POST ONE OF TWO
Hi
@Dogknox20 and
@idea and
@pearl and others.
Dogknox20, While you seem to be aware of the party line and dogmatic talk of the Roman Bishopric, perhaps you might want to at least introduce yourself to a bit of the world of the historian regarding the type of bishopric created by the Roman Christian religious movement and the process of it's decline.
THE CONCEPT OF APOSTASY AND LOSS IN THE BISHOPRIC (AND ORGANIZATION) OF THE ROMAN RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT
While the Dogmatists continue dogmatizing they should spend more time with the historians. Dogknox20s claims regarding Bishops reminds me of a logia of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas as follows : “
Jesus said, “The kingdom of the [father] is like a certain woman who was carrying a [jar] full of meal. While she was walking [on the] road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her [on] the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty.”
The evolution of the Roman Congregation from one of the original congregations among many other congregations in the early group of Christian Churches into the morally decadent period of apostasy of the later religious organization was not an obvious event at the time. Rather, like the Jar of the woman, the organization slowly changed and much of what was worthwhile and good, was lost along the route of historical changes that were made.
THE EVOLUTION OF AND DECLINE OF THE ROMAN MOVEMENTS OFFICE OF BISHOP
THE RISE OF INEQUALITY AMONG BISHOPS
Even by the time of Nicea, this principle of Bishops being a group of “equals” had been abandoned. The great and telling concluding speech of the great Council of Nicaea was an appeal by the emperor to the bishops to remember the principle that they had already started to abandon : that
“the decision of which bishop is really superior to another must rest with God. You must yield gracefully to each other,” says Constantine,
“and so avoid all this terrible dissension.” The emperor’s imperial advice was not enough to stop moral decline and bad behaviors among the bishops, and thus, soon afterwards, he again wrote in a general epistle another rebuke repeating his demand that they return to this principle, saying
“According to God’s law, bishops must be equal” But the irony was that BECAUSE bishops were equal, they could not solve the question of leadership after the prophets and apostles died, since any disputes could be settled by the Apostles.
To settle differences among the various provinces,” Eusebius tells us that the emperor himself,
“acting as a common bishop appointed by God, he [the emperor] would summon synods of the ministers of God” It was the emperor who was acting as a bishop. He continues : “
… He sat in their midst as one of their number, entirely without armed retainers.”;
The history of the inexorable decline (generally, not individually) of the Roman Movements office of Bishop, did not begin with oppression and corruption with political power and riches, but rather the relative
equality of the early office of Christian bishop began to be
replaced by inequality based on non-religious qualities.
For example, this principle became established that
“the bishop in the metropolis has charge of the entire province because all those who have any business come together from all directions in the metropolis; therefore, it was decided that he should accordingly be afforded a superior honor and that the other bishops should undertake nothing further without him.. .” (Council of Antioch, Canon 9, in Hefele, Histoire des Counciles d’Apres led Documents Originaux, 1:717)
THE GRADUAL CHANGE IN HOW AND WHO WAS CALLED AS A BISHOP
The early apostles were often unlikely candidates for their calling. Jesus calls tax collectors, and unlearned fishermen, even Paul, the persecutor of Christians was an unlikely person to call to be an apostle. The calling of Bishops was originally, not based on religious training or political popularity or experience in rhetorical speech making. However, soon, these characteristics became the criteria upon which Bishops were called in the early periods of the Roman Christian religious movement.
There there were early attempts to create history to support religious claims.
For example, in the counterfeit pseudo-Clementine letters. In this fictitious account, the apostle Peter insists that Clement take over his office : “
You are the best qualified of all” he says
“… you lead a moral life, you are well instructed in the doctrine, and you have been with me and heard me preach more than anyone else…so the sooner you agree, the quicker you will relieve me of a great worry.” (Clement. Epistola ad jacobum 3, in PG 2:36-37) The language in this spurious letter reflects the later way a roman Bishop began to be called to an office.
The roman call to religious offices began to mimic the characteristics desires for political and non-religious offices.
There is no mention of
God’s will or of
prophetic revelation. A bishop became chosen on practical grounds such as prior “
moral character”; his "
training" and his "
experience". “
A bishop” says the apostolic constitutions “
must be trained and experienced in speech [logos]…He must not be over fifty years old..” the office became occupied by one who was trained and experienced in the word, as befitted his age.
The first duty of the bishop, says Ambrose, is to teach, and thus
"bishops like everyone else must study and learn before they are ready to teach". (Ambrose, De Officii Ministribus 1.3, in PL 16:27)
This is NOT the same criteria as inspiration and revelation as was common in early judao-christianity. Instead in this same text on offices of the ministry, Ambrose tells us the source of his dogma regarding a bishopric by relating that his whole essay could be written using phrases “from the schools of philosophy”.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE OFFICE OF BISHOP INTO A POLITICAL OFFICE
The religious office was too often melded into and associated with the political office and it’s political power. Political office became magistracy, and most magistrates were priests in Rome; the political structure became synonymous with the state church.
The degree to which the church power was contaminated with political power and riches was not lost on the historians. The great significance of priesthood in public life, says Georg Wissowa, lay in the fact that “
its bearers all held at the same time the highest civil offices and so played the decisive role in the senate.”
Augustine’s own popular election to his high office,( like many of his friends), was basically a "popularity contest". As Possidius described
in Vita Sancti Augustini Episcopi 4, (in PL 32:36-37), "the people chanted his name over and over again in front of his house" and would have become violent "had he not accepted the honor which it was their right to bestow". Bishops became elected by the people of the city and thus it was reported that Ambrose made bishop of Milan before he was even a Christian.
Such criteria and characteristics as these cannot BE solely applied to the authentic office of apostle or Bishop or any other calling made by God. The Lord alone chose apostles (some, who are unpopular types – such as tax collectors, etc), but the roman type of bishops had become popular
candidates in every aspect.
“The defensor of the Roman Church has informed us,” wrote Cassiodorus,
“that lately, when a president was sought for the Papal chair, so much were the usual largesses to the poor augmented by the promises which had been extorted from the candidate, that, shameful to say, even the sacred vessels were exposed to sale in order to provide the necessary money.” (Cassiodorus, Historia Ecclesiastica 9.15, in PL 69:779)
Thus had the authentic Judao-christian office of bishop changed from a sacred religious office, and had, in the roman system of theology, more resembled a political office with all the corruption associated with a candidacy. It often came to resemble the deep corruption of political offices bought and sold in the roaring 30’s in America….along with its viciousness and corruptions of the warring parties.
For example : The rivalry between Damasus and Liberious and their roman “relilgio-political” constituents was not settled until the corpses of 137 of “the faithful” had been removed from the scene of the controversy in St. Peter’s. The first epistle of Clement deals with these very type of conditions in Corinth, which the writer finds
“loathsome, disgusting, and devilish.”
As if to try to separate the church from the values; actions and corruptions of its bishops, the
patrologia Gracae reminds us that
"a bad bishop, is not really a bishop having been appointed not by God but by men". (PG 1:1068) Thus many of the “bad bishops” of rome, were
not real and true bishops while others
may have been. Under this arbitrary rule, one could never know if a bishop was a "true" bishop or a "false" bishop. Some were “successors” and some were not.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
