Contemporary Catholic Scholarship and the Monarchical Episcopate

This article is an appendix to the article The Monarchical Episcopate.

In their attacks on the monarchical episcopate, Protestants usually maintain that its origin is not of apostolic institution but the product of a much later development beginning in the middle of the second century. It is in this context that they often cite Catholic theologians in order to give the impression that “contemporary Catholic scholarship” agrees with them, and that those who think otherwise do so because they do not belong to academic circles. This, of course, is nothing more than a mixture of the appeal-to-authority fallacy and the ad hominem fallacy, accompanied by a questionable tendency to take selectively the evidence that one thinks can support one’s position.

I recently found an echo of these opinions in a Catholic forum:         

“Many Catholic scholars have acknowledged that monoepiscopacy did not exist in Rome before A.D. 140-150”

“Wanting to see a primacy at so early a period as that of Clement’s first epistle is something already surpassed by contemporary Catholic scholarship. In other words, only Catholics who have remained with the pre-scientific vision (that is, from a century or more ago) of the history of primitive Christianity would insist on seeing in Clement of Rome a Pope with the same essential characteristics as the Popes of today or of the medieval period”

“As I stated in my first intervention, I first want to show that those who claim to see a primacy not only of Rome, but of the person of Clement as a kind of bishop of bishops, in the first epistle known by his name, is something that only a certain sector within contemporary Catholicism dares to affirm as unquestionable truth. This occurs outside scholarly circles. Almost always among Catholics who are connected with apologetics”

“The truth is that I think there is among the Catholics I know a great ignorance of what their scholars say. My first objective is to show that information which very conveniently for certain Catholic circles usually goes unnoticed by many Catholics who like to exchange ideas and arguments about their faith and tradition.”

“My purpose is to show as clearly as possible something that is often missing in these exchanges of ideas in our Hispanic-Catholic context. I am referring to the discovery of that other great sector of Roman Catholicism, namely academia, which is so ignored and sometimes even denigrated in our context”

“I repeat, my first objective is to demonstrate that there is an unbridgeable gap between contemporary Catholic scholarship and the ideas put forward by certain sectors of Catholicism, usually linked to apologetics“

It is true that a growing number of Catholic theologians have embraced the idea that the monarchical episcopate arose in the middle of the second century; however, to state that divergent opinions occur “outside scholarly circles” can only be described as a monumental act of ignorance, and this while granting the benefit of the doubt that he is not deliberately taking quotations selectively in order to generalize, which would seriously call his intellectual honesty into question.

But the plurality of opinions regarding this point is not exactly new. In this regard the historian Alphonse Van Hove already explained:

“Catholic writers agree in recognizing the apostolic origin of the episcopate, but they are much divided as to the meaning of the terms designating the hierarchy in the writings of the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. One may even ask whether originally these terms had a clearly defined meaning (Bruders, Die Verfassung der Kirche bis zum Jahre 175, Mainz, 1904). Nor is there greater unanimity when an attempt is made to explain why some churches are found without presbyters, others without bishops, others where the heads of the community are called sometimes bishops, sometimes presbyters. This disagreement increases when the question arises concerning the interpretation of the terms designating other persons who exercised some fixed authority in the primitive Christian communities. The following facts should be considered as completely established:

Below I provide some opinions of Catholic theologians and historians (18 in all) regarding the monarchical episcopate, most of whom are considered true “heavyweights.” Let this serve to illustrate that it is not only apologists who think in this way, but also scholars whose academic preparation cannot at any moment be doubted.

Daniel Ruiz Bueno

A priest, theologian, and historian, well known for his patristic and philosophical translations and works, he was proclaimed by a well-known authority “as one of the persons best qualified to render Greek texts into elegant and fluent Castilian” (M. F. Galiano, Emerita XVI [1948], p. 334).

Regarding the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, he refers to Irenaeus as the monarchical bishop of the Church of Antioch.

“When Eusebius, at the beginning of the fourth century, names him in his Church History (III,36), alongside Polycarp and Papias, disciples of the Apostles, he describes him as “the famous Ignatius, celebrated by most down to the present, who inherited the second place after Peter in the episcopate of Antioch.” Exactly and literally must we repeat this”[2]

“THE TRIPARTITE HIERARCHY.

Heresy swarms through the Churches; schism—the spirit of clique and faction—threatens to turn them into splinters; Ignatius was able to verify this on his way. Here, in Smyrna, the pastors and leaders of the Asian Churches confirm it to him. The remedy he points out with unrivaled energy against such great evils is to draw ever more closely around the hierarchy of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, the master and essential piece of the constitution of the Church; so much so that without it not even the name of Church remains.

We have already said something about this. Let us now add, at the moment when Ignatius is surrounded by representatives of that same tripartite hierarchy, exercised by persons whose names are handed down to us in all the Churches of Asia, that this has long been another stumbling block for criticism in admitting the authenticity of the letters of Saint Ignatius, since with them one had to swallow a monarchical episcopate and a perfectly defined hierarchy at the end of the first century, whereby many cherished theories collapsed. But theories are theories and texts are texts. Now, the texts of the Ignatian letters attest to us with absolute clarity and with pounding insistence that each Church—Antioch, Smyrna, Ephesus, Tralles, Philadelphia—has at its head an ἐπίσκοπος,  “steward, overseer,” supreme authority in the community, to whom is attached, as dependent and subordinate to him, a πρεσβυτέριον, a college of “elders” that assists him as a kind of “senate,” and a third body of deacons or ministers.

Now, what is new in this fact, so solidly attested by the whole Ignatian correspondence? The greatest novelty and, undoubtedly, a merit of Saint Ignatius, is precision in terminology, which had long remained wavering and ambiguous and has played no small part in tangling and embroiling the question of the origins of the episcopate.

The primitive and undeniable confusion of the interchangeable terms presbyters and bishops, which reaches a document as important in this regard as I Clementis and will continue for a long time yet, disappears absolutely in Saint Ignatius. But confusion of terms does not imply confusion of functions, and the whole tradition unanimously interprets the facts in the sense revealed by the Ignatian letters. The Church of Jerusalem, that of Antioch, that of Rome, appear, from the time there is historical tradition about them, governed by a single bishop assisted by his presbyterium and diaconate. The case of Rome is exemplary. I Clementis is written collectively from Church to Church, from Rome to Corinth; its redactor does not distinguish between presbyters and bishops and, nevertheless, the whole tradition knows that the letter of the Church of Rome to that of Corinth is the work of its bishop Clement, who leaves a lasting memory in later generations.

Later, toward the middle of the second century, Hermas also seems to know only the collective episcopate; nevertheless, a document of the first order, the Muratorian fragment, tells us that the Shepherd of Hermas was written nuperrime temporibus nostris sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre eius.

