What Did The Ante-nicene Fathers Believe About Bishops?

[CrimsonKairos]

I thought I'd reproduce some interesting quotes from the writings of the Church Fathers prior to the Council of Nice. I'm not so much trying to prove or support LDS doctrine and practice, just give food for thought. The Father whose writings I'm quoting is identified in bold, a hyperlink to their words online is presented in the form of the chapter from which I'm quoting, their words appear in italics along with sections in bold type that I wish to emphasize, and my own comments appear below the quotations in parentheses.

Who the Clement was to whom [the below excerpt is] ascribed, cannot with absolute certainty be determined. The general opinion is, that he is the same as the person of that name referred to by St. Paul (Phil. 4:3).

First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

Chapter XLII: Order of the Ministers

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.

(The apostles made orderly appointments wherever they went preaching. They tested candidates by the Spirit, and having been satisfied, set them apart as bishops and deacons of the future local congregations.)

Polycarp, ca. 69-155, was the Bishop of Smyrna.

Epistle of Polycarp to the Phillippians

Chapter V: The duties of deacons, youths, and virgins.

In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. [...] Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ.

(The young men were to be subject to presbyters and deacons as if those leaders were God and Christ, respectively. The leaders were to preside with divine authority.)

Ignatius, ca. 35-107 A.D., was the Bishop of Antioch.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

Chapter VI: Have respect to the bishop as to Christ Himself.

Now the more any one sees the bishop [showing forbearance], the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.

(The Church at Ephesus were to consider the bishop as if he were Christ himself.)

Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

Chapter III: Honour your youthful bishop.

Now it becomes you also not to despise the age of your bishop, but to yield him all reverence, according to the will of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not having regard to the manifest youth [of their bishop], but to his knowledge in God; inasmuch as “not the ancient are [necessarily] wise, nor do the aged understand prudence; but there is a spirit in men.” (Job 32:8-9) [...] Samuel also, when he was but a little child, reproved Eli, who was ninety years old, for giving honour to his sons rather than to God (1 Sam. 3:1). In like manner, Jeremiah also received this message from God, “Say not, I am a child” (Jer. 1:7). Solomon too, and Josiah, [exemplified the same thing.] The former, being made king at twelve years of age, gave that terrible and difficult judgment in the case of the two women concerning their children (1 Kgs. 3:16). The latter, coming to the throne when eight years old (2 Kgs. 22; 23) cast down the altars and temples [of the idols], and burned down the groves, for they were dedicated to demons, and not to God. And he slew the false priests, as the corrupters and deceivers of men, and not the worshippers of the Deity. Wherefore youth is not to be despised when it is devoted to God. [...] Timothy the Christ-bearer was young, but hear what his teacher writes to him: “Let no man despise thy youth, but be thou an example of the believers in word and in conduct” (1 Tim. 4:12). It is becoming, therefore, that ye also should be obedient to your bishop, and contradict him in nothing; for it is a fearful thing to contradict any such person. For no one does [by such conduct] deceive him that is visible, but does [in reality] seek to mock Him that is invisible, who, however, cannot be mocked by any one. And every such act has respect not to man, but to God. For God says to Samuel, “They have not mocked thee, but Me” (1 Sam. 8:7). And Moses declares, “For their murmuring is not against us, but against the Lord God” (Ex. 26:8). No one of those has, [in fact,] remained unpunished, who rose up against their superiors. For Dathan and Abiram did not speak against the law, but against Moses (Num. 26:1) and were cast down alive into Hades. [...] Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:20), when he presumed to oppose the priests and the priesthood, was smitten with leprosy. Saul also was dishonoured (1 Sam. 13:11) because he did not wait for Samuel the high priest. It behoves you, therefore, also to reverence your superiors.

(The Church at Magnesus is instructed to submit to their priesthood leaders, even after Christ's resurrection and supposed removal of a need for any priesthood authority among the Churches.)

Chapter VII: Do nothing without the bishop.

As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, “I can of mine own self do nothing,” (John 5:30) so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor layman, do anything without the bishop. Nor let anything appear commendable to you which is destitute of his approval. For every such thing is sinful, and opposed [to the will of] God.

(Again, the authority of the bishop to preside over the Church at Magnesus is emphasized.)

Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

Chapter II: Be subject to the bishop.

Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for “he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God” (Heb. 13:17). Wherefore also, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection. It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things ye do, to do nothing without the bishop. And be ye subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall be found in Him.

(The Church at Tralles should be subject to their bishop, who is accountable to God for watching over their souls.)

Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians

Chapter II: Maintain union with the bishop.

Wherefore, as children of light and truth, flee from division and wicked doctrines; but where the shepherd is, there do ye as sheep follow. For there are many wolves that appear worthy of credit, who, by means of a pernicious pleasure, carry captive those that are running towards God; but in your unity they shall have no place.

(Yet again, the Church at Philadelphia is admonished to be united with their bishop, their shepherd.)

Chapter IV: Have but one Eucharist.

Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God. I have confidence of you in the Lord, that ye will be of no other mind. Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is worthy of God, and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind of] preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; one loaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup is distributed among them all: there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants. Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism (Eph. 4:5); and one Church which the holy apostles established from one end of the earth to the other by the blood of Christ, and by their own sweat and toil; it behoves you also, therefore, as “a peculiar people, and a holy nation,” (Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:9) to perform all things with harmony in Christ. [...] Let governors be obedient to Cæsar; soldiers to those that command them; deacons to the presbyters, as to high-priests; the presbyters, and deacons, and the rest of the clergy, together with all the people, and the soldiers, and the governors, and Cæsar [himself], to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as Christ to the Father. And thus unity is preserved throughout.

(There is to be only one ordinance, i.e. Eucharist/Sacrament, for all the Churches/congregations, just as there is one Lord, and one Church "from one end of the earth to the other." The deacons are to be obedient to the presbyters, the presbyters to to the bishop, and the bishop is to be obedient to Christ. Again this hierarchy of local leadership is emphasized.)

Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

Chapter VIII: Let nothing be done without the bishop.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out [through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord’s might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast. But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid.

(The Christians at Smyrna--and indeed all Christian congregations at that time--are to follow their bishop as Christ follows the Father. Christians may not lawfully perform any ordinances such as the Eucharist/Sacrament or baptism without the bishop's approval.)

Chapter IX: Honour the bishop.

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. For “in Hades there is no one who can confess his sins” (Ps. 6:5). For “behold the man, and his work is before him” (Isa. 62:11). And [the Scripture saith], “My son, honour thou God and the king” (Prov. 24:21). And say I, Honour thou God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the bishop as the high-priest, who bears the image of God—of God, inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in his capacity of a priest. After Him, we must also honour the king. For there is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist. Nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop, who ministers as a priest to God for the salvation of the whole world. Nor, again, is there any one among rulers to be compared with the king, who secures peace and good order to those over whom he rules. He who honours the bishop shall be honoured by God, even as he that dishonours him shall be punished by God. For if he that rises up against kings is justly held worthy of punishment, inasmuch as he dissolves public order, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who presumes to do anything without the bishop, thus both destroying the [Church’s] unity, and throwing its order into confusion? For the priesthood is the very highest point of all good things among men, against which whosoever is mad enough to strive, dishonours not man, but God, and Christ Jesus, the First-born, and the only High Priest, by nature, of the Father. Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.

(As a rebel against an earthly king is to be punished for disturbing public order, so also one who rebels against the bishop is to be punished by God. Anyone who strives against the priesthood dishonours the Father and the Son. The hierarchy of priesthood authority in congregations is laid down as: lay members are to be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ; Christ to the Father.)

Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp

Chapter VI: The duties of the Christian flock.

Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbytery, and to the deacons: may I have my portion with them from God!

(The bishop's authority again emphasized.)

Interesting how much emphasis was put on the role of bishop as president of the various Churches (read: congregations) throughout Greece, Israel and Asia.

[sixpacktr]

Hey CK,

Can you give me the name of some books where these types of writings are at? Is there a compilation, or is it in a bunch of different ones? I would love to read the words of some of these "men on the ground" as it were that were in leadership positions during this time in the church...

[CrimsonKairos]

Go here. You can read them online for free, or become a member of the site and I think download PDFs. If not you'll have to buy them, but at least you can read them free online.

All the quotes from my original post are from:

Vol. I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus

Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus.

Justin Martyr has some fascinating writings doctrinally, or should I say, in terms of expounding the scriptures. Read the Dialogue with Trypho for an interesting debate between a Jew and a Christian.

