@@TheCordialCatholicI just spoke to the Deacons at my church today to start the discernment process. I’m really excited about it. Curious to know if you made that decision?
Joe's mention that the Bible is not a "blueprint" is a very good point. There are denominations (e.g. Churches of Christ, some Baptists groups) that are "patternists" or "blueprinters." It is sadly laughable to hear them try to talk about following the pattern to the very alphabetic letter---- as if it is a movie script. By the way, Keith, I am also a Catholic Deacon....a bit older than mid-30s!! --- would be happy to chat about my own diaconal experience.
Your point is very accurate. I grew up in the churches of Christ and they are all about “following the pattern laid out in the New Testament.” Thing is, there’s a lot of vagueness and they rely on their own traditions to fill in the gaps. I’ve seen members of the COC twist themselves into a pretzel regarding this subject and many other doctrines they teach. You’re right- it’s sadly laughable.
@@falconplayer1187quick question about the coc if you don't mind... I've had my share of crazy experiences. How do they get around the fact that the Bible says that somebody must be approved or sent forth in order to go preach? How do they get around the succession of the hands being laid on? I know they believe that the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon and I've heard something that they believe that the church went underground or something crazy like that.. Any experience?
You should have Fr Dcn Tony Dragani on to talk about the diaconate. St Jerome’s equating the Presbyter with the episcopate inappropriately put the priest on a near equal level as the bishop and also inadvertently triggered a diminished view of the deacon, which relegated the western diaconate eventually to a transitional state for centuries and a confusion of what the idea of a servant is as well - it’s not an ecclesial social worker, but equal in liturgy, preaching, and charity …of which the western church still struggles with in the use of deacons tragically .
Church government in the first few centuries knew nothing of parishes, diocese, archdiocese, monarchical bishops, archbishops, popes, etc. This is all an historical development that came later. The first churches were local congregations led by a single or a plurality of bishop/pastor/elder (all referring to the same office) and deacons: “The New Testament evidence itself seems to favor a plurality of elders as the standard model. The book of Acts tells us that as the apostles planted churches, they appointed “elders” (from the Greek term πρεσβυτέρος) to oversee them (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17). Likewise, Titus is told to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5). A very similar word, ἐπισκoπος (“bishop” or “overseer”), is used in other contexts to describe what appears to be the same ruling office (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-7). The overlap between these two terms is evident in Acts 20:28 when Paul, while addressing the Ephesian “elders” (πρεσβυτέρους), declares that “The Holy Spirit has made you bishops or overseers (ἐπισκόπους).” Thus, the New Testament writings indicate that the office of elder/bishop is functionally one and the same. But what about the church after the New Testament? Did they maintain the model of multiple elders? Three quick examples suggest they maintained this structure at least for a little while: 1. At one point, the Didache addresses the issue of church government directly, “And so, elect for yourselves bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved” (15.1). It is noteworthy that the author mentions plural bishops-not a single ruling bishop-and that he places these bishops alongside the office of deacon, as Paul himself does (e.g., Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-13). Thus, as noted above, it appears that the bishops described here are essentially equivalent to the office of “elder.” 2. A letter known as 1 Clement (c. 96) also has much to say about early church governance. This letter is attributed to a “Clement”-whose identity remains uncertain-who represents the church in Rome and writes to the church at Corinth to deal with the fallout of a recent turnover in leadership. The author is writing to convince (not command) the Corinthians to reinstate its bishops (elders) who were wrongly deposed. The letter affirms the testimony of the book of Acts when it tells us that the apostles initially appointed “bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons” in the various churches they visited (42.4). After the time of the apostles, bishops were appointed “by other reputable men with the entire church giving its approval” (44.3). This is an echo of the Didache which indicated that bishops were elected by the church. 3. The Shepherd of Hermas (c.150) provides another confirmation of this governance structure in the second century. After Hermas writes down the angelic vision in a book, he is told, “you will read yours in this city, with the presbyters who lead the church” (Vis. 8.3). Here we are told that the church leadership structure is a plurality of “presbyters” (πρεσβυτέρων) or elders. The author also uses the term “bishop,” but always in the plural and often alongside the office of deacon (Vis. 13.1; Sim. 104.2). In sum, the NT texts and texts from the early second century indicate that a plurality of elders was the standard structure in the earliest stages. But, as noted above, the idea of a singular bishop began to dominate by the end of the second century. What led to this transition? Most scholars argue that it was the heretical battles fought by the church in the second century that led them to turn to key leaders to defend and represent the church. This transition is described remarkably well by Jerome himself: The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community.... Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord (Comm. Tit. 1.7). Jerome’s comments provide a great summary of this debate. While the single-bishop model might have developed for practical reasons, the plurality of elders model seems to go back to the very beginning.”