Saint Ignatius clearly distinguishes the terms, but there is in his letters no trace that the regime of the monarchical episcopate had been imposed by a kind of revolution that had to be accepted if only for the good of the Church. Nor is there any apologetic attempt on behalf of a disputed institution, whose divine origins, as the bishop of Rome did for the seditious Corinthians, must be recalled to those who disregard or forget them. It is a matter of a fact that justifies itself, because it forms part of the Christian consciousness; but the bishop is a fact, just as the college of “elders” or presbyters is a fact, the deacons are a fact, and the subordination, so beautifully expressed by the clearest images, of these three orders of the hierarchy of the Church is a fact. This fact no one disputes, and it is not a matter of securing a new order and supporting it apologetically; it is nothing less than preserving intact the faith received and preached, as a bulwark to defend it from every heresy, by tightening unity and union around the bishop, presbyters, and deacons; but these—their powers, their preeminent and governing position in the Church—at least in principle, no one disputes, even if later there are those who, while always having the name of bishop on their lips, do everything behind his back.

Heresy may have played a part in making the Church, in the face of danger, acquire a livelier consciousness of her intimate constitution and perceive where her best defense against it lay; at other times it will serve to define the terms that explain a dogma; at others, to awaken her from a possible spiritual lethargy to which her human clay exposes her. In these various senses, oportet haereses esse… When Saint Ignatius insists so energetically on adherence to the hierarchy against heretical aberrations, is he not thereby affirming that there resides what Clement of Rome had already called “the sacred rule of tradition,” the intact deposit of the apostolic faith?

But if heresy enlivened that consciousness, it cannot in any way be said that it created it, much less that it gave rise to an institution which the most explicit texts trace back to the first days of the Church, those of the community of Jerusalem.” [3]

Regarding the Shepherd of Hermas and its silence about the monarchical episcopate, he comments:

“Hermas does not mention the monarchical episcopate; but to those who rely on this silence to deny its existence in Rome around 140, one need only repeat Turner’s words: «It is ridiculous to accept the date of the book, 140-145, on the faith of the Muratorian canon, which states that Hermas wrote the Shepherd when his brother Pius was bishop of Rome, and then to try to prove from this book that at that date there was no bishop in Rome and that Hermas in particular felt no need of him»[4]”[5]

Ramón Trevijano

He is a priest and doctor in Theology from the Gregorian University in Rome, licentiate in Sacred Scripture from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, licentiate in History from the University of Zaragoza, and he furthered his studies at the University of Bonn. He has taught New Testament and Patrology at the Seminary of Córdoba (Argentina), in the Faculties of Theology of Buenos Aires, of Northern Spain (Burgos and Vitoria), and since 1978 at the Pontifical University of Salamanca. He is professor of Origins of Christianity, Apostolic Letters, and Patrology, and director of the journal Salmaticensis.

Regarding the epistles of Saint Ignatius of Antioch he explains:

“The unity of Christians with Christ is translated into the unity of Christians among themselves, the unity of the Church. The proud heretics, who deny the gift of God, are also those who separate themselves from the community, from the bishop, and from the altar. The Church, on the other hand, is unity of faith and of life, a community of love of which Jesus Christ is Law. This unity is expressed in a visible organism, already provided with the hierarchical organization necessary for its functioning. The letters of Ignatius are the first testimony to the conjunction and consolidation of the threefold hierarchy: monarchical episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate:

“Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles. Respect the deacons as the commandment of God. Let nothing that concerns the Church be done without the bishop. Consider only that Eucharist legitimate which is presided over by the bishop or by the one he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the assembled multitude be. Just as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize or to celebrate the agape apart from the bishop. What is pleasing to God is what he approves, so that everything done may be secure and legitimate [Smyr 8,1-2]…

From the conception of the Church as a spiritual reality with God or Christ as invisible bishop, Ignatius arrives at the justification of the monarchical episcopate, by placing the bishop as invisible head acting in the place of God or of Christ. At the summit stands the bishop, representative of God, whose authority derives from the mission of the apostles; but who is above all the image of the invisible God. It is a monarchical episcopate that directs the communities. But we see the bishop surrounded by his presbyters and deacons. The bishop presides as representative of God or of Jesus Christ, the presbyters form the apostolic senate,  and the deacons take charge of the services of Christ (Magn 6,1; Tral 2,1-3,2)”[6]

José Orlandis

For many years he was professor of History of Law at the University of Zaragoza. At the University of Navarra he was the first Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law and the first Director of the Institute of Church History. Over more than half a century, he developed both constant academic activity and intense work in historical research and creation. He wrote two hundred studies and more than twenty books related to historical subjects.

He maintains without any doubt that Peter occupied the monarchical episcopate of the Church of Rome and that the following bishops succeeded him in his ministry.

“But if the Roman Church is the Church of Peter and Paul—the two martyr apostles, Peter was the sole bishop of Rome, and the Roman see is the see of Peter and of his successors in the episcopal chair. Christ had conferred upon Peter the Primacy over the Church founded by Him: a primacy that was not to be extinguished with his life, because according to the designs of the Founder it constitutes an essential element of the structure of the Church, and this Church must endure until the end of time. When Peter died, the personal prerogatives inherent to his condition as Apostle disappeared with him; the primatial power and the consequent ministry of unity were inherited, without interruption, by the bishops of Rome, his successors in the episcopal chair”[7]

“Many churches of the first century were founded by the Apostles and, while they lived, remained under their superior authority, directed by a college of presbyters that ordered their liturgical and disciplinary life. This regime can be especially attested in the Pauline Churches, founded by the Apostle of the Gentiles. But as the Apostles disappeared, the monarchical episcopate became generalized everywhere, having already been introduced from the first moment in other particular churches. The bishop was the head of the Church, shepherd of the faithful, and as successor of the Apostles, possessed the fullness of the priesthood and the power necessary for the government of the community.

The key to the unity of the churches scattered throughout the world, which integrated them into one universal Church, was the institution of the Roman Primacy. Christ, Founder of the Church—as was recalled elsewhere—chose the Apostle Peter as the firm rock upon which the Church was to be established. But the Primacy conferred by Christ upon Peter was not, in any way, an ephemeral and circumstantial institution, destined to be extinguished with the life of the Apostle. It was a permanent institution, pledge of the perenniality of the Church and valid until the end of time. Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and his successors in the Roman Chair were also successors in the prerogative of the Primacy, which conferred upon the Church the hierarchical constitution willed forever by Jesus Christ. The Roman Church was therefore—and for all times—the center of the unity of the universal Church.

The exercise of the Roman Primacy has logically been conditioned, throughout the centuries, by historical circumstances. In times of persecution or of difficult communications among peoples, that exercise was less easy and intense than in other more favorable moments. But history makes it possible to document, from the first hour, both the recognition by the other churches of the preeminence that belonged to the Roman Church and the consciousness that the bishops of Rome had of their primacy over the Universal Church”[8]

Johannes Quasten

A priest, theologian, and one of the most eminent contemporary patrologists. He studied Catholic theology at the Wilhelms University of Westphalia, in Münster. He was also professor of ancient history at the Catholic University of America and later Dean of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Washington. In 1960 he received the award of the Catholic Theological Association of America for his work in the theological field, and John XXIII appointed him a member of the Pontificia Commissio de sacra Liturgia preparatory to the Second Vatican Council.

