OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 04:15:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.  (Read 846 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,332



« on: March 23, 2014, 02:56:51 PM »

Hi  Cheesy

In many Orthodox websites and also a book written by Orthodox priest, said that the Apostles never were Bishops whatsoever, they were only Apostles who preached the Gospels, then choose a successors and usually continued their missionary into other cities. So, even if St Peter was in Rome and established the church there, he would not be the first Bishop. That is the Orthodox perspective.

Is it true ?


And I wonder if Catholics agree on that ? Do you agree that the Apostles never were Bishops, but only Apostles who after founding a church, left their successors to take care of the church they founded.

Peace. 
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,743



« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2014, 02:58:17 PM »

Quote
In many Orthodox websites and also a book written by Orthodox priest, said that the Apostles never were Bishops whatsoever, they were only Apostles who preached the Gospels, then choose a successors and usually continued their missionary into other cities. So, even if St Peter was in Rome and established the church there, he would not be the first Bishop. That is the Orthodox perspective.

I've heard otherwise.
Logged

"[The Lord] shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,237


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2014, 03:00:34 PM »

I may understand the idea that they were not "merely" bishops, but beyond this.  Nevertheless, they did cary a strong episcopal service.  When St. Mathias was chosen to replace Judas, it is written, "let his bishopric come forth."

At the same time, the bishop developed overtime in the Church, and seems distinct from the foundation of the order of Apostle.  St. Ignatius likens the bishop to the Father, the deacon to Christ, and the presbyters to the council of the Apostles.  The bishop carried such an important role, that wherever the bishop is, there the (fullness of the) Catholic Church is.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 03:03:32 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2014, 03:02:36 PM »

Personally I questions RCC and EOC's doctrine of Apostolic Succession. I disbelief such a charism exists and it is transmitted directly from Christ through the Apostles in some exclusive sects.
Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,237


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2014, 03:05:37 PM »

One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 03:05:45 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2014, 03:14:19 PM »

One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?
Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,237


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2014, 03:17:39 PM »

One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

There is no magical act.  The choice of bishops and priests were mainly a working together between the congregants and the clergy.  The choice also had to do with the person's standing among the people, a person of good reputation and good household.  The scriptures do not hide these examples, and the historical record shows that the Apostles laid down the episcopal foundations for succession.  I mentioned St. Ignatius, and there was also St. Irenaeus as well who also talked about the Apostolic succession.  There was no lack of mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries.  You just haven't read enough.  You're too busy being self-absorbed in trauma, you make your own erroneous assertions about the Church.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2014, 03:23:26 PM »

One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

There is no magical act.  The choice of bishops and priests were mainly a working together between the congregants and the clergy.  The choice also had to do with the person's standing among the people, a person of good reputation and good household.  The scriptures do not hide these examples, and the historical record shows that the Apostles laid down the episcopal foundations for succession.  I mentioned St. Ignatius, and there was also St. Irenaeus as well who also talked about the Apostolic succession.  There was no lack of mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries.  You just haven't read enough.  You're too busy being self-absorbed in trauma, you make your own erroneous assertions about the Church.

Episcopi / Bishop / ἐπίσκοπος simply means overseer. Why doesn't the NT ascribe the general greek word used for (liturgical) priest in the Bible ' ἱερέως'  to Christian overseers?

And I would like some quotes please.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 03:24:27 PM by Skydive » Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,743



« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2014, 03:25:05 PM »

One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

There is no magical act.  The choice of bishops and priests were mainly a working together between the congregants and the clergy.  The choice also had to do with the person's standing among the people, a person of good reputation and good household.  The scriptures do not hide these examples, and the historical record shows that the Apostles laid down the episcopal foundations for succession.  I mentioned St. Ignatius, and there was also St. Irenaeus as well who also talked about the Apostolic succession.  There was no lack of mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries.  You just haven't read enough.  You're too busy being self-absorbed in trauma, you make your own erroneous assertions about the Church.

Episcopi / Bishop / ἐπίσκοπος simply means overseer. Why doesn't the NT ascribe the general greek word used for (liturgical) priest in the Bible ' ἱερέως'  to Christian overseers?