It's 2 years later, I have seen this video for the first time a moment ago and I have read the wall of text above. So I add another wall of text underneath. This is a very strange theory that to me lacks all credibility. 1- the idea of bishops goes way back. If I am very generous to Paul Smallwood, I would say that the idea of bishops and of one bishop per city of importance, goes back to at least the early 3rd century. 2- this governance model is _universal_ . Very early on, _all_ churches conform to one bishop per city. 3- there are no signs of controversy at all. There are very heated debates on pretty obscure theological points early on. But on something that directly affects _everyone's_ religious life, there is no sign of it. So we would have to believe that _everybody_ accepts this without any argument. There are no churches that want to remain "presbyterian", that do not accept a single bishop. There is nobody protesting. There are no groups sticking to the old ways, and no bishops writing firebrand books denouncing them for it. There are no traditionalists writing firebrand books denouncing the idea of one bishop. Nothing at all. That would be the first and last time in history that a pretty major change in church practice, one that has very practical consequences for all, is accepted without so much as a bad word. 4- we do know who "Clement" is. It is Clement I, the fifth Pope of Rome. He acted as a mediator in the conflict in Corinth. He didn't directly order this way or the other, but he clearly _did_ have authority that was accepted by the Corinthians. At the very least moral authority. 5- early Chrisitanity was an illegal sect. A small religious group that had no political influence at all and that was at times actively persecuted by the state. Covering up anything would be pretty much impossible for a group like that. By far the most logical way to make it all make sense is that bishops were there from the very start. The Twelve Apostles were the first bishops, they appointed new bishops for new communities and successors for themselves. Under these bishops were multiple presbyters. And there were multiple deacons too. It is pretty clear too that not all bishops are equal: from very early on there are "big" bishops and "small" bishops. Bishops of important places like Rome and Antioch are clearly more influential and prestigious than others. The exact workings are not so clear. How strong exactly the authority of the bishops was, the exact duties of presbyters and deacons, how the interactions between bishops worked is not clear. Also, the terminology in early texts is confusing. Presbyterianism was invented in the 17th century in Scotland as a reaction to the use of Anglican bishops as his local henchmen by the king of England. That is the plain and simple truth. The rest is made up.
@@theo-dr2dz Good. I hope you learned something. I never wrote against bishops. Yes there were bishops in the primitive church. HOWEVER, bishop in the Scriptures and bishops in the primitive church refers to the pastor of a local congregation. Some of these local congregations were ruled by a plurality of bishops (also called elders or pastors which refers to the same office). Nothing more and nothing less. None had ruling authority outside of their local congregation. The invention was the monarchical episcopate, with Archbishops and the papacy. The top down form of church government as we see in Roman Catholicism where you have the Pope at the top with archbishops under him and diocesan bishops under the archbishops was absolutely unknown in the primitive church. It is an invention and historical development. I
The first centuries of the church knew nothing of a sarcedotal priesthood: “In the first two centuries Christian apologists like Justin Martyr noted the difference from pagan religions in the absence of temples, altars, images, and material sacrifices. In the third century, as part of an increasing distinction between the clergy and the laity, the language of priesthood began to be more regularly applied to Christian ministers (perhaps more comparatively by Origen but in a straightforward way by Cyprian). The Christian assimilation to the environment in cultic terminology increased throughout the third century and became standard in the fourth century. By then, ministers were priests, church buildings were temples, communion tables were altars, and sacred art was common.”
@paul-you could not be more wrong. Paul talks about his priestly duties, distributing sacraments, Christian altars as opposed to pagan altars and Eucharist. Justin martyr does as well.
