Paul's words to Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

Concerning this text two questions arise:

If priests imposed hands to ordain a new Bishop (as Timothy was) when did it change to have a Bishop ordain a priest?

Since when is necessary the presence of various Bishops to ordain a new Bishop?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004

Answers

---up--

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.

The Apostles were not only priests but also bishops.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 14, 2004.

It is only "necessary" for one bishop to be present to ordain a new bishop. But usually several bishops take part. Mainly this is to show the unity of the whole Church. Also a minor consideration is to be doubly certain that the new bishop is validly ordained in the Apostolic Succession. If it should ever be found that a bishop was not validly ordained, then this will not effect the bishops HE has ordained as long as there was at least one other validly ordained bishop taking part in each ordination.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 15, 2004.

Thank you, Paul M. But I still wonder: if the Apostles were at the same time Priests and Bishops, when did te distinction of the two arise?

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

You are hung up on the term “the imposition of the hands of the priesthood”. “Priesthood” does not refer only to those who are (regular) priests but are not bishops. A bishop has the fullness of the priesthood, which he transmits in full to new bishops and in part to new priests and deacons.

The Apostles ordained some men bishops, ordained other men merely ordinary priests, and ordained other men merely deacons. That is when the distinction arose.

In the early centuries every church (community of believers) was in a major city with its own bishop (episcopus) and several priests (presbyters) and deacons. As the number of Christians expanded and the faith caught on even in small towns and rural areas, small churches were built in small towns with only a presbyter in charge, answerable to the bishop of the nearest big city church. Even up to a few centuries ago, even quite large cities (apart from Rome itself) had few or no suburban churches, but everyone in the city went to the cathedral church of the bishop.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 16, 2004.

Steve you wrote:

"The Apostles ordained some men bishops, ordained other men merely ordinary priests, and ordained other men merely deacons. That is when the distinction arose."

Could you please give a text either from the NT or from early Church Fathers to show that what you say is in some way documented?

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), September 18, 2004.

Enrique, you seem to suffer from the legalism common to Americans of this generation that you deny something exists unless it’s "in some way documented"!. I’ll leave it to the more learned members of the forum to give you quotes from the Fathers of the Church, but if you look up the index of any New Testament under “bishop” (episcopos), “priest” (presbyter) and “deacon” (diakonos) you will see from numerous “texts” that all three had clearly quite different and distinct roles in the Apostolic Age of the mid-first century when these books were first written.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 19, 2004.

Dear Steve: I am not a "legalist". Now if you read carefully my posts you will se that I am not "denying" anything. I just want to find a clearer picture of how the early Church was organised. Now it seems that the answer to my question was in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"We cannot argue from the difference of names to the difference of official position, because the names are to some extent interchangeable (Acts, xx, 17, 28; Tit., i, 6, 7). The New Testament does not clearly show the distinction between presbyters and bishops, and we must examine its evidence in the light of later times. Toward the end of the second century there is a universal and unquestioned tradition, that bishops and their superior authority date from Apostolic times (see HIERARCHY OF THE EARLY CHURCH). It throws much light on the New-Testament evidence and we find that what appears distinctly at the time of Ignatius can be traced through the pastoral epistles of St. Paul, to the very beginning of the history of the Mother Church at Jerusalem, where St. James, the brother of the Lord, appears to occupy the position of bishop (Acts, xii, 17; xv, 13; xxi, 18; Gal., ii, 9); Timothy and Titus possess full episcopal authority, and were ever thus recognized in tradition (cf. Tit., i, 5; I Tim., v, 19 and 22). No doubt there is much obscurity in the New Testament, but this is accounted for by many reasons. The monuments of tradition never give us the life of the Church in all its fullness, and we cannot expect this fullness, with regard to the internal organization of the Church existing in Apostolic times, from the cursory references in the occasional writings of the New Testament. The position of bishops would necessarily be much less prominent than in later times. The supreme authority of the Apostles, the great number of charismatically gifted persons, the fact that various Churches were ruled by Apostolic delegates who exercised episcopal authority under Apostolic direction, would prevent that special prominence. The union between bishops and presbyters was close, and the names remained interchangeable long after the distinction between presbyters and bishops was commonly recognized, e.g., in Iren., "Adv. hæres.", IV, xxvi, 2. Hence it would seem that already, in the New Testament, we find, obscurely no doubt, the same ministry which appeared so distinctly afterwards."

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), September 20, 2004.

tjink of it like the Military for a moment, this is fititng since Paul called it the "Army of God".

OK, suppose one General promotes a common soldier to the trank of Leutenant, and calls him an officer. He promotes another to Captain, and anothe to Commander, and yet another to the position of General.

They are all Officers, thus they can all be called officers. They are not all Generals, however.

The same applies to different "Ranks" withon the ordination proccess...its nto that hard relaly.

-- zarove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 20, 2004.

I understand the necessity of the imposition of hands, but can anyone explain why the form wa changed in ordinations. I mean, why was the power to forgive sins, and to offer sacrifice, dropped from the ordination.

It seems to me that something very imporant was omitted. Can anyone tell me why?

-- Meyer (Tradsky@AOL.com), September 20, 2004.