[Doctor Steuss]

sixpacktr,

If you want to go for the gusto (and break the bank), get this: Ante-Nicene Fathers: 10 Volumes

[CrimsonKairos]

Show off. B)

[Doctor Steuss]

Show off. B)

LOL!

Well... since I wear tattered clothing and drive a piece-of-junk car because of all the money I <strike>waste</strike> spend on books, I have to find some way to show off. :)

PS.

Fantastic site: Tah-dah!

[CrimsonKairos]

Suh-weet. B)

[prisonchaplain]

sixpacktr,

If you want to go for the gusto (and break the bank), get this: Ante-Nicene Fathers: 10 Volumes

Check on Ebay. Since these works are public domain, you can probably by a CD-ROM version for less than $10 delivered.

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

sixpacktr,

If you want to go for the gusto (and break the bank), get this: Ante-Nicene Fathers: 10 Volumes

Check on Ebay. Since these works are public domain, you can probably by a CD-ROM version for less than $10 delivered.

Ain't Ebay grand!?

Just remember (while you're looking to purchase [or research via internet]), not all translations are created equally.

[Jason]

I'd like to share a couple of others that CK left out. I'd especially like to hear your thoughts on these.

"I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, c. 105. ANF 1:61.)

"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishop in the churches, and the succession of these men to our own times. . . . for they [the apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men." (St. Irenaeus. c. 180. ANF 1:415.)

"But deacons should remember that the Lord chose apostles -- that is, bishops and overseers. But apostles appointed for themselves deacons after the ascension of the Lord into heaven, as ministers of their episcopacy and of the church." (St. Cyprian, c. 250. ANF 5:344)

"You should know that the bishop is in the church, and the church is in the bishop. If anyone is not with the bishop, he is not in the church." (St. Cyprian, ANF 5:374-375.)

[CrimsonKairos]

The thing that got me when I looked into all this (including your additions, Jason) was that it wasn't an isolated "bishops are good, follow the bishop" comment in one ANF's epistle. There is a pattern of "follow the bishop" advice in many, many epistles to various congregations. Yet today, the priesthood of believers is all that's required. I'm not arguing here for the LDS priesthood authority, but for the concept of priesthood authority being necessary, period.

[Traveler]

Interesting stuff - anybody know where one can obtain the complete published works of the document produced at Nice in 325 AD?

The Traveler

[Jason]

The thing that got me when I looked into all this (including your additions, Jason) was that it wasn't an isolated "bishops are good, follow the bishop" comment in one ANF's epistle. There is a pattern of "follow the bishop" advice in many, many epistles to various congregations. Yet today, the priesthood of believers is all that's required. I'm not arguing here for the LDS priesthood authority, but for the concept of priesthood authority being necessary, period.

I agree. But for the Apostolic Churches, following the Bishop is the same thing as following the Prophet in your Church. I was hoping that you'd notice that the Early Fathers taught that Bishops are the Successors to the Apostles.

It seems many LDS don't understand that point. (Whether you believe they still maintain the keys of authority is another matter.)

[CrimsonKairos]

No, I got that. After all, the Roman Catholic Pope is merely the Bishop of Rome (well, used to be, now he's in the Vatican City ).

[Jason]

Sure, ++Benedict XVI is Bishop of Vatican City, and Rome I presume. (I don't think he'd ever relinquish his title to ROME!)

The thing that bugs me on the authority issue is how many people will say: "Well, you don't have apostles anymore and we do!". But what they're not realizing is that the Bishop is an Apostle (or even a Presbyter and Deacon as one of my quotes suggests!).

[sixpacktr]

Thanks CK and Doc S,

I've added both sites to my favorites so that I can recall them easily later (I have to do SOMETHING at work!).

Thanks again...

[CrimsonKairos]

Sixpack, you're welcome. Enjoy! B)

The thing that bugs me on the authority issue is how many people will say: "Well, you don't have apostles anymore and we do!". But what they're not realizing is that the Bishop is an Apostle (or even a Presbyter and Deacon as one of my quotes suggests!).

I think it might be more accurate to say that the bishop was the successor to the apostle as regards guiding the local congregations (the Church at Smyrna, Magnesus, etc...). Why would bishops take the place--but not the office--of the apostles? The apostles were sent out to preach in all the world. What I got from Clement and Ignatius is that the apostles would preach, baptize, establish a congregation, and then appoint bishops, elders/presbyters, deacons, et al... to administer the ordinances and doctrines when the apostles moved on to teach elsewhere.

