What if the Early Church Had No Bishops Distinct from Presbyters and No Single Bishop Over All Rome?

I don't think that's the case.

When St. Jerome opined that presbyters and bishops used to be the same thing and the distinction was introduced in post-Apostolic times, therefore not part of the Deposit of Faith, that was an opinion. It didn't mean he used the powers he supposed he inherently had to ordain, even though he was no bishop. It didn't mean he said "we don't have to obey the bishops, if a presbyter disagrees, his authority is enough for you" ... on the contrary, he personally also had an opinion against books he didn't find in Hebrew, like Maccabees. And yet he translated them in faithful obedience to "the bishops".

So, if it were the case, for the presbyters originally being everything a bishop was, including the power to ordain, I don't think this needs to be of practical importance even among Catholics. The late Father Pulvermacher who got himself elected as "Pope Pius XIII" had this opinion, so, when he and another priest had got the ballots saying he was elected, he authorised the other priest to use his supposedly inherent power to ordain, and even consecrate, to get supposedly consecrated bishop by this priest. He then, supposedly as bishop, consecrated this priest a bishop. Unfortunately for the whole procedure, there already was one pope elected who didn't share the Vatican II errors, namely Pope Michael I. When Pulvermacher died in 2009, Gordon Bateman didn't succeed him.

Whether they said "OK, there was a pope after 40 years' vacancy, now there is a vacancy again, and in 2049 we need a pope" or whether they are discerning to join Pope Michael II, I don't know. If Pius XIII or Lucian Pulvermacher OFM Cap. had a successor, the issue would be more important to Catholics.

But, is there any kind of importance in the Catholic / Protestant dialogue or debate or polemic?

If there had been a Church that actually did claim Continuity since the Apostles, which since the times of whenever howsofar you go back to since before Constantine had been allowing presbyters to ordain and left out a separate office of bishops, and which also claimed cities don't need and Rome didn't have a Monarchic Bishop, that would be a pretty impressive argument that one should maybe take a close look at how the very first Christians had it. But there isn't. Churches which not only claim that one needs no communion with a Monarchic Bishop of Rome (not necessarily always residing in Rome), but even that monarchic bishops and the distinction of bishop and priest were a kind of Novum ... novelty ... one should or is at least free to reject, typically go back no further than 1500 AD. The exceptions are Waldensians, Hussites, Tondrakians. Of these, only the Tondrakians go back to before 1000 AD. Wait, sorry, Tondrakians as now extant don't go back to 800 AD. They are a new version of I think Pentecostals who cosplay as a continuation of the historic Tondrakians. These were eliminated some time after a resurgence in 1045:

After suffering a number of defeats at the hands of Byzantium, most Tondrakians were deported to Thrace in the 10th century. Following the Byzantine conquest of the Bagratuni kingdom of Ani in 1045, the movement experienced a resurgence, this time within large cities like Ani, where they began appealing to the lower ranks of the nobility and the clergy. The Tondrakian movement broke into three different directions during its last years, the most radical of which began advocating atheism as well as doubt in the afterlife and the immortality of the human soul. By the middle of the 11th century, the Byzantine governor of Taron and Vaspurakan, Gregory Magistros, managed to eliminate all remnants of Tondrakians. Historian Aristakes Lastivertsi describes the elimination of Tondrakians in great detail.

So, unlike Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts and Armenians and then Assyrians, none of the communities that deny a monarchic episcopate or an episcopal monopoly or near monopoly on ordinations go back before 313 AD. Not even Tondrakians who don't exist any more (and hardly even "once again") and who didn't yet exist in 700 AD.

I think this is a perfect shortcut about the argument.

Even if the early Church had in fact coincided with Protestantism, as to Church polity, no such Protestantism ever continued to the post-Reformation Protestantism. It was "restored" in order to have a low grade entry for Protestantism in 16th C. local clergy, where many bishops were far stauncher Catholics than the priests were. And the Protestantism they had doctrinally, apart from Church polity, was one they could not trace in the previous centuries of the Catholic Church, so, it is not a doctrine that has the promise of Matthew 28:20.

That's my bottom line.

As to monarchic bishops of Rome, it's somewhat more important. The personal authority of Peter cannot have dissolved into a purely collective authority for decades before getting reassembled as a personal authority somewhat later. Fortunately, we do have St. Irenaeus testifying to the first 12 Popes. And fortunately, the arguments against a monarchic bishop of Rome are among the flimsier.