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 03:26:15 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"[The Lord] shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,237


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2014, 03:30:23 PM »

It is very probable that both a priest and a bishop overlapped while the Apostles were alive, but it immediately developed into distinct orders as is evidenced in the writings of St. Ignatius, who was appointed by St. Peter the Apostle for Antioch.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,332



« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2014, 04:15:14 PM »

Alright, so clearly, there is no only one opinion on this matter in Orthodoxy. But, would believe what was said above as heretic or contradict to the Church teachings ?


Also, I still wonder what is the Catholic opinion on this.
Logged
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2014, 05:38:20 PM »

One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

There is no magical act.  The choice of bishops and priests were mainly a working together between the congregants and the clergy.  The choice also had to do with the person's standing among the people, a person of good reputation and good household.  The scriptures do not hide these examples, and the historical record shows that the Apostles laid down the episcopal foundations for succession.  I mentioned St. Ignatius, and there was also St. Irenaeus as well who also talked about the Apostolic succession.  There was no lack of mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries.  You just haven't read enough.  You're too busy being self-absorbed in trauma, you make your own erroneous assertions about the Church.

Episcopi / Bishop / ἐπίσκοπος simply means overseer. Why doesn't the NT ascribe the general greek word used for (liturgical) priest in the Bible ' ἱερέως'  to Christian overseers?

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 05:39:43 PM by Skydive » Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2014, 05:42:58 PM »

It is very probable that both a priest and a bishop overlapped while the Apostles were alive, but it immediately developed into distinct orders as is evidenced in the writings of St. Ignatius, who was appointed by St. Peter the Apostle for Antioch.

Or distinct christianity.. or forge writings(the genuiniety of many epistles of Ignatius is questionable).. I'm waiting for the quotes concerning apostolic succession.
Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2014, 05:50:24 PM »

Hi  Cheesy

In many Orthodox websites and also a book written by Orthodox priest, said that the Apostles never were Bishops whatsoever, they were only Apostles who preached the Gospels, then choose a successors and usually continued their missionary into other cities. So, even if St Peter was in Rome and established the church there, he would not be the first Bishop. That is the Orthodox perspective.

Is it true ?


And I wonder if Catholics agree on that ? Do you agree that the Apostles never were Bishops, but only Apostles who after founding a church, left their successors to take care of the church they founded.

Peace. 
I would say neither agree with the above information.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,246


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2014, 05:50:36 PM »

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.


You're both abysmally wrong, but why let that stop you?  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
nicodemus144
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 93


Always happy to chat.


« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2014, 05:57:05 PM »

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.


You're both abysmally wrong, but why let that stop you?  

Would you kindly elaborate as to why they're wrong? The question is compelling to me as an inquirer/possible-future-convert and I'd very much enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter.

It's also ok if you don't want to. Smiley Thanks!
Logged

“Does our law judge a man before it hears him and knows what he is doing?” -John 7:51 (NKJV)

I am investigating Orthodox Christianity.
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox Church
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 228


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2014, 06:09:04 PM »

One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

This is the second time you called churches that believe in apostolic succession as "exclusivists." How so? Apostolic succession was actually mentioned in the 1st and 2nd centuries by St. Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,246


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2014, 06:28:04 PM »

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.


You're both abysmally wrong, but why let that stop you?  

Would you kindly elaborate as to why they're wrong? The question is compelling to me as an inquirer/possible-future-convert and I'd very much enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter.

It's also ok if you don't want to. Smiley Thanks!

Well, let's look at it:

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

Very basically (I'm running short on time), "iereus" is priest, "presbyteros" is elder, and "episcopos" is bishop/overseer.  IIRC, the first is more a "cultic" term whereas the others are more pastoral and structural.  To put it another way, "iereus" is what they do, "presbyteros"/"episcopos" is what they are (though they are certainly intertwined).   