Just a reminder, Jesus taught salvation through faith in our Divine Father-friend and acceptance of sonship with him. He also taught “in the kingdom of heaven there is neither rich nor poor, free nor bond, male nor female, all are equally the sons and daughters of God.” Jesus treated women as equals at a time when male supremacy was the norm. When a woman was accused of adultery, did he say she should be stoned as the law mandated? No, he went around to each of her accusers and wrote something in the dirt (the names of their mistresses perhaps?) and they all made a hasty retreat. Then Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Curiously, Jesus fit that bill, he was without sin, and yet he cast no stones. It's almost as if to cast a stone would itself be a sin.
Eric. Jesus Christ also teaches that we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end to be saved! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 - yes, I agree with all of that up until you strayed into atonement doctrine territory. The wine in communion was a symbol for the Spirit of Truth, and the bread symbolizes the “bread of life”, which is a reference to his teachings.
bishops, elders and deacons are positions in the early church. the roman catholic priesthood was NOT a part of it. in fact the roman catholic priesthood was not even fully established until the 12th century. Jesus said Himself that He was the head priest (goodbye pope) and all of His followers are priests.
You have a misunderstanding of the roman catholic view then. The Pope is NOT the high priest. The pope, rather, is the successor of Peter, who was the first bishop of rome and was considered the leader of the Early church. The fact that we are all priests does not negate the fact that their can also be a ministerial priesthood.
@@leespaner I think there is sufficient evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Namely, that a group of 12 uneducated Palestinians was able to bring their novel religion to the entire world. That such men could do so without the use of miracles would be a miracle unto itself.
This is a really timely video for me, I am 34 years old and have just applied to the Permanent Diaconate within my Archdiocese. Thank you!
Hey Steve! We should chat. I’m 37 and thinking of applying to mine!
@@TheCordialCatholic sounds great, I'll send you an email now.
Hi there, I'm in formation as a diaconate.
@@TheCordialCatholicI just spoke to the Deacons at my church today to start the discernment process. I’m really excited about it. Curious to know if you made that decision?
Holler at "The Dynamic" Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers for his experience becoming a Deacon!
Joe's mention that the Bible is not a "blueprint" is a very good point. There are denominations (e.g. Churches of Christ, some Baptists groups) that are "patternists" or "blueprinters." It is sadly laughable to hear them try to talk about following the pattern to the very alphabetic letter---- as if it is a movie script. By the way, Keith, I am also a Catholic Deacon....a bit older than mid-30s!! --- would be happy to chat about my own diaconal experience.
Your point is very accurate. I grew up in the churches of Christ and they are all about “following the pattern laid out in the New Testament.” Thing is, there’s a lot of vagueness and they rely on their own traditions to fill in the gaps. I’ve seen members of the COC twist themselves into a pretzel regarding this subject and many other doctrines they teach. You’re right- it’s sadly laughable.
@@falconplayer1187quick question about the coc if you don't mind... I've had my share of crazy experiences. How do they get around the fact that the Bible says that somebody must be approved or sent forth in order to go preach? How do they get around the succession of the hands being laid on? I know they believe that the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon and I've heard something that they believe that the church went underground or something crazy like that.. Any experience?
Thank you, Joe for all your doing
Joe and Trent are the best!
Authority is the big issue.
Me gustan sus programas, hace poco lo descubrí, gracias
Interesting and informative. Thank you both for your efforts.
Thanks for watching!
You should have Fr Dcn Tony Dragani on to talk about the diaconate.
St Jerome’s equating the Presbyter with the episcopate inappropriately put the priest on a near equal level as the bishop and also inadvertently triggered a diminished view of the deacon, which relegated the western diaconate eventually to a transitional state for centuries and a confusion of what the idea of a servant is as well - it’s not an ecclesial social worker, but equal in liturgy, preaching, and charity …of which the western church still struggles with in the use of deacons tragically .