Paul VI appointed him in 1964 Consultor Consilii ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia. He was also a member of many scholarly commissions: in 1948 a member of the Abt-Herwegen-Instituts für Liturgiewissenschaftliche Forschung (Maria Laach), in 1951 a board member of the Patristic Conference Oxford University, and in 1963 a member of the Oxford Historical Society. After his retirement he was appointed in 1970 honorary professor of the Faculty of Catholic Theology of the University of Freiburg,

In the first volume of his work Patrology I (which is considered a model of its kind), when speaking of the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, he comments on the rejection they received from Protestants, because they overthrow their objections to the monarchical episcopate.

“The authenticity of the epistles was, for a long time, called into question by Protestants. In their view, it would be improbable to find, in the time of Trajan, the monarchical episcopate and a hierarchy so clearly organized into bishops, presbyters, and deacons. They suspected that Ignatius’s letters were falsified precisely with the intention of creating the hierarchical organization. But such a fraud is incredible. After the brilliant defense of their authenticity made by J. B. Lightfoot, A. von Harnack, Th. Zahn, and F. X. Funk, today they are generally accepted as genuine.”[9]

Enrique Moliné

He holds a doctorate in Theology from the Lateran University (Rome), with a thesis on Tertullian, and degrees in Chemical Sciences and in Philosophy and Letters from the University of Barcelona.  He is the author of Els últims dos-cents anys del monestir de Gerri (Garsineu, 1998) and of many other studies in historical research, some of considerable length, published in specialized journals or in the proceedings of various congresses. He has also published the book  The Seven Sacraments (Rialp, 1998), as well as various popular pamphlets on topics of theology and Church history.

Referring to the letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch he writes:

“The hierarchy of the Church, formed by bishops, presbyters, and deacons, with their respective functions, appears so clearly in his writings, that this was one of the principal reasons why the authenticity of the letters came to be denied by those who thought that there would have been a slower and more gradual development of ecclesiastical organization; but this authenticity is today beyond all doubt.

The bishop represents Christ; he is the teacher, whoever is united to him is united to Christ; he is the high priest and the one who administers the sacraments, so that without relying on him neither baptism nor the Eucharist can be administered, and even marriage should fittingly be celebrated with his knowledge.

In the initial greeting of the letter to the Romans, Ignatius goes beyond himself and treats the Church of Rome differently from the way he treats the others, with special praises. The general tone of the salutation may be taken as a testimony to the primacy of Rome, of even greater interest because it comes from the bishop of the see of Antioch: an ancient see, which counts Saint Peter as its first bishop, established in one of the largest and most influential cities of the Empire, in which, moreover, the followers of Christ first began to be called Christians. Some of his phrases, although difficult to interpret, underline this impression: it is the Church “presiding in charity,” and whose most probable meaning seems to be that it is the Church that has the authority to direct in what concerns the essentials of Christ’s message”[10]

Ludwig Hertling  

A priest of the Society of Jesus, famous as a historian of the Church.

In his work History of the Church he speaks about the monarchical episcopate, rejecting the theories of the “evolutionist theorists”:

“The monarchical episcopate.

Some modern critics have striven to insert, between the apostles and the later episcopal communities, a period of shapeless mass movements, thus posing a problem that has become classic in non-Catholic theology: how and when did the «monarchical episcopate» arise?

The intention of this question could not be clearer: Christ founded no Church, but only brought a doctrine, some ideas. It is true that on the basis of such ideas there developed what we call the Church, but this has become something wholly different from what Christ had intended. It happens, however, that such a theory is sustainable only at the cost of completely disregarding the sources, or of twisting them until they say something different from what they really say.

It is already difficult, in the first place, to imagine that an amorphous mass could give itself an organization by itself, without an external action being exerted upon it, and all the more so if such an «evolution» leads simultaneously and in the most diverse places to identical results. But, above all, we totally lack reports of the existence of such unorganized communities. Nor do the sources allow us to discover the slightest vestige of groups governed by a college or guild, without a «monarchical» leadership, which is the transitional phase postulated by the evolutionist theorists.

On the contrary, everywhere we find communities endowed with a hierarchical summit.In the letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, from the first years of the second century, in every community there appears a single bishop, assisted by presbyters and deacons. And shortly before, at the end of the first century, we have Saint Clement of Rome, who in his letter to the Corinthians adopts to such a degree the tone of a «monarchical» bishop that many critics go so far as to attribute to him the establishment of this office. He never did such a thing, since in the Apocalypse, written probably around the year 100, we find the local leaders of Pergamum, Thyatira, etc. designated by the name «angels of the churches», and they were undoubtedly individual personalities and not colleges.

We have, moreover, the lists of the first bishops of the principal churches such as Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, all of which go back to the apostles themselves. They were drawn up precisely, already in the middle of the second century, to guarantee that the succession from the apostles had suffered no interruptions. It is true that the suspicion has been formulated that the oldest names on such lists do not correspond to hierarchical heads, but to simple «witnesses of the tradition». But what does this mean? The first writers who make use of them, Saint Irenaeus and others, regard them in any case as bishops.  The very fact that one must resort to hypotheses like this is conclusive proof of how unfounded is the theory of the gradual appearance of the monarchical episcopate.

A different question, though of secondary importance, is whether all the local leaders, from the very beginning—that is, even those appointed by Paul and Barnabas in Lystra, Derbe, etc.—possessed the episcopal order, and whether in each of the communities they were the only ones to have received this degree. The titles allow no concrete conclusion. Paul uses the terms presbyter and «episkopos» as synonyms. Saint Ignatius distinguishes between them, but even Saint Irenaeus sometimes speaks of presbyters when referring to bishops. The most likely explanation is that the apostles, when they consecrated new ministers by the laying on of hands, at first conferred upon them each time the fullness of holy order. Only later must the practice have been introduced of establishing lower degrees in the sacrament, that is, not imparting the entire order each time, but only to the extent required by the office conferred. This would explain, for example, the report, whose testimonies can be followed back to the second century, that Saint Clement was consecrated by the apostle Saint Peter, despite the fact that, as bishop of Rome, he occupies third place in the list of his successors; as also the custom perpetuated in Alexandria until the end of the second century that the new bishop was consecrated, not by a neighboring bishop as was done elsewhere, but by the presbyters of the city. From this it follows that in Alexandria, where moreover many other ancient practices remained in force, even at the end of the second century all the presbyters, or at least a part of them, had received episcopal consecration. But this has nothing to do with the monarchical episcopate. Even today there are large dioceses in which, alongside the bishop, other priests possess episcopal dignity. In antiquity, as today, the communities always had a single head”[11]

Bernardino Llorca

Doctor in Historical Sciences and Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Christian Archaeology at the Pontifical University of Salamanca.