Why would "iereus" be equivalent to "presbyteros" but not to "episcopos"?  Is it because "iereus" means priest and what we call priests are canonically "presbyteroi"?  But that's not how it works.  "Episcopoi" are full ("high") priests; "presybteroi" share in that priesthood to their proper degree, but it is not as full a portion (e.g., they are ordained by "episcopoi" but do not themselves ordain).  Nevertheless, both are "iereis".  The Byzantine liturgy is particularly good for this because you can see both bishops and priests addressed as "iereis" in the context of priestly service (e.g., in the words and rubrics of the Eucharistic Liturgy), but you will see them ordained within such a Liturgy as "presbyteroi" or "episcopoi". 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox Church
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 228


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2014, 07:17:39 PM »

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

Very basically (I'm running short on time), "iereus" is priest, "presbyteros" is elder, and "episcopos" is bishop/overseer.  IIRC, the first is more a "cultic" term whereas the others are more pastoral and structural.  To put it another way, "iereus" is what they do, "presbyteros"/"episcopos" is what they are (though they are certainly intertwined).   

Why would "iereus" be equivalent to "presbyteros" but not to "episcopos"?  Is it because "iereus" means priest and what we call priests are canonically "presbyteroi"?  But that's not how it works.  "Episcopoi" are full ("high") priests; "presybteroi" share in that priesthood to their proper degree, but it is not as full a portion (e.g., they are ordained by "episcopoi" but do not themselves ordain).  Nevertheless, both are "iereis".  The Byzantine liturgy is particularly good for this because you can see both bishops and priests addressed as "iereis" in the context of priestly service (e.g., in the words and rubrics of the Eucharistic Liturgy), but you will see them ordained within such a Liturgy as "presbyteroi" or "episcopoi". 

+1. Plus, weren't bishops actually originally the only ones called priests, because they performed the Eucharist? It was only later that presbyters too were called priests because they started performing the Eucharist with the consent of their bishop.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,787



« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2014, 08:19:25 PM »

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.


You're both abysmally wrong, but why let that stop you?  

Would you kindly elaborate as to why they're wrong? The question is compelling to me as an inquirer/possible-future-convert and I'd very much enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter.

It's also ok if you don't want to. Smiley Thanks!

Well, let's look at it:

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

Very basically (I'm running short on time), "iereus" is priest, "presbyteros" is elder, and "episcopos" is bishop/overseer.  IIRC, the first is more a "cultic" term whereas the others are more pastoral and structural.  To put it another way, "iereus" is what they do, "presbyteros"/"episcopos" is what they are (though they are certainly intertwined).   

Why would "iereus" be equivalent to "presbyteros" but not to "episcopos"?  Is it because "iereus" means priest and what we call priests are canonically "presbyteroi"?  But that's not how it works.  "Episcopoi" are full ("high") priests; "presybteroi" share in that priesthood to their proper degree, but it is not as full a portion (e.g., they are ordained by "episcopoi" but do not themselves ordain).  Nevertheless, both are "iereis".  The Byzantine liturgy is particularly good for this because you can see both bishops and priests addressed as "iereis" in the context of priestly service (e.g., in the words and rubrics of the Eucharistic Liturgy), but you will see them ordained within such a Liturgy as "presbyteroi" or "episcopoi". 

Thank you for bringing sanity here.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,237


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2014, 08:33:15 PM »

It is very probable that both a priest and a bishop overlapped while the Apostles were alive, but it immediately developed into distinct orders as is evidenced in the writings of St. Ignatius, who was appointed by St. Peter the Apostle for Antioch.

Or distinct christianity.. or forge writings(the genuiniety of many epistles of Ignatius is questionable).. I'm waiting for the quotes concerning apostolic succession.

The genuineness of the portions of St. Ignatius that describe the ecclesiological structure of the Church is not questionable.  If you feel the need to grudge it upon the church to search for "problems" to prove that it's wrong, then I'm sorry you'll be wasting your time here.  But if you're looking for honest answers and not prejudge the Church and her history, then you've come to the right place, and we'll gladly share with you some of those honest answers.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2014, 08:54:34 PM »

One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?
The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, the Epistle of Clement, the Epistles of St. Ignatius...

You're not disturbed in the least by your lack of knowledge of the mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries?
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 08:55:29 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2014, 09:13:36 PM »

One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

There is no magical act.  The choice of bishops and priests were mainly a working together between the congregants and the clergy.  The choice also had to do with the person's standing among the people, a person of good reputation and good household.  The scriptures do not hide these examples, and the historical record shows that the Apostles laid down the episcopal foundations for succession.  I mentioned St. Ignatius, and there was also St. Irenaeus as well who also talked about the Apostolic succession.  There was no lack of mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries.  You just haven't read enough.  You're too busy being self-absorbed in trauma, you make your own erroneous assertions about the Church.