But I know this is a matter of personal opinion and perhaps I'm demonstrating confirmation bias, but perhaps not.

[Jason]

I think it might be more accurate to say that the bishop was the successor to the apostle as regards guiding the local congregations (the Church at Smyrna, Magnesus, etc...). Why would bishops take the place--but not the office--of the apostles? The apostles were sent out to preach in all the world. What I got from Clement and Ignatius is that the apostles would preach, baptize, establish a congregation, and then appoint bishops, elders/presbyters, deacons, et al... to administer the ordinances and doctrines when the apostles moved on to teach elsewhere.

But I know this is a matter of personal opinion and perhaps I'm demonstrating confirmation bias, but perhaps not.

I think you're onto something there CK. The questions remain: Did the Apostles give the same "keys" of authority to the Bishops? (I think the passages quoted show they did.) And does the missionary activity of an Apostle necessitate they remain in existence? (Look at your own Apostles for an answer here?)

[CrimsonKairos]

Well the purpose of the apostle was not just missionary work. The NT shows that Jesus sent out seventies to proselytize as well. What the apostles had that seventies or bishops or deacons, et al, didn't have was a special witness of Christ's literal resurrection.

Acts 1 (refer to the qualifications required of an apostle to fill Judas's spot)

Acts 4:33

Acts 10:39-42

So in that sense, I think the apostles are necessary as special witnesses of Christ's resurrection, even if their main function is not dust'n'sandal proselytizing door-to-door. And to anticipate any questions, yes, I do believe the LDS apostles today have seen the risen Lord and are special witnesses of Christ's resurrection as the apostles of old.

It seems to me that if the apostles had authority to "call and install" bishops over various congregations, then the apostles would have authority to preside over the bishops, though so far there is no explicit mention of this arrangement in the ANF (which isn't conclusive in and of itself).

[Jason]

Well the purpose of the apostle was not just missionary work. The NT shows that Jesus sent out seventies to proselytize as well. What the apostles had that seventies or bishops or deacons, et al, didn't have was a special witness of Christ's literal resurrection.

Acts 1 (refer to the qualifications required of an apostle to fill Judas's spot)

Acts 4:33

Acts 10:39-42

So in that sense, I think the apostles are necessary as special witnesses of Christ's resurrection, even if their main function is not dust'n'sandal proselytizing door-to-door.

Ok. I'm with you so far.

And to anticipate any questions, yes, I do believe the LDS apostles today have seen the risen Lord and are special witnesses of Christ's resurrection as the apostles of old.

All of them? I seem to recall that some have stated they have not?

It seems to me that if the apostles had authority to "call and install" bishops over various congregations, then the apostles would have authority to preside over the bishops, though so far there is no explicit mention of this arrangement in the ANF (which isn't conclusive in and of itself).

I recall a story where some people visited St. John on Patmos about a question, only to have him refer them back to the Bishop that is in charge of the Church.

Furthermore, I seem to recall that there was no higher authority than a Bishop, simply because there was no jurisdiction larger than that of a regional Bishopric/Diocese/Stake.

[CrimsonKairos]

All of them? I seem to recall that some have stated they have not?

Do you know where I can read that? I don't remember seeing that, but I'll check it out if you remember the source.

I recall a story where some people visited St. John on Patmos about a question, only to have him refer them back to the Bishop that is in charge of the Church.

Was the question a doctrinal question? Or was it a local concern like, "What time should our congregation meet on Sunday?" I'm being ridiculously simplistic with that example, but if it was something like the latter, I can understand St. John saying, "Ask your local bishop." Even in the case of a doctrinal question, if St. John knew the bishop had the answer, again I think it would be appropriate to say, "Ask your bishop," just as an apostle today would likely do.

Where can I read that story?

Furthermore, I seem to recall that there was no higher authority than a Bishop, simply because there was no jurisdiction larger than that of a regional Bishopric/Diocese/Stake.

Other than the ANF we've mutually cited in this thread thus far, where do you derive this concept? It would seem to me that when Christ charged the apostles to go forth and teach/baptize the world (Matt. 28:19-20), he was giving them effectively the right to preside over the gospel work worldwide. Thus, if a bishop had local authority, granted by the apostles, then the apostles' worldwide presidency would be above that of the bishops in matters of Church-wide policy and practices.