Church government in the first few centuries knew nothing of parishes, diocese, archdiocese, monarchical bishops, archbishops, popes, etc. This is all an historical development that came later. The first churches were local congregations led by a single or a plurality of bishop/pastor/elder (all referring to the same office) and deacons: “The New Testament evidence itself seems to favor a plurality of elders as the standard model. The book of Acts tells us that as the apostles planted churches, they appointed “elders” (from the Greek term πρεσβυτέρος) to oversee them (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17). Likewise, Titus is told to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5). A very similar word, ἐπισκoπος (“bishop” or “overseer”), is used in other contexts to describe what appears to be the same ruling office (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-7). The overlap between these two terms is evident in Acts 20:28 when Paul, while addressing the Ephesian “elders” (πρεσβυτέρους), declares that “The Holy Spirit has made you bishops or overseers (ἐπισκόπους).” Thus, the New Testament writings indicate that the office of elder/bishop is functionally one and the same. But what about the church after the New Testament? Did they maintain the model of multiple elders? Three quick examples suggest they maintained this structure at least for a little while: 1. At one point, the Didache addresses the issue of church government directly, “And so, elect for yourselves bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved” (15.1). It is noteworthy that the author mentions plural bishops-not a single ruling bishop-and that he places these bishops alongside the office of deacon, as Paul himself does (e.g., Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-13). Thus, as noted above, it appears that the bishops described here are essentially equivalent to the office of “elder.” 2. A letter known as 1 Clement (c. 96) also has much to say about early church governance. This letter is attributed to a “Clement”-whose identity remains uncertain-who represents the church in Rome and writes to the church at Corinth to deal with the fallout of a recent turnover in leadership. The author is writing to convince (not command) the Corinthians to reinstate its bishops (elders) who were wrongly deposed. The letter affirms the testimony of the book of Acts when it tells us that the apostles initially appointed “bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons” in the various churches they visited (42.4). After the time of the apostles, bishops were appointed “by other reputable men with the entire church giving its approval” (44.3). This is an echo of the Didache which indicated that bishops were elected by the church. 3. The Shepherd of Hermas (c.150) provides another confirmation of this governance structure in the second century. After Hermas writes down the angelic vision in a book, he is told, “you will read yours in this city, with the presbyters who lead the church” (Vis. 8.3). Here we are told that the church leadership structure is a plurality of “presbyters” (πρεσβυτέρων) or elders. The author also uses the term “bishop,” but always in the plural and often alongside the office of deacon (Vis. 13.1; Sim. 104.2).
In sum, the NT texts and texts from the early second century indicate that a plurality of elders was the standard structure in the earliest stages. But, as noted above, the idea of a singular bishop began to dominate by the end of the second century. What led to this transition? Most scholars argue that it was the heretical battles fought by the church in the second century that led them to turn to key leaders to defend and represent the church. This transition is described remarkably well by Jerome himself: The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community.... Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord (Comm. Tit. 1.7). Jerome’s comments provide a great summary of this debate. While the single-bishop model might have developed for practical reasons, the plurality of elders model seems to go back to the very beginning.”
It's 2 years later, I have seen this video for the first time a moment ago and I have read the wall of text above. So I add another wall of text underneath.
This is a very strange theory that to me lacks all credibility.
1- the idea of bishops goes way back. If I am very generous to Paul Smallwood, I would say that the idea of bishops and of one bishop per city of importance, goes back to at least the early 3rd century.
2- this governance model is _universal_ . Very early on, _all_ churches conform to one bishop per city.
3- there are no signs of controversy at all. There are very heated debates on pretty obscure theological points early on. But on something that directly affects _everyone's_ religious life, there is no sign of it. So we would have to believe that _everybody_ accepts this without any argument. There are no churches that want to remain "presbyterian", that do not accept a single bishop. There is nobody protesting. There are no groups sticking to the old ways, and no bishops writing firebrand books denouncing them for it. There are no traditionalists writing firebrand books denouncing the idea of one bishop. Nothing at all. That would be the first and last time in history that a pretty major change in church practice, one that has very practical consequences for all, is accepted without so much as a bad word.
4- we do know who "Clement" is. It is Clement I, the fifth Pope of Rome. He acted as a mediator in the conflict in Corinth. He didn't directly order this way or the other, but he clearly _did_ have authority that was accepted by the Corinthians. At the very least moral authority.
5- early Chrisitanity was an illegal sect. A small religious group that had no political influence at all and that was at times actively persecuted by the state. Covering up anything would be pretty much impossible for a group like that.
By far the most logical way to make it all make sense is that bishops were there from the very start. The Twelve Apostles were the first bishops, they appointed new bishops for new communities and successors for themselves. Under these bishops were multiple presbyters. And there were multiple deacons too. It is pretty clear too that not all bishops are equal: from very early on there are "big" bishops and "small" bishops. Bishops of important places like Rome and Antioch are clearly more influential and prestigious than others.