Episcopi / Bishop / ἐπίσκοπος simply means overseer. Why doesn't the NT ascribe the general greek word used for (liturgical) priest in the Bible ' ἱερέως'  to Christian overseers?

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.

"Do not be neglectful of the gift (lit. "charisma") given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the presbytery."  I Timothy 4:14.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2014, 09:17:28 PM »

One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

This is the second time you called churches that believe in apostolic succession as "exclusivists." How so?
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me...Enter through the narrow gate, for...small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox Church
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 228


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2014, 09:41:38 PM »

One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

This is the second time you called churches that believe in apostolic succession as "exclusivists." How so?
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me...Enter through the narrow gate, for...small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Sorry I haven't made myself clear. From his post, it seems to me he views the "exclusivism" of some parts of Christianity with criticism (i.e. these "exclusivists" are prideful in being exclusive). Hence my question.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2014, 10:28:02 PM »

One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

This is the second time you called churches that believe in apostolic succession as "exclusivists." How so?
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me...Enter through the narrow gate, for...small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Sorry I haven't made myself clear. From his post, it seems to me he views the "exclusivism" of some parts of Christianity with criticism (i.e. these "exclusivists" are prideful in being exclusive). Hence my question.
I know: my response wasn't directed to you, you post just provided a convenient place to make the point you just enunciated.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 10:29:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,246


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 23, 2014, 10:28:23 PM »

Plus, weren't bishops actually originally the only ones called priests, because they performed the Eucharist? It was only later that presbyters too were called priests because they started performing the Eucharist with the consent of their bishop.

To be honest, I'm not sure about this aspect of the history.  Yes, I think we can say that it was the "original" practice for a bishop to celebrate the Liturgy surrounded by his presbyters, deacons, and laity, but I'm not sure this proves that presbyters couldn't celebrate it as well: whether they celebrate it independently (e.g., in another building) or in the presence of the bishop himself, they require his blessing, so "permission" is a moot point.  

In at least some traditions, it was the practice for the bishop to preside over the Liturgy of the Catechumens (because this was where the word was preached, and preaching/teaching is the charism of the episcopal office) and then to delegate the Liturgy of the Eucharist to a presbyter of his choosing.  This was the case in Syriac practice, and to this day the rubrics for a priest's Liturgy in the presence of a bishop bear witness to this practice.  So too do the rubrics for ordinations in Byzantine practice, in which deacons, priests, and bishops are ordained precisely at the moment each would be needed in the Liturgy, and not at the same point in the service no matter what the rank.

It's possible that "iereus" was limited to bishops at first, but I don't know that for sure.  If so, I would think it had more to do with the fact that they are "full" priests than with an ability to celebrate the Eucharist which may not have been so exclusive.    
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,036



« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2014, 10:42:52 PM »

I love this, since I recently learned iereus, arxiereus, etc. in my NT Greek course. Smiley

Would arxiereus (high priest) also be associated with the bishop, or would it be restricted in association to Christ?
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,246


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2014, 10:46:01 PM »

I love this, since I recently learned iereus, arxiereus, etc. in my NT Greek course. Smiley

Would arxiereus (high priest) also be associated with the bishop, or would it be restricted in association to Christ?

Ultimately, all of these words are proper to Christ and are used in a secondary sense of the various ranks of clerics.  But yes, that term is also associated with bishops.  If you attend a hierarchical Liturgy (Byzantine rite), you should hear it a few times. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,036



« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2014, 10:49:38 PM »

I love this, since I recently learned iereus, arxiereus, etc. in my NT Greek course. Smiley

Would arxiereus (high priest) also be associated with the bishop, or would it be restricted in association to Christ?

Ultimately, all of these words are proper to Christ and are used in a secondary sense of the various ranks of clerics.  But yes, that term is also associated with bishops.  If you attend a hierarchical Liturgy (Byzantine rite), you should hear it a few times. 

