Scripture and Tradition

Not at all since we don't have schism prior to the end of the first millenium.

The Inquisition wasn't set up until after the split of 1054. All the events which you relate in your last post above happened post-1054.

 

Call me what you want, dearie, it doesn't bother me, It wouldn't be terribly accurate, though, since at no point have I ever said, nor do I believe, that Baptists are the Antichrist and are Hell-bound, unlike your spewed assertions about Catholics.

To answer your question about oral traditions which are needed, please re-read my OP - some examples are given there.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Brian, and welcome to the Board!

You are correct that I do set great store by AS. I also agree with you that the Didache does not, at first glance, support AS ( I presume you are referring in particular to v15: "Appoint for yourselves Bishops and Deacons...")? A couple of points to make there: firstly, I would distinguish between 'appointment/approbation' and 'ordination/consecration'; the former is a matter of church government, the latter one of ontological change. To put some flesh on those bones, even today (in theory) a Bishop has to be approved by his diocese (in the Greek Orthodox Church, for example, the cry of 'axios' or 'anaxios' (worthy or unworthy) is the traditional method of so doing).

Secondly, the Didache is only one of many patristic writings (this brings me back to my OP point: that whilst individual texts may disagree with each other from time to time, to the extent to which they agree, they carry the weight of the consensus patri); if you compare it in particular with I Clement (to which I believe you made reference above), then this more or less contemporary document does support AS - see in particular I Clement 42:44: "So, preaching everywhere...they [the Apostles] appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be Bishops and Deacons unto them that should believe..."etc.

WRT Paul, I wouldn't view Ananias' prayer as being anything approaching presbyteral ordination still less episcopal consecration but rather part of Paul's conversion. All the Apostles including Paul were appointed and consecrated directly by Christ, not by their peers.

 

Hi Brian

Thanks again for your thoughtful reponse, which has made me think. You raise a number of points and I will endeavour to deal with them.

On the issue of 'approval' -v- 'consecration' in AS, I think Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition is particularly useful (italics mine):

Re the Didache calling for the apostles and prophets to be 'tested', I would read this as a reference to those who are masquerading as apostles and prophets; if you look at the tests laid down, they have to do with the extent to which the visitor is freeloading off the congregation (cp modern televangelists); I wouldn't view this as negativing the authority of the genuine apostles and bishops, the Real McCoy as it were, in any way.

You then move onto the question of the development of the episcopal office. Your view - if I have it right - is I believe similar to that of Gibbon, which I managed to locate over the w'end (the conversation in our house went something like this: "Darling, have you seen my Gibbon? It's supposed to be up here on the shelf." "No, what on earth are you on about?" "Someone's moved my Gibbon....Ah, here it is."); in ch 15 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire he sketches his view of the gradual centralisation of ecclesaistical government over the first few centuries of the Church. It has to be said, however, that Gibbon subscribed to what is commonly called the 'Whig view of Church history', where any concentration of ecclesial power is viewed negatively as a kind of proto-Roman Catholicism; thus he criticises his High Church Tory contemporaries. He is also candid about drawing a lot of his material for that chapter from Mosheim, whose historical credentials I would regard as being somewhat suspect. Don't forget that this Whig view of history has as its extreme 'provisional' wing (to borrow a term from the IRA over here) the likes of Carroll's Trail of Blood and Broadbent's The Pilgrim Church, and has the tendency IMO to make a mockery of Christ's claims referenced in my OP about building His Church and sending the HS to guide the Apostles into all truth (Carroll is at least honest about that, although that honesty leads him to propose an 'alternative Apostolic Succession' of Novatians, Paulicians, Bogamils, Waldensians, Cathars etc which is largely without historical merit; he also borrows heavily from Mosheim).

That said, the Whig view on the point of the development of monarchical episcopacy does have some merit in that I think most if not all scholars are united in saying that there was a development of this concept and practice in the first couple of centuries of the Church. The fact that there was that development, particularly in understanding, however does not IMO illegitimate that. Returning to my OP, the Church had to 'fill in the gaps' left by Scripture as it went along, remaining faithful to Scripture whilst so doing. Development only tended to happen when there was a problem or controversy to be addressed. Thus the Early Church made no ruling about whether rock music should be listened to by Christians, simply because it was a non-issue, in contrast to the big issue it seems to be today, to judge by the content of the Music Board here. But the point was that the Church did recognise - sometimes to a degree retrospectively with the benefit of hindsight - both episcopacy and AS, as its understanding of what had happened and was continuing to happen developed. Again, Hippolytus is a good example of that kind of retrospective recognition in the passage from AT quoted above, as is Tertullian, in The Crown of the Soldier:

There is also the point that the Early Church did practise both AS and episcopal government, even though its understanding of both may have taken some time to develop - see eg: Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica. This brings me to finally answering your question about my view of AS - put simply, I believe that there is an unbroken line of episcopacy in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and, to an extent, Lutheran Churches going back to the Apostles and Christ Himself which, for the first thousand years of Church history at least, guaranteed a sufficiency of indefectability through Scripture and Tradition in matters of faith and practice. The Apostles themselves, in contrast to their successors, were to a degree unique, in that their office was commissioned directly by the Risen Christ rather than fellow-bishops; there is of course an unrepeatability about that aspect.

 

I'm not sure how this contributes to the discussion. Do pray enlighten us.

 

I think you've got the wrong Eusebius as 'Antipope'; I'm talking about Eusebius of Caesarea rather than Eusebius of Nicomedia (who is more accurately termed an 'Antipatriarch').+

Re Whig, I'm using the British definition here rather than the American. Broadly speaking, two parties emerged in England after the 17th century civil war. One was the Tories, the party of King, Court and the Church of England; they supported episcopacy and the Anglican Prayer Book. The others were the Whigs, who were largely non-conformist* in origin. They favoured the Dissenters (in particular Presbyterians) and were in favour of a more parliamentary form of government (albeit an oligarchy rather than a true democracy). It was from this latter group that Edward Gibbon sprang.

*Or at least 'low-church Anglicans', feeling they had more in common with Calvinists on the continent than with their fellow-Anglicans in England. See here and here for more detail.

[+Actually, someone's kindly pointed out that you were of course referring to Hippolytus who did head up a separate congo at Rome and is therefore dubbed in some quarters as 'the first Antipope' - d'oh!; he's still regarded as a Saint, though]

 

The bit of the Didache to which I believe you refer is here:-

Like I said, I think the thrust is more to do with problems with freeloaders turning up and imposing themselves on congregations and/or demanding monetary support (cf "Put your hand on the screen and pledge now!").

Brian, I'm intrigued - if you do think that the Church fell away from sound teaching, how do you see that as fitting in with Jesus' promises as referred to in the OP?

 

Brian, my original quote in the OP re the promises was here:

Picking up on what you said earlier, why did you put a question mark over Ignatius of Antioch?

To try to answer your question re 'falling away', no, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodoxen and Lutherans do not agree. I would date this divergence and falling away from the Great Schism of 1054; prior to that, as I've stated to Bob Ryan earlier, I believe that there was - and remains - a sufficient depositum fideii arising from the consensus patri to be an adequate paradigm in matters of faith, doctrine and practice. And, no, the Anglican Communion is no more the true inheritor of this than the others.