In his work Manual of Ecclesiastical History he flatly rejects the hypotheses of a late development of the monarchical episcopate:

“It is a question of great importance to ascertain whether Christianity was from the beginning organized in a perfect hierarchy. Protestants and other liberal critics decidedly deny it; they affirm, instead, that the introduction of the ecclesiastical hierarchy took place after the Apostolic Age through the development of events; for in the beginning, according to them, there was no distinction between clerics and laity, the monarchical episcopate did not exist, much less the Roman Primacy; direction was exercised by the Apostles and missionaries endowed with charisms. This whole conception is false and tendentious. For apart from the fact that one cannot conceive that Christians, so fond of tradition, would allow a hierarchy to be introduced in the second century which had not existed at the beginning, we possess sufficient documents to prove that the Christian hierarchy existed from the beginning, albeit in a more primitive form, which gradually developed.

The Christian hierarchy in its beginnings.

At the beginning, the direction of the Church was in the hands of the Apostles, beside whom there were prophets endowed with charisms, doctors, and teachers, who had the charge of helping the Apostles and completing the instruction of the faithful. The title of Apostles was received, besides the twelve, by other missionaries dedicated to preaching. On the other hand, we likewise see the council of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, all of them entrusted with direction.

Thus it appears, above all, in Jerusalem. When the Christian community, directed by the twelve, had grown notably, they associated with themselves the seven deacons, and not long afterward constituted the council of presbyters, who already took part in the Council of the year 50. Later, after the dispersion of the Apostles, James the «brother of the Lord» appears as monarchical authority in Jerusalem, while the presbyters continue to exercise their subordinate functions. Then Simeon succeeds James in the monarchical direction of the Church. Therefore, the three grades are clearly distinguished: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate.

The same we see in the Churches organized by the Apostles, and particularly by Saint Paul. Already from his first apostolic journey, he established in the Churches he founded presbyters to govern them. All these Christian communities remained under his direction; but when they had grown notably, he left in his place, as superior leaders or bishops, his faithful disciples, Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete. In the Apostle’s pastoral letters the institution of deacons likewise appears. Likewise it is established by various documents that Saint John established in Asia Minor various bishops of as many Churches, such as Saint Polycarp of Smyrna.

Likewise, in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, who immediately received the inheritance of the Apostles, the existence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy clearly appears. In the middle of the second century we find a multitude of cases of monarchical bishops at the head of their respective Churches: not only in Rome and Antioch, but in Alexandria, Smyrna, Ephesus, Corinth, Lyons, Athens, etc., and nowhere do we find any protest against the supposed supplanting of the presbyteral college by a monarchical authority”[12]

Joseph Lortz

A priest and recognized historian of the Catholic Church, author of numerous books.

In Volume I of his History of the Church he maintains that from the earliest times each church had a monarchical episcopate, evidence he finds in the letters of Saint Ignatius and Saint Polycarp:

“In Asia Minor we can best follow the genesis of the episcopal ministry. The letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch (§ 12) already contain the saying: «Whoever opposes him (the bishop), opposes God»; «where the bishop is, there is the community, just as where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church». From this letter and from those of Saint Polycarp we know that toward the end of the century the ministries of bishop and priest had already been separated; the first name was reserved for the head of the community: the bishop. The presbyters became his assistants. We already see a hierarchical order culminating in the bishop (image of the father), above the presbyter and the deacons.

The bishop was the one who summoned all the clergy and conferred ministry upon them. The whole life of the community (baptism, penance, divine service, exclusion and reincorporation, that is, teaching, order of the community and liturgical-sacramental life) was under his direction (= «care of souls»). «The bishops are appointed for the whole flock, to govern the Church of God» (Acts 20:28).

From the earliest times each community had its bishop. Christian communities directed only by priests (what today we would call parishes) are known to us only from the third century in Rome; only from then on do the presbyters acquire greater importance. This development is intimately connected with the struggle against gnosis, to which the Church reacted with a much clearer unity, defining the articles of faith more precisely, selecting and watching new candidates more closely (from then on the discipline of the secret began to be decisive)”[13]

Michael Schmaus

German priest and theologian. He taught theology at various Catholic universities and wrote countless books. He was professor of Joseph Ratzinger, today Benedict XVI.  Specializing in dogmatic theology, he was also a peritus at the Second Vatican Council.

He rejects the hypothesis that the monarchical episcopate is the product of an evolution in which certain personalities rose above the college of presbyters. He maintains that it was instituted by  the apostles, and therefore by divine right.

“The position of the monarchical bishop attested by Saint Ignatius, of the communities of Asia Minor and by Saint Irenaeus of the whole Church, cannot be regarded as the result of an evolution in which some energetic personalities had risen above the college of presbyters. Rather, as the Pauline epistles show us, it goes back to a disposition of the Apostle himself. The needs involved in the mission field surrounding the city often played an important role. When communities arose in places near the great cities, they arose first under the direction of the office-holder of the city. Nevertheless, they soon needed ecclesiastical employees who would be in charge of the liturgical service. They were sent by the college of bishops-presbyters, from among their own ranks, with definite mandates and powers limited to such places. And thus one can undoubtedly say that the presbyterate as an independent office «was not born by upward concentration, but by downward differentiation as a consequence of the consolidation of the particular communities and of their internal needs» (A. Erhard, Die katholische Kirche, I, 1 (1935), 211). Authorization and power must be attributed to the Church—transmitted to her by Christ—to separate, from the fullness of the universal power that belongs to her, certain clearly delimited partial powers as independent institutions (presbyterate). The description Saint Paul gives in the Epistle to Titus and in the First to Timothy testifies to his full power. The threefold division is, therefore, of divine right”[14]

He states that in some relatively small communities (such as Philippi) at the beginning there was no monarchical episcopate[15], unlike others where the apostles themselves instituted it. He gives Timothy and Titus as examples of monarchical bishops.

“The laying on of hands by the presbyter, which was done at the same time, evidently has the character of assent and corroboration. Timothy was the monarchical leader of a community. Around him was grouped the college of presbyters. The process described in the First Epistle to Timothy was creative of the form of ordaining for the service of the community.”[16]

“And so at the end of the apostolic age we find the monarchical bishop. As such Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete are attested to us. Timothy had been won to the faith by Saint Paul. The Apostle took him with him on the second missionary journey. He entrusted important tasks to him. In his last years of life, after his first imprisonment in Rome, on a missionary journey through the East, that is, around the year 64, Saint Paul left him as his representative in Ephesus. The Apostle writes to his disciple: «I urged you, when I was leaving for Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you might require certain persons not to teach strange doctrines nor occupy themselves with endless fables and genealogies, more suited to engender disputes than to the edification of God in faith» (Tim. 1, 3-4). Shortly before his death Saint Paul longs for Timothy and asks him to go to see him in Rome (II Tim. 4, 11). Later Timothy would return to Ephesus as bishop. Eusebius (Church History 3, 4, 5) calls him the first bishop of Ephesus.

Titus appears beside the apostle Saint Paul on the journey from Antioch to the «council of the Apostles» in Jerusalem. The Apostle also employs him for difficult missions of trust. Later he left him in Crete, where he was to act as Timothy did in Ephesus (Tit. 1, 5)”[17]

George Hayward Joyce

Philosopher, theologian, and prolific writer of the Society of Jesus, professor at Heythrop College in Oxford. He studied at the University of Oxford and was ordained an Anglican minister. He converted to Catholicism and studied philosophy at Saint Mary’s Hall, Stonyhurst, and theology at St. Beuno’s. He was also professor of dogmatic theology. His works Catholic Doctrine of Grace and Christian Marriage were very successful.

