___________________________________________________________

Footnote References:
(1)  Jesse Lyman Hurlbut, The Story of the Christian Church, page 48
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Who Qualifies as Final Authority?

Image via Wikipedia

The Christian church needed a leader. A single someone who could serve as final authority on interpretation. That’s where the Pope eventually stepped in — but before the Pope was an “official” figure, a hierarchal structure began to develop within the Christian community. It’s purpose: to solve doctrinal disputes and maintain doctrinal unity.

You’ve heard the saying, “Anything with more than one head is a monster?” Well, the early church fathers might as well have come up with that saying — it was certainly their philosophy. What everyone seemed to be forgetting was that Christianity already had a head: Christ. But an invisible head is — well, invisible. Humans like to have power and authority that can be seen.

With the death of the last of the original Apostles, a people arose (that history has come to call the “Apostolic Fathers”) to guide the developing early church. These leaders included a number of teachers and bishops, including among the most famous: Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen, Polycarp, Tertullian.

A hierarchal organizational structure soon emerged called the “monarchial episcopate” — eventually developing into individual congregational leaders who were recognized as authority figures in matters of doctrine and faith.

Elders, Bishops and CEOs — Oh My!

Enter your typical CEO structure — heresy mongers would no longer rule — as the church was fast moving towards an “ordered” organization. This structure did not assemble overnight, but in steps of progression moving from a two-tier and finally three-tier system. I think it’s important to see that this “system” developed — it wasn’t something that was initially “in place” when the original Apostles were alive.

“In the Acts and later epistles elders (presbyters) and bishops are named as though the two titles were applied inter-changeably to the same persons. But by the close of the first century the tendency was growing to elevate one as bishop above his fellow-elders, leading later to an ecclesiastical system.”(1)

In early Christianity, “elders” and “bishops” were synonymous terms (2), however the church structure slowly evolved from a “presbyterian” type (led by elders — Greek: presbeteros) into a more developed hierarchical “episcopal” type (elders having higher “overseers” — Greek: episkopos or bishop) in the second century.

This became known as the “monarchial episcopate.”

___________________________

Next up: Monarchial Episcopate — Three is a Very Good Number
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

___________________________________________________________
Footnote References:
1  The Story of the Christian Church, Jesse Lyman Hurlbut, pg 36, emphasis mine.
2  Acts 20:17,28 uses both titles interchangeably; Early church father Clement (roughly 96 AD) in several writings uses the terms interchangeably (I Clement 44:4-5; I Clement 42:4; 54:2)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.