• 1) Pope St. Clement I doesn't claim to be Pope, and uses the phrase "we" meaning (we are supposed to assume) that he was just on occasion an ad hoc spokesman for a priest collective;
• 2) so and so (notably St. Ignatius of Antioch) doesn't mention a specific bishop of Rome;
• 3) archaeologically, early 2nd C. Rome doesn't have a single Cathedral, but rather small house churches.

Here are the answers:

• 1) A de facto ruler can consult and express himself as speaking for all those whom he consulted, nothing proves this was not the case with St. Clement;
• 2) St. Ignatius may not have wanted to betray the identity of the Pope if the letter were intercepted, he could also not be sure the Pope he'd known about hadn't been martyred ... he could theoretically even have arrived and written the letter during a papal interregnum, also known as a sede vacante;
• 3) canonically, the position of a monarchic bishop is not defined by how his Cathedral looks: if he had a house Church, if the man serving as his deacon at Mass had another one (and was not just a deacon), if another priest had a house Church, the archaeologist would not discover any difference of rank from the architecture. Pretty obviously, since the houses where Christians worshipped had to be "just normal private big fortune houses" to the Roman authorities and therefore to the street view. It would even make sense, for a Pope as being most searched after, to himself use one of the smaller houses as his own house church.

So, I tend to be pretty chill on these two matters. If you want someone who had the time and ressources to look into that second issue more in detail, I'm just starting a video with Joe Heschmeyer:

Was there a first century bishop of Rome? (with Joe Heschmeyer)
The Counsel of Trent | 16 Febr. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAmrHtdezqA

Now, I'll resume the viewing.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Vincent of León
11.IX.2025

Legione, in Hispania, sancti Vincentii, Abbatis et Martyris.

PS, while the video is with Joe Heschmeyer, it is on the channel of Trent Horn, it's actually a dialogue./HGL

Mariann Budde is Not a Bishop, True Story

Here a man is saying, she's not a real bishop:

Woke Leftist 'Bishop' Gets Brutal News After Lecturing President Trump
Explain America | 24 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtjKijPFPeg

And, in a sense he is right about that exact statement, here is my comment on the video:

She's not a bishop, because she is a woman.
Same problem with even very conservative women pastors trying to celebrate communion.

Plus, in both cases, they are Protestants who lack apostolic succession.

Jesus, the eleven (John 20), people they laid hands on (Acts 1 for Matthias, then Acts 8:19,20 not doing this with Simon Magus), then Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13), then Timothy and Titus (II Tim 1:6), then the people they laid hands on (I Tim 5:22). And so on to the end of time (Matthew 28:16 through 20).

She's not in that line, which Anglicans (with few recent High Church exceptions due to some Orthodox) since Matthew Parker and similar have not been in. Same for Church of Sweden since at least the successor of Laurentius Petri from Nericia. Why? Because he made it clear, he was not ordaining priests to offer up the sacrifice of the Mass, that makes all of his ordinations and all consecrations to episcopacy null and void.

Same is true for a pastor like John McArthur. He's also not the line of the Apostles.

So, she's not a bishop, and Eliud Wabukala, an Anglican bishop from Kenya, so called, is also not a bishop. Given he's in Anglican Realignment, he's definitely conservative and might not ordain women. He's also not a bishop.

But when it comes to her words ... stating she overstepped is like pretending clergy need to be subservient to statesmen. It's like saying St. John Fisher had it coming for opposing Henry VIII, and mind you, his refusal to swear the Oath of Supremacy was much more outspoken. Mariann Budde told the president he might risk overstepping what God grants statesmen in power. St. John Fisher clearly implied that Henry VIII had already done that.

When it came to LGBT people, she may have echoed their undue fears, but she echoed them mildly.

It's even a bit like when a certain Richard Dawkins said that any real bishop accepts Evolution. I'm certain that Bishop Williamson is a real bishop. I am also certain he's a Young Earth Creationist. So, you get no sympathies from me on this one.

More content in this format, link to video and comments, sometimes on side issues, on the blogs: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere (ENG) Répliques Assorties (FR) Antworten nach Sorte (DE)

Has Gavin Ortlund Proven Apostolic Succession (in the technical sense) wrong?