Cool, thanks. Cool
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2014, 12:03:22 AM »

I love this, since I recently learned iereus, arxiereus, etc. in my NT Greek course. Smiley

Would arxiereus (high priest) also be associated with the bishop, or would it be restricted in association to Christ?

Ultimately, all of these words are proper to Christ and are used in a secondary sense of the various ranks of clerics.  But yes, that term is also associated with bishops.  If you attend a hierarchical Liturgy (Byzantine rite), you should hear it a few times. 

Cool, thanks. Cool

The polychronion (Eis Polla Eti) sung in honor of a bishop during such a liturgy indeed refers to him as Arkhierea (high priest).
Logged
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2014, 03:03:54 AM »

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.


You're both abysmally wrong, but why let that stop you?  

Would you kindly elaborate as to why they're wrong? The question is compelling to me as an inquirer/possible-future-convert and I'd very much enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter.

It's also ok if you don't want to. Smiley Thanks!

Well, let's look at it:

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

Very basically (I'm running short on time), "iereus" is priest, "presbyteros" is elder, and "episcopos" is bishop/overseer.  IIRC, the first is more a "cultic" term whereas the others are more pastoral and structural.  To put it another way, "iereus" is what they do, "presbyteros"/"episcopos" is what they are (though they are certainly intertwined).   

Why would "iereus" be equivalent to "presbyteros" but not to "episcopos"?  Is it because "iereus" means priest and what we call priests are canonically "presbyteroi"?  But that's not how it works.  "Episcopoi" are full ("high") priests; "presybteroi" share in that priesthood to their proper degree, but it is not as full a portion (e.g., they are ordained by "episcopoi" but do not themselves ordain).  Nevertheless, both are "iereis".  The Byzantine liturgy is particularly good for this because you can see both bishops and priests addressed as "iereis" in the context of priestly service (e.g., in the words and rubrics of the Eucharistic Liturgy), but you will see them ordained within such a Liturgy as "presbyteroi" or "episcopoi". 

But not in the Bible Smiley
Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2014, 03:21:32 AM »

One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

This is the second time you called churches that believe in apostolic succession as "exclusivists." How so? Apostolic succession was actually mentioned in the 1st and 2nd centuries by St. Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian.

Apostolic succession as it is understood by the EOC,RCC and OOC(?) ?

The Bible has explicit writings on the appointing of the office of the levitic/aaronic priesthood and his liturgical duties. Why doesn't the Bible(NT) say anything about a "christian office of priesthood" . And more why isn't it mentioned even in the Apostolic fathers why don't they speak of any given ritual for appointing priests/bishops etc and of an actual office of a Christian priest with his liturgical duties and so and so on even if most if not all of this writings(of the so called Apostolic fathers) are dubious and under a question mark? Then why does the Christian organisation in the church develops and changes among time, it seems to show same terms different terminology, changing roles and so and so on.. Why is everything so blurry?

Exclusivist? Yeah. Because this doctrine gives this sects exclusivist prerogatives.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 03:27:16 AM by Skydive » Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
Skydive
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



« Reply #33 on: March 24, 2014, 03:22:47 AM »

^Read the above post
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?
The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, the Epistle of Clement, the Epistles of St. Ignatius...

You're not disturbed in the least by your lack of knowledge of the mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries?

Logged

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,332



« Reply #34 on: March 24, 2014, 07:14:31 AM »

Could you please go back to the main point of the thread.

In the book that written by Orthodox priest is said that no Apostle of the 12 was a Bishop ever, they established a church and choose the leaders of that church. And also in another Orthodox website it said the same thing.

Here is a quote.

Quote
Was Saint Peter the Bishop of Rome?

ANSWER:

Technically, the first bishop of Rome would have been Linus since the apostles where universal teachers, not bishops of local churches. Chrysostom often calls St Peter (and indeed St John as well) "who was entrusted with the whole world."

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.” (Irenaeus, book III, chapter 3)

The so-called Apostolic Constitutions concur:

“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul” [Book 7, Section 4]

St Peter then ministered in many places, notably Antioch and Rome, and established bishops in many places.


Apparent that there is not one opinion on this matter in Orthodoxy, Some say that the Apostles were Bishops, and some say they weren't. So, could I just believe what I think more true ?


Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,246


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2014, 10:15:28 AM »

Well, let's look at it:

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

Very basically (I'm running short on time), "iereus" is priest, "presbyteros" is elder, and "episcopos" is bishop/overseer.  IIRC, the first is more a "cultic" term whereas the others are more pastoral and structural.  To put it another way, "iereus" is what they do, "presbyteros"/"episcopos" is what they are (though they are certainly intertwined).   

Why would "iereus" be equivalent to "presbyteros" but not to "episcopos"?  Is it because "iereus" means priest and what we call priests are canonically "presbyteroi"?  But that's not how it works.  "Episcopoi" are full ("high") priests; "presybteroi" share in that priesthood to their proper degree, but it is not as full a portion (e.g., they are ordained by "episcopoi" but do not themselves ordain).  Nevertheless, both are "iereis".  The Byzantine liturgy is particularly good for this because you can see both bishops and priests addressed as "iereis" in the context of priestly service (e.g., in the words and rubrics of the Eucharistic Liturgy), but you will see them ordained within such a Liturgy as "presbyteroi" or "episcopoi". 

But not in the Bible Smiley

I gave an admittedly extra-biblical instance of the usages I was describing because of its broad familiarity to most internet Orthodox people.  If your point is that the usages I described cannot be justified from within the Scriptures, make your case and let's see.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,332



« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2014, 10:59:06 AM »

So, you still want to ignore the main point of the thread and go into a whole different discussion?!?!

Please, focus on the main point of this thread.
Logged
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox Church
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 228


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #37 on: March 24, 2014, 11:24:04 AM »

Could you please go back to the main point of the thread.

Yeah, sorry for derailing the thread. I have to go now, but I'll respond to the topic later.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 24, 2014, 12:19:24 PM »

Could you please go back to the main point of the thread.

In the book that written by Orthodox priest is said that no Apostle of the 12 was a Bishop ever, they established a church and choose the leaders of that church. And also in another Orthodox website it said the same thing.

Here is a quote.

Quote
Was Saint Peter the Bishop of Rome?

ANSWER:

Technically, the first bishop of Rome would have been Linus since the apostles where universal teachers, not bishops of local churches. Chrysostom often calls St Peter (and indeed St John as well) "who was entrusted with the whole world."

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.” (Irenaeus, book III, chapter 3)

The so-called Apostolic Constitutions concur:

“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul” [Book 7, Section 4]

St Peter then ministered in many places, notably Antioch and Rome, and established bishops in many places.


Apparent that there is not one opinion on this matter in Orthodoxy, Some say that the Apostles were Bishops, and some say they weren't. So, could I just believe what I think more true ?



I believe Fr. Thomas Hopko's position is that no Apostle was a bishop, nor could they have been. I could be mistaken however.

PP
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 12:19:58 PM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #39 on: March 25, 2014, 04:38:03 PM »

Could you please go back to the main point of the thread.

In the book that written by Orthodox priest is said that no Apostle of the 12 was a Bishop ever, they established a church and choose the leaders of that church. And also in another Orthodox website it said the same thing.

Here is a quote.

Quote
Was Saint Peter the Bishop of Rome?

ANSWER:

Technically, the first bishop of Rome would have been Linus since the apostles where universal teachers, not bishops of local churches. Chrysostom often calls St Peter (and indeed St John as well) "who was entrusted with the whole world."

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.” (Irenaeus, book III, chapter 3)

The so-called Apostolic Constitutions concur:

“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul” [Book 7, Section 4]

St Peter then ministered in many places, notably Antioch and Rome, and established bishops in many places.


Apparent that there is not one opinion on this matter in Orthodoxy, Some say that the Apostles were Bishops, and some say they weren't. So, could I just believe what I think more true ?



I believe Fr. Thomas Hopko's position is that no Apostle was a bishop, nor could they have been. I could be mistaken however.

PP

I have come to believe that the position, if one can term it so, of Apostle is way above even a Pope let alone a Bishop..... I cant think of a better title than 'Apostle' to describe those who knew Christ and were His inner circle....
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 04:38:38 PM by JoeS2 » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.172 seconds with 68 queries.