The exact workings are not so clear. How strong exactly the authority of the bishops was, the exact duties of presbyters and deacons, how the interactions between bishops worked is not clear. Also, the terminology in early texts is confusing.
Presbyterianism was invented in the 17th century in Scotland as a reaction to the use of Anglican bishops as his local henchmen by the king of England. That is the plain and simple truth. The rest is made up.
@@theo-dr2dz Good. I hope you learned something. I never wrote against bishops. Yes there were bishops in the primitive church. HOWEVER, bishop in the Scriptures and bishops in the primitive church refers to the pastor of a local congregation. Some of these local congregations were ruled by a plurality of bishops (also called elders or pastors which refers to the same office). Nothing more and nothing less. None had ruling authority outside of their local congregation. The invention was the monarchical episcopate, with Archbishops and the papacy. The top down form of church government as we see in Roman Catholicism where you have the Pope at the top with archbishops under him and diocesan bishops under the archbishops was absolutely unknown in the primitive church. It is an invention and historical development. I
Can you please site any references more explicit siting any abuse of the 3 tier system of the Church? Say within the 1st 800 years
@@concrete3030 I never said anything about abuse of the three tiered system. I simply said it didn’t exist in the primitive church.
@@paulsmallwood1484 when do you say the primitive church became the organized church?
The first centuries of the church knew nothing of a sarcedotal priesthood: “In the first two centuries Christian apologists like Justin Martyr noted the difference from pagan religions in the absence of temples, altars, images, and material sacrifices. In the third century, as part of an increasing distinction between the clergy and the laity, the language of priesthood began to be more regularly applied to Christian ministers (perhaps more comparatively by Origen but in a straightforward way by Cyprian). The Christian assimilation to the environment in cultic terminology increased throughout the third century and became standard in the fourth century. By then, ministers were priests, church buildings were temples, communion tables were altars, and sacred art was common.”
@paul-you could not be more wrong. Paul talks about his priestly duties, distributing sacraments, Christian altars as opposed to pagan altars and Eucharist. Justin martyr does as well.
You can cite lightfoot's debunked thesis all you want but it doesn't really change the fact that its been debunked
@@mikelopez8564 sorry but you are reading that back into the material. It simply isn’t there.
@@TheMhouk2 Debunked by whom a Roman Catholic apologist?
Just a reminder, Jesus taught salvation through faith in our Divine Father-friend and acceptance of sonship with him. He also taught “in the kingdom of heaven there is neither rich nor poor, free nor bond, male nor female, all are equally the sons and daughters of God.” Jesus treated women as equals at a time when male supremacy was the norm. When a woman was accused of adultery, did he say she should be stoned as the law mandated? No, he went around to each of her accusers and wrote something in the dirt (the names of their mistresses perhaps?) and they all made a hasty retreat. Then Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Curiously, Jesus fit that bill, he was without sin, and yet he cast no stones. It's almost as if to cast a stone would itself be a sin.
Repent
Eric. Jesus Christ also teaches that we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end to be saved! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
But He also told her to go and sin no more.
We are saved by Grace
@@matthewbroderick6287 - yes, I agree with all of that up until you strayed into atonement doctrine territory. The wine in communion was a symbol for the Spirit of Truth, and the bread symbolizes the “bread of life”, which is a reference to his teachings.
bishops, elders and deacons are positions in the early church. the roman catholic priesthood was NOT a part of it. in fact the roman catholic priesthood was not even fully established until the 12th century. Jesus said Himself that He was the head priest (goodbye pope) and all of His followers are priests.
You have a misunderstanding of the roman catholic view then. The Pope is NOT the high priest. The pope, rather, is the successor of Peter, who was the first bishop of rome and was considered the leader of the Early church. The fact that we are all priests does not negate the fact that their can also be a ministerial priesthood.
religion folktales non sense
?
@@russbus1967 specifically catholic is a myth and relies on a fable. any questions
@@leespaner I think there is sufficient evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Namely, that a group of 12 uneducated Palestinians was able to bring their novel religion to the entire world. That such men could do so without the use of miracles would be a miracle unto itself.
@@russbus1967 it seems the emperor Constantine contributed to it. In a decade Christianity became the religion of the Roman empire.
@@russbus1967 the Edict of Milan was like an agreement to treat Christians charitably in the Roman empire.