According to* Ortlund, the term Apostolic succession as understood by Catholics and Orthodox says:

1. without a successive laying on of hands, going back to the apostles, a man cannot celebrate the sacraments (except baptism) or hold authoritative office in the Church;
2. only bishops to the exclusion of priests who are not bishops can ordain and this distinction of bishops and priests from each other goes back to the Apostles;
3. only bishops are successors of the Apostles.

Now, Ortlund argues from St. Clement of Rome and from St. Jerome that two and three are false. Therefore, he considers, the whole thing is contrary to tradition and therefore it is false.

Let me first argue where I think he gets the concept wrong, giving the correct definitions.

1. Without a successive laying on of hands, going back to the Twelve Apostles, a man cannot celebrate the sacraments (except baptism and marriage) or hold authoritative office in the Church, the latter however so that a man can take up an office as bishop if elected even if not yet ordained, as long as he intends to get consecrated later on;
2. probably only bishops to the exclusion of priests who are not bishops can ordain and this or at least some distinction of bishops and priests from each other goes back to the Apostles;
3. only bishops are successors of the Twelve Apostles. Simple priests are successors of the Seventy-Two Apostles.

In other words, Jesus ordained (Holy Thursday) and consecrated (evening of Resurrection Sunday, except Thomas Didymus) the Twelve, and the Twelve then ordained (but did not necessarily consecrate) the Seventy-Two.

Now, I'll admit that in the New Testament it is difficult to find Bishops distinguished from Priests in that precise terminology. I would argue that the word Bishop in the NT usually means Priest. There are several different terms for Bishop and Bishop isn't one of them. Someone has argued that St. John the Gospeller being called Presbyter argues this was originally one of the words for Bishop, but if Father Jean Colson is correct he was not the son of Zebedee, then he may have been called Presbyter rather than Episcopus because he was not a bishop.

The NT words for Bishops, not all of which imply everyone so designated is a Bishop, are:

• Apostle (but between Andronicus and his wife Junia, she was not a Bishop, though both are "of note among the apostles"), Twelve, Seventy-Two (most of which would have been elevated to Bishops), others (Sts. Paul and Barnabas)
• Evangelist
• Prophet (but some prophets and especially prophetesses were not Bishops)
• Angel (Apocalypse 2 and 3)
• "thou" (St. Paul in adressing Sts. Titus and Timothy)

What do we make of Sts. Clement and Jerome?

St. Clement supported the two-fold authority of Bishop and Deacon with a Scripture which doesn't seem to exist. That's what Gavin Ortlund claims. This refers to First Clement chapter 42:

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

I had a hard time to localise the Scripture in question. The direct quote gave searches to First Clement. It's not in a standard version of the Bible. Here is the first hit that seemed to localise the quote:

The Willard Preacher : The Authority of the Church
http://thewillardpreacher.com/for-orthodox-and-inquirers/the-church-fathers-speak/the-authority-of-the-church/

It says:

For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” (Is. 60:17, LXX)

Now, what do I find in the LXX version of Ellopos?

ISAIAH / ΗΣΑΪΑΣ 60
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=43&page=60

And for brass I will bring thee gold, and for iron I will bring thee silver, and instead of wood I will bring thee brass, and instead of stones, iron; and I will make thy princes peaceable, and thine overseers righteous.

καὶ ἀντὶ χαλκοῦ οἴσω σοι χρυσίον, ἀντὶ δὲ σιδήρου οἴσω σοι ἀργύριον, ἀντὶ δὲ ξύλων οἴσω σοι χαλκόν, ἀντὶ δὲ λίθων σίδηρον. καὶ δώσω τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ.

It would seem the papacy was temporarily in an error about how many degrees the office has, probably because "dikaiosyne" could give rise to a scribal error with "diakonos" ... and this was the text the Pope had. Or he could have misquoted from memory. He certainly didn't possess a Gideon Bible with lots of bookmarks where he could turn the pages until he knew what he was consulting. That's not how they did back then.

I think someone very quickly gave him a better text, discretely so as not to detract from his authority (a kind of respect I do not owe Gavin Ortlund), and no future Pope repeated it. Or, as said, no body cared that he had made a slight misquote. It could be a conflation of two quotes, like we find in the NT.