He maintains that the monarchical episcopate was instituted by the apostles, and therefore is a divine institution. He gives as examples of monarchical bishops James, Titus, and Timothy, as well as the “angels”  to whom the letters to the seven Churches in the Apocalypse are addressed, among others.

“It remains to consider whether the so-called “monarchical” episcopate was instituted by the Apostles. Apart from establishing a college of presbyter-bishops, did they place one man in a position of supremacy, entrusting to him the government of the Church, and endowing him with apostolic authority over the Christian community? Even if we take into account the evidence of Scripture alone, there is sufficient ground for answering this question affirmatively. From the time of the dispersion of the Apostles, James appears in an episcopal relation with the Church of Jerusalem (Acts, 12, 17; 15,13; Gal., 2,12). In the other Christian communities the institution of “monarchical” bishops was a somewhat later development. At first the Apostles themselves apparently exercised all the tasks of supreme oversight. They established the office when the growing needs of the Church demanded it. The Pastoral Epistles leave no room to doubt that Timothy and Titus were sent as bishops to Ephesus and Crete respectively. Full apostolic powers were granted to Timothy. Notwithstanding his youth he has authority over both clergy and laity. To him is entrusted the task of guarding the purity of the Church’s faith, of ordaining priests, of exercising jurisdiction. Moreover, Saint Paul’s exhortation that he “keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” shows that it is not a transitory mission. So express a charge includes in its scope not Timothy alone, but his successors in an office that is to last until the Second Coming. Local tradition undoubtedly recognized him among the occupants of the episcopal see. At the Council of Chalcedon, the Church of Ephesus counted a succession of twenty-seven bishops beginning with Timothy (Mansi, VII, 293; cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., II, iv,v). 

These are not the only evidences that the New Testament provides of the monarchical episcopate. In the Apocalypse the “angels” to whom the letters of the seven Churches are addressed are almost certainly the bishops of the respective communities. Some commentators, indeed, have maintained that they were personifications of the communities themselves. But this explanation can hardly be maintained. Saint John, everywhere, refers to the angel as responsible for the community precisely as he would refer to its ruler. Moreover, in the symbolism of chapter 1, the two are represented under different images: the angels are the stars in the right hand of the Son of Man; the seven lampstands are the image representing the communities. The very term angel, it should be observed, is practically synonymous with apostle, and so it is aptly chosen to designate the episcopal office. Again the messages to Archippus (Col., 4, 17; Philem.,2) imply that he had a position of special dignity, superior to that of other presbyters. His mention in a letter entirely concerned with a private matter, as is that to Philemon, is hardly explicable unless he was the official head of the Colossian Church. We therefore have four important indications of the existence of an office in the local Churches, occupied by a single person, and carrying apostolic authority with it. No difficulty can be caused by the fact that as yet no special title distinguishes these successors of the Apostles from ordinary presbyters. It is in the nature of things that the office should exist before a title was assigned to it. The name apostle,  as we have seen, was not limited to the Twelve. Saint Peter (I Peter, 5, 1) and Saint John (II and III John, 1,1) both speak of themselves as “presbyters.” Saint Paul speaks of the Apostolate as a diakonia. A parallel case in later ecclesiastical history is supplied by the word Pope. This title was not assigned to the exclusive use of the Holy See until the eleventh century. Yet no one maintains that the supreme pontificate of the bishop of Rome was not recognized until then. It cannot be surprising that precise terminology, distinguishing bishops in the proper sense from presbyter-bishops, is not found in the New Testament.

The conclusion reached is placed beyond all reasonable doubt by the testimony of the post-Apostolic age. This is so important in relation to the question of the episcopate that it is completely impossible to pass it over. It will be sufficient, however, to refer to the evidence contained in the epistles of Saint Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, himself a disciple of the Apostles. In these epistles (approximately from the year 107) he again and again affirms that the supremacy of the bishop is of divine institution and belongs to the apostolic constitution of the Church. He goes so far as to affirm that the bishop stands in the place of Christ Himself. “When you obey the bishop as Jesus Christ,” he writes to the Christians of Tralles, “it is evident to me that you are not living according to men, but according to Jesus Christ… be obedient also to the presbyters as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ” (ad Trall., n.2). Incidentally he tells us that bishops are found in the Church even in “the farthest places of the world” (ad. Ephes., n.3). It is out of the question that anyone living in a period so little distant from the Apostolic Age could proclaim this doctrine in such terms as those he employs, if the episcopate had not been universally recognized as of divine creation. It has been seen that Christ not only established the episcopate in the person of the Twelve but, still more, created in Saint Peter the office of supreme shepherd of the Church. Early Christian history tells us that before his death he fixed his residence in Rome, and there governed the Church as its bishop. It is in Rome that he dates his first Epistle, speaking of the city under the name of Babylon, a designation that Saint John also gives it in the Apocalypse (chap. 18). In Rome, moreover, he suffered martyrdom in company with Saint Paul, in the year 67. The list of his successors in the see is known from Linus, Anacletus, and Clement, who were the first to succeed him, down to the reigning pontiff. The Church has always seen in the occupant of the see of Rome the successor of Peter in the supreme pastoral office. (See POPE.)

The evidence considered thus far seems to demonstrate beyond all question that the hierarchical organization of the Church was, in its essential elements, the work of the Apostles themselves; and that to this hierarchy they transmitted the mission entrusted to them of governing the Kingdom of God and of teaching revealed doctrine. These conclusions are far from being admitted by Protestants and other critics.”[18]

Henri de Lubac

French priest and theologian of the Society of Jesus. He was considered one of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century. He also had an extraordinary influence on the theology of the Second Vatican Council. He taught fundamental theology and history of religions in the Faculty of Theology of the University of Lyon-Fourviere, participated as a peritus in the Second Vatican Council, and later John Paul II made him a cardinal in 1983.

He also maintains that the monarchical episcopate comes from the apostles, and emphasizes that there is no historical evidence whatsoever that would allow one to suppose that its institution was disputed in any way:

“The history of the first Christian generations is full of shadows. The documents that provide us with information regarding the situation of the churches toward the end of the first century and the beginning of the second are scarce; everywhere one observes the existence of men exercising the office of bishops with full consciousness of its apostolic origin, and combining presidency in their own church with an active concern for the other churches. No one feels the need to justify this situation by any argument. And nowhere, either in the earliest periods or for a long time afterward, is there the slightest perceptible trace that this state of affairs was disputed in any way”[19]

Jesús Álvarez Gómez

He is a Claretian missionary, doctor in Church History from the Gregorian University (Rome), and professor of Christian Archaeology in the Faculty of Theology «San Dámaso» in Madrid. Among his numerous publications, one may highlight «History of Religious Life» and «History of the Church, I. Ancient Age»

He explains regarding the monarchical episcopate:

“The threefold ministerial hierarchy: bishops, presbyters, and deacons

In the letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch the figure of the monarchical bishop already appears at the head of the Christian communities as guarantee of their unity; but the bishop is surrounded by the council of presbyters and deacons. This «threefold hierarchy»: bishop, presbyters, and deacons, is the one that from then on was established permanently in the Catholic Church. But, since Saint Ignatius of Antioch does not intend to introduce any innovation, it will be necessary to conclude that this threefold hierarchy was admitted some decades earlier, at least in the communities of Syria”[20]

He recognizes Clement of Rome as monarchical bishop of Rome, whose universal jurisdiction was already evident in the post-apostolic era:

“The first indications not only of esteem, but also of the exercise of a certain authority of the Roman Church within the sphere of the universal Church, go back to the immediately post-apostolic era:

— Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth. It is the first case of an appeal raised by a Church, no less one of Pauline foundation, to the Church of Rome; the intervention of the bishop of Rome was well received; still at the end of the second century the custom endured in Corinth of reading the letter of Clement of Rome in the Sunday liturgical assembly, and it even went beyond the Church of Corinth, because Clement of Alexandria, at the end of that same second century, regarded that letter as a «holy scripture». And at the beginning of the fourth century, Eusebius was witness that it was still read in many churches.

— The Paschal controversy. This controversy shows that, in the second half of the second century, the bishop of Rome was already exercising his primatial authority over other churches in a demonstrable way. The issue raised was the following: The Churches of Asia celebrated the Feast of Easter on the 14th day of Nisan, even if it did not fall on Sunday; hence the name «Quartodecimans» by which they were known; on the other hand, in the Roman Church, by institution of Pope Pius I (141-155), it was always to be celebrated on Sunday, the Sunday following the 14th of Nisan.

Although this question may seem to lack relevance, nevertheless it was something important, because the ordering of the entire liturgical cycle depended on the date on which Easter was celebrated, and moreover it was a very clear sign of communion among all the Churches of the world”[21]

Franco Pierini

A priest and doctor of Church history from the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome, he is specialized in ancient history. He collaborates with numerous magazines, among them Famiglia cristiana and Jesús.

In Volume I of his Course of Church History he treats the constitution of the Church in the first and second centuries. I will reproduce some interesting extracts, where although he maintains that some churches had a college of presbyters as a form of government, those that had bishops instituted by the apostles as their successors had a bishop who governed them  :

“But, above all, [referring to the apostles]  Simon stands out, to whom Jesus gives the surname Cephas, that is, rock (hence Peter), placing him as head of the apostolic group and establishing him as foundation of the nascent Church…

We find numerous other apostles and evangelists such as Barnabas and Luke, who work alongside the twelve and Paul, helped in turn by deacons and deaconesses, prophets, doctors, and various kinds of collaborators, all of whom are progressively replaced throughout the first two centuries by presbyters, bishops, and other leaders of the Christian communities.

…

[Referring to the daily life of Christians of the second century

…

The communities are governed by bishops, especially in the places where the apostles have left direct successors (as is the case of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, or Corinth]. In other communities a collegial type of government remains in force, the presbyterium, similar to that of the Jewish communities, but destined to be replaced by the so-called monarchical episcopate”[22]

August Franzen

Professor of medieval and modern Church History at the Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg im Breisgau.

Like other theologians and historians, he distinguishes the slow development of the primacy from its essence, which he does not deny. He maintains that the communities were governed by the bishops, who, although coming from the college of presbyters, exercised functions of leadership and direction. He affirms, however, that in some local communities there were several bishop-presbyters who finally also opted for the model of the monarchical episcopate.

This was not the case of the bishop of Rome, who according to the episcopal lists had a singular position, since by means of the episcopal lists he could demonstrate that his apostolic succession went directly back to Peter.

“In the normal government of the Church, the charisms were, therefore, always subordinated to ministry. With the passage of time, the direction of the communities was increasingly concentrated in the hands of the bishops and deacons.  The bishops came from the college of presbyters, in which they exercised directive functions as heads and overseers (episkopos). In some local communities we find, in the first hour, several bishop-presbyters; but afterward, and no later than the second century, the monarchical episcopate spread everywhere. In this tendency toward the monarchical summit, which appeared early in the particular communities, one has rightly seen the birth of the principle of primacy, which would later be expressed in the universal Church (Heinrich Schlier, f 1978)”[23]

“In particular, the bishop of this city [Rome] acquired a singular position, based on the fact that, according to the episcopal lists, he could show that his apostolic succession went directly back to Peter. Now this meant that the patrimony of revelation, transmitted by Christ and the apostles, was preserved in the safest and purest way by the bishop of Rome, since direct continuity with the apostles and with the primitive Church constituted the best guarantee for the purity of the faith. The Roman bishop very soon enjoyed authority to teach. Already in the second and third centuries, heretics used to go to Rome to justify themselves; Marcion did so in 139, and so did Montanus and the leading exponents of gnosticism. 

Defenders of the true faith also sought and found help in Rome, such as Athanasius in 339/340. This preeminence of the Roman see did not prevent the center of gravity of theological work from always remaining in the East, where the great councils also took place. The reflection of theologians does not always coincide exactly with the magisterium of the Church, the only one that must decide whether a theological opinion is contained in the apostolic tradition and belongs to the patrimony of revealed faith. 

Also in questions of law and discipline the bishop of Rome very early enjoyed a singular authority. A first datum of his supremacy can already be verified in the First Letter of Clement (ca. 96), where the solution of a conflict that had arisen in the community of Corinth is discussed. The intervention of Pope Victor (189-199) in the controversy concerning the date of Easter and the controversies of Pope Stephen I (254-257) with Cyprian of Carthage concerning the question of baptism administered by heretics marked new stages in the development of the authority of the successor of Peter. Nothing allows one to affirm that already in these events the claim of a true primacy of jurisdiction is manifested.

But since this primacy, like all historical things, had a slow evolution before reaching its full development, the earlier stages must not be overlooked.”[24]

This is an example that allows us to illustrate how some historians who hold that although some local communities did not have a monarchical episcopate, not only was this not the case with the principal churches of Christendom (Rome included), but they also recognize the evidence provided by the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, which reject the evolutionist theories that suppose a monarchical episcopate developed late in the middle of the second century. He mentions in this regard the case of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, ordained by the Apostle Saint John himself.

“All his writings [referring to the letters of Ignatius of Antioch] abound in edifying thoughts and, from the historical point of view, attest that, at that moment, the monarchical episcopate had established itself in the regions where he exercised his ministry. A single bishop stands at the head of the communities, and Ignatius exhorts with these words: «Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles; as for the deacons, reverence them as the commandment of God. Let no one, without the bishop, do anything that pertains to the Church. Only that eucharist is to be considered valid which is celebrated by the bishop or by one who has authorization from him. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the community be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church» (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8,1). Ignatius already develops a theology of the episcopate, in which he sees the unity of the Church embodied: Christ, the bishop, and the Church are one thing.