But so far this makes it look that Gavin Ortlund understands St. Clement correctly as to this passage. Not necessarily. You see, the word "priest" or "presbyter" is mentioned both before and after this. And it would be strange if a Church Father considered an OT prophecy as a direct blueprint for Church structure. Different aspects about Christ, about Mary and notably also about the Church are spread all over the Old Testament. And the context where St. Clement mentions these two offices, not only does he not specify that they are the two only offices, but he even gives a clue why this would not be so:

they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe

It is very likely that the Apostles could very well have known about three offices and even so have ordained only two. You see, a Bishop need not be an Apostle to ordain a priest. Once you have set up Bishops and Deacons, the Bishops can go on to chose the future Priests from among the Deacons. For that matter, a Bishop and a Deacon would be the Liturgic Minima of the Church. In some cases, in some Churches, one could have temporarily dispensed with having priests who weren't also Bishops, just so as to be on the safe side in case the Monarchic bishop should be the one martyred and surrounding ones unable to come, and in some Churches, even Rome, one could have forgot that this was the case, considered a two-fold office as the normal thing and have lived through a restoration locally as if it were a novum, though not a resisted one. This kind of Church could be where the informants of St. Jerome came from.

But, suppose again Gavin Ortlund pretends this is guess work and prefers his own guess work (or that of the seminary he was to) and insists that Priests and Bishops were the same thing for St. Clement of Rome, he swears till his face is blue that this is what the good and adequate art of text analysis (without historic context) exacts for First Clement, even if that is unjust to the rambling and unsystematic approach of ancient styles, very unacademic by modern standards, so what?

It still doesn't dispense with point one:

Without a successive laying on of hands, going back to the Twelve Apostles, a man cannot celebrate the sacraments (except baptism and marriage) or hold authoritative office in the Church, the latter however so that a man can take up an office as bishop if elected even if not yet ordained, as long as he intends to get consecrated later on.

In fact, Albigensians were claiming Apostolic Succession for the Consolamentum of the Perfecti. This was probably entirely fraudulent, and at least cannot be historically traced. I think Waldensians may be making a similar claim. The idea of making Apostolic Succession dispensable came with the Reformation.

Neither making Presbyters successors of the Twelve (probably taken from sources saying they are successors of "the Apostles" in the sense of the Seventy-Two), nor pretending all of the Apostolic era saw Presbyters and Bishops as the same thing (essentially more like Bishops, since able to ordain), would dispense with it. It would either mean people who had been ordained with no power to ordain and consecrate weren't receiving the power to forgive sins or celebrate the Eucharist either, or it would, more probably, mean that normal Catholic priests ignore a power of ordination that actually resides in them. In fact, some Catholics have theorised that a Presbyter can ordain and consecrate, if he has the dispensation of the Pope, but otherwise his powers in this respect are hampered, and "Pius XIII" (who got no successor after he died) actually tried to access this way to the episcopal office, namely by "papally" giving dispensation to the one other priest involved there. I reckon him as not the back then real Pope, because he has no successor and he tried to rival an already extant Michael I. But even so, people on a "desert" island could not access the Eucharist prior to praying for rescue or for a priest to share their isolation.

In fact, decisively for me, we do not just have Apostolic Succession from the Apostles, but also Apostolic Tradition. This doesn't mean digging up the earliest possible post-NT author and pitting him against everyone after him, it means that the collective of successors of the Apostles are not capable of all erring on an important matter. In the absence of a parallel tradition featuring the idea that Luther simply for being a priest could also ordain, the idea of Presbyterian Protestantism (which is also part of the theory, though not the obvious show, of Episcopal Protestantism, Lutherans, Anglicans, Moravians and Methodists) is a novum. And as such an error. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, perhaps there is also a Syriac anto-Nestorian but non-Chalcedonian communion, all distinguish bishops from priests. So, whichever of these be the true Church, this needs to be the rule of the Church.

His real beef with Catholicism is probably the Inquisition, and especially the death of Tyndale, which I have commented on on another post.** Or the exclusivism of Catholicism. "Why can't I be saved, if I disagree? Why can't we be Church, if we disagree? Is God that stingy?" For the latter it's simply a question of God keeping His Church visible. This post is about an item where Eastern Orthodox and so on are NOT wrong, and where "witness of the (older) heretics" is valuable.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Dionysius the Areopagite
9.X.2024

* I would say "passim" but if I missed him making contrary statements, please tell me. Latest item I looked at may have been this one:

Is Apostolic Succession an Accretion?
Truth Unites | 19 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TItkYgnWec

** It contains a link to his video, it's this one:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Tyndale
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/10/tyndale.html