In his Letter to the Romans, Ignatius unequivocally attributes a unique position to the Church of Rome and does not limit himself to praising its charitable activity, but praises—in evident connection with the Letter of Clement, which he undoubtedly must have known—its firmness in the faith and its doctrine, so that «the particular authority and effective preeminence of the Roman community is already clearly perceived». (Altaner, Patrologie [Patrology], 86). To his brother, Bishop Polycarp, who had accompanied him in Smyrna, he recalls from Troas his pastoral duty and exhorts him to stand firm, during the persecution of Christians, like an anvil under the blows of the hammer. Of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who in his youth had personally heard the teaching of the apostle John and had been appointed bishop by him, a Letter to the Philippians is preserved”[25]

Philip Hughes

Historian and theologian, writer of several books.

He explains that the constitution of the primitive Church by the end of the first century consisted in  a threefold gradation: one bishop, a college of presbyters, and the deacons; before that date it may be probable that the churches were governed by an episcopal college under the oversight of the apostles.

“The life of the first Christians

Thus far we have referred to a very particular aspect of primitive Christianity, to the life of Christian thinkers or “intellectuals.” And the ordinary believer? Unfortunately, no detail of his history has been preserved for us. We possess no intimate diary of the primitive Christians, and we are obliged to reconstruct their daily religious life with the data that literature can offer us.

The Church, from its first presentation in the New Testament, is organized into a multitude of “churches,” one for each city. In each church two groups are distinguished: the clergy, with the functions of presiding, offering the sacrifice, administering the sacraments, and explaining doctrine; and the laity. This structure is repeated everywhere, with a uniformity that excludes mere chance and reveals the imitation of a common model.

The clergy was elected by the whole of each local church, receiving spiritual powers through the rite of the laying on of hands from others who had already received them in turn, together with the faculty of transmitting them. There is a threefold gradation among the clergy. Each church was presided over by a single bishop, assisted in turn by priests in the spiritual task, and by deacons, whose principal mission was the care of the goods of the Church, the distribution of alms, assistance to the poor, widows, and orphans, and the other works of charity and beneficence that constituted one of the most characteristic notes of primitive Christianity. “How they love one another” was one of the first and most spontaneous confessions that paganism paid to those Christians whose religion we inherited”[26]

He also maintains that Clement of Rome was monarchical bishop of Rome, whose jurisdictional primacy was already evident in the first centuries, and cites as evidence Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians and other historical events.

“The Roman Church

There is one that from the earliest period plays a special role, regulating the affairs of the others and acting with a kind of superior authority over them. This is the Church of Rome, governed according to unanimous tradition by Saint Peter, to whom Our Lord had said: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church… To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven. We do not know the exact date of the foundation of the Roman Church, nor that of Saint Peter’s arrival in Rome, but it is a universal tradition of primitive Roman Christianity that Saint Peter governed its Church and that in Rome he gave his life for Christ in the persecution of Nero.

We know little about the first steps of this Roman Church, veiled by the obscurity that, in those centuries, veils so many things from us. Nevertheless, we know relatively enough, and it is significant that, whenever Rome makes its appearance, we see it playing that distinctive role of its own which has never been denied to it (although opposition has sometimes been made to its exercise), a role which no other church ever attempted to claim for itself, that is, the role of a general superintendence over all the churches of the Catholic Church.

Thus, we see the Rome of Pope Clement I, around the year 90, intervening in the affairs of the Church of Corinth. At approximately the same time, Saint Ignatius of Antioch confirms the singular position of the Roman Church in the famous letters written on the eve of his martyrdom in Rome (107). We have seen the tradition as it appears in Saint Irenaeus. Around the same time, under Pope Victor (189-198), there takes place an energetic action of Roman authority to reduce the apostolic Church of Ephesus to obedience in a liturgical dispute. Sixty years later another crisis arises between Rome and Carthage. This time the question is not merely disciplinary, and the whole attitude of Rome is once again that of a judge without appeal, laying down the law and an ultimatum to secure its observance. The person facing Rome here was none other than Saint Cyprian, the primate of Carthage; and in the year 262 we find Pope Dionysius correcting the theology of his namesake the bishop of Alexandria.”[27]

Adalbert Hamman

Franciscan priest and historian specializing in patrology. He has to his credit the publication of nearly one hundred translations of patristic texts into French, a collection known as  ‘Pères dans la Foi’ as well as being the author of numerous books related to the Fathers of the Church and the history of the Church.

Although he maintains that the organization of the first Christian communities was not uniform, some being governed by colleges of presbyters, at the same time he affirms that the great cities had, from apostolic times, a bishop who presided over them as heads of those communities.

“The organization of the structures

The end of the first century is of capital importance in the history of Christianity. All the Apostles have disappeared, except John, the last witness. He becomes an almost legendary figure. He remains for a long time in Asia. Clement states that he organized in Asia communities that, throughout the second century, evoke his authority. His shadow is cast over the churches distributed like the beads of a rosary along the coast.

From then on, the communities are in the hands of leaders who transmit the accounts and teachings of the Gospels. They have taken over from the first Apostles and their collaborators. A flexible and progressive organization is established. It proceeds by stages whose traces are still perceptible today. The Judeo-Christian communities maintain for some time a collegial direction (elders or presbyters). Those born in pagan territory rely on the bishop-deacon pairing. Both organizations are simultaneous, and afterward they are unified throughout the second century. Their establishment takes place little by little, with delays, with hesitations, and sometimes with crises. Life is not standardized, but develops organically, growing with the explosive vitality of the beginnings.

The itinerant activity of apostles and prophets lasts only for a certain time; it is a preparation for the establishment of a permanent organization, of a local authority that replaces it. Some of these itinerants end up settling in the place of their missionary activity. Pothinus, perhaps also Irenaeus in Lyons, are good examples of this situation. Others continue moving, breaking new ground and planting the cross under new skies. Their activity continues throughout the second century, but tends to come to an end with it.

Evangelical preaching bears fruit from the moment it leaves behind a minimum of structure and organization. The converts come together, group themselves, and merge into a community, the church of the place. Eusebius says it explicitly: «the apostles distribute their goods to the poor, leave their country, lay the foundations of the faith in foreign regions, establish pastors to whom they entrust the care of those whom they have brought to the faith».

Ignatius in Antioch, Polycarp in Smyrna, Pothinus in Lyons, Quadratus in Athens, Dionysius in Corinth, are heads of their communities; they are called episkopoi, bishops, which means inspectors or superintendents, a title that comes from civil administration. The name bishop, which for a certain time was synonymous with presbyter, ends by imposing itself to designate monarchical authority.

From collegial organization until episcopal responsibility was reached there was an uncertain time, with hesitations and resistances. Some cities, such as Jerusalem or Alexandria, already have from Christian origins a bishop; others, such as Philippi, do not seem yet to have established one when Clement of Rome writes to them. At least Clement’s letter makes no mention, speaking only of the cabal that has led young and old presbyters to be at odds.

There are many cities that have as bishop figures of great stature, such as Polycarp or Irenaeus, but there are others that choose a stature adapted to their measure. Not every Corsican is Napoleon. The life of the local church usually has more modest beginnings; it chooses the most available man, the most generous, who imposes himself by his quality and example.

…

The episkopos, already from the beginnings of his existence, is assisted by a direct collaborator, usually younger than he, the deacon, whose personal, family, and social qualities must make him fit to assist the head of the community effectively. Together they direct the meeting, celebrate the eucharist; together they are managers of the common good and provide for the needs of the community.”

Throughout the second century, the institution of episkopos and deacon becomes fused with that of presbyters or elders, of probably Judaic origin. The «elders» in Judaism were the notables, who formed part of the sanhedrin or who directed the community and the synagogue. In the time of the Twelve, they exist in Jerusalem, when James is bishop there. They assist with the Apostles at the first council of Jerusalem. At the end of the first century we find them in Rome, in Philippi, in Corinth, where they are the object of the conflict that gives rise to Clement of Rome’s letter.

The fusion of these two institutions took place progressively and according to places and circumstances, not without clashes here and there. The letter of Paul to Timothy, which gives a description of the bishop, knows the presbyteral college that, with Paul, laid hands on Timothy. Titus is recommended to institute presbyters.

The most elegant solution for passing from collegial authority to monarchical institution consisted in choosing the bishop from among the presbyteral body. The two terms, presbyter and bishop, are synonymous for some time. Irenaeus seems to use them interchangeably.

In the age of Ignatius of Antioch, the establishment of monarchical authority and the integration of the presbyteral council are an accomplished fact in Asia, from Jerusalem to Pergamum. The Ignatian letters to the various communities through which he has passed so attest. Elsewhere it seems that the change was more painful. Clement’s letter to the community of Corinth, provoked by presbyters who were not accepted, recognizes the existence of leaders or bishops, chosen no doubt from among the council of elders, who preside over the liturgy and are clearly distinguished from the laity, named here for the first time”[28]

Cesar Vaca  O.S.A.

Augustinian priest and theologian, writer of numerous books.

“In the letters of Ignatius—Grandmaison writes—the glorious epithet Catholic is linked for the first time to the name of the Church: “Where the bishop appears, there also is the multitude, just as, where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Smyrn. VIII,2). In this way, the bishop embodies his particular church, absolutely as the great Church is the continued incarnation of the Son of God. Would we not think we were reading one of the champions of ecclesiastical unity of our time, an Adam Moehler, a Jaime Balmes, an Eduardo Pie?” (Jésus Chist II p.634).

Saint Ignatius thus shows us that in his time, at the end of the first century, the structure and thought about the Church are complete and mature. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons constitute the tripartite hierarchy upon which the whole reality of Christianity rests. It is necessary to remain united to this hierarchy in order to live within the spirit of Christ. “Consequently7 just as the Lord did nothing without counting on his Father, being as he was one thing with Him—nothing, I say, neither by himself nor by his apostles—so you also should do nothing without counting on your bishop and the elders; nor should you try to color as praiseworthy anything you do on your own, but gathered in common; let there be one prayer, one single hope in charity, in blameless joy, which is Jesus Christ, than whom nothing better exists” (Mag. VII,1). Without this hierarchy the Church does not exist: “For your part, he writes to the Trallians, you must all also respect the deacons as Jesus Christ. The same I say of the bishop, who is the figure of the Father, and of the elders (presbyters), who represent the senate of God and the alliance or college of the apostles. If these are removed, there is no name of Church” (Trall III,1).”[29]

Ludwig Ott

Priest, doctor in Theology from the University of Munich with a thesis on medieval theology. From 1941 he served as professor of dogmatics at the Catholic University of Eichstaett until he held the office of rector. His work Manual of Dogmatic Theology, published by Editorial Herder, is considered an indispensable reference work.

“The perpetuation of hierarchical powers is a necessary consequence of the indefectibility of the Church (see § 12), intended and guaranteed by Christ. The promise Christ made to his apostles that he would assist them until the end of the world (Mt 28:20) supposes that the ministry of the apostles will be perpetuated in the successors of the apostles. These, in accordance with Christ’s mandate, communicated their powers to other persons; for example, Saint Paul to Timothy and Titus. Cf. 2 Tim 4, 2-5; Tit 2, 1 (power of teaching); 1 Tim 5, 19-21; Tit 2, 15 (power of ruling); 1 Tim 5, 22; Tit 1, 5 (power of sanctifying). In these two disciples of the apostle the monarchical episcopate that carries out the apostolic ministry appears for the first time with complete clarity. The «angels» of the seven communities of Asia Minor (Apoc 2-3), according to the traditional interpretation (which has not lacked opponents), are monarchical bishops.

The disciple of the apostles SAINT CLEMENT OF ROME tells us the following concerning the transmission of hierarchical powers by the apostles: «They preached through provinces and cities, and, after having tested the spirit of their firstfruits, they constituted them bishops and deacons of those who were to believe in the future» (Cor. 42, 4); «Our apostles knew through Jesus Christ our Lord that disputes would arise concerning the episcopal office. For this reason, knowing it well beforehand, they appointed those whom we have mentioned above, and gave them the charge that when they died other approved men should succeed them in the ministry» (Cor. 44, 1-2).

SAINT IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH testifies, at the beginning of the second century, that at the head of the communities of Asia Minor and even «in the remotest countries» (Eph 3, 2) there was a single (monarchical) bishop in whose hands was the entire religious and disciplinary government of the community. «Without the bishop, let no one do anything of the things that pertain to the Church. Let only that eucharist be considered valid which is celebrated by the bishop or by some delegate of his.

Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted to baptize without the bishop nor to celebrate the agape; but everything he approves is pleasing to God; so that everything done may be solid and legitimate… Whoever honors the bishop is honored by God; whoever does something without the bishop is serving the devil» (Smyrn. 8, 1-2; 9, 1). In every community there exist, besides the bishop and beneath him, other ministers: presbyters and deacons.

According to SAINT JUSTIN MARTYR, «the one who presides over the brethren» (that is, the bishop) is the one who performs the liturgy (Apol. 165 and 67). SAINT IRENAEUS regards the uninterrupted succession of bishops from the apostles as the surest guarantee of the integral tradition of Catholic doctrine: «We can enumerate the bishops instituted by the apostles and all those who have succeeded them down to us» (Adv. haer. m 3, 1). But, since it would be very lengthy to enumerate the apostolic succession of all the Churches, he confines himself to pointing to that Church «which is the most notable and ancient and known to all, and which was founded and established in Rome by the glorious apostles Peter and Paul». He gives us the oldest list of the bishops of the Roman church, which begins with the «blessed apostles» and reaches Eleutherius, 12th successor of the apostles (ibid. iii 3, 3). Of Saint Polycarp SAINT IRENAEUS tells us (ib. 111 3, 4) that he was instituted as bishop of Smyrna «by the apostles»—according to TERTULLIAN (De praescr. 32), by the apostle Saint John—. TERTULLIAN, like Saint Irenaeus, bases the truth of Catholic doctrine on the apostolic succession of the bishops (De praescr. 32)”[30]

Authors: José Miguel Arráiz and Jesús Manuel Urones

NOTES

---