In fact, I think all these concepts are illustrated clearly in Acts 15, which I will summarize and comment on below.

ACTS 15

v.1 Judaizers (Jewish Christians) teach Gentile Christian converts that they must be circumcised according to Moses' Law.

v.2 Paul and Barnabas dispute this claim. They all agree Paul and Barnabas should ask the apostles at Jerusalem to settle the matter.

vv. 3-4 Paul and Barnabas tell the apostles, elders and congregation at Jerusalem how the Gentiles have been converted to the truth.

v.5 Jewish Christians who were still members of the Pharisaic sect argue that Gentile converts must keep the law of Moses.

v.6 The church leadership of Jerusalem--apostles and elders--discuss the issue.

vv. 7-9 The apostle Peter explains that God had already authorized the baptism of Gentiles (Acts 11 esp. vv.17-18) and that Gentile converts had received the Holy Ghost and been purified by faith, not the works of the law of Moses.

vv.10-11 Peter warns against requiring the Gentile converts to live the law of Moses when even the Jews couldn't live it. Peter concludes that both Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians are saved by grace and not by the works of Mosaic law.

v.12 Paul and Barnabas spoke next and explain the miracles God had done among the Gentiles.

vv.13-21 The apostle James cites Simeon and then quotes Amos 9:11-12 to the effect that it was prophesied that the Gentiles/heathen would one day be called by the name of the Lord. He concludes that the only counsel the Gentile Christians should receive should regard avoiding heathen practices they likely participated in or knew before their conversion.

v.22 The church at Jerusalem--including lay members and leaders--unanimously decide to send a letter to the Gentiles at Antioch by the hands of Paul, Barnabas, Judas and Silas, the latter two being "chief men" among the brethren (v.32 says Judas and Silas were prophets).

vv.23-29 The text of this letter is recorded. I consider this equivalent to modern-day LDS "Official Declarations" regarding polygamy and the priesthood ban.

vv.30-31 Paul, Barnabas, Judas and Silas travel to Antioch and read the letter sent by the apostles at Jerusalem. The Gentile converts rejoice to know that they don't have to live the law of Moses.

vv.32-35 Judas and Silas preach somewhat, and then Judas returns to the apostles at Jerusalem. Paul, Barnabas and Silas remain in Antioch.

vv.36 Paul tells Barnabas they should go and check on the congregations of Christians in every city where they have preached. This sounds to me like Paul wants to verify that there are no false doctrines or practices in the other churches besides the one at Antioch.

vv.37-41 Paul and Barnabas disagree, split ways. Paul and Silas go through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the congregations there.

To me, this whole chapter demonstrates that when questions of doctrine or ordinances came up, the matter was settled by the apostles at Jerusalem. The controversy over Gentiles needing circumcision originated in the church at Antioch, but the bishop of Antioch didn't settle the dispute. The apostles at Jerusalem did.

Interesting, no?

[Jason]

Do you know where I can read that? I don't remember seeing that, but I'll check it out if you remember the source.

It seems to me that some of the early Apostles in Joseph Smith's day lamented about not seeing the LORD, likewise some Apostle in recent times stated (was it Oaks?) that they don't ask whether anyone has actually seen the LORD (presumably because some have not?).

Was the question a doctrinal question? Or was it a local concern like, "What time should our congregation meet on Sunday?" I'm being ridiculously simplistic with that example, but if it was something like the latter, I can understand St. John saying, "Ask your local bishop." Even in the case of a doctrinal question, if St. John knew the bishop had the answer, again I think it would be appropriate to say, "Ask your bishop," just as an apostle today would likely do.

Where can I read that story?

Frankly I have to locate it first. It may just be some bogus rumor a Roman Catholic wanted everyone to hear.

Other than the ANF we've mutually cited in this thread thus far, where do you derive this concept? It would seem to me that when Christ charged the apostles to go forth and teach/baptize the world (Matt. 28:19-20), he was giving them effectively the right to preside over the gospel work worldwide. Thus, if a bishop had local authority, granted by the apostles, then the apostles' worldwide presidency would be above that of the bishops in matters of Church-wide policy and practices.

Consider how quickly the Apostles appointed a replacement to fill the quorum. Why? And when one of their number fell, why didn't they feel the same sense of urgency to fill it as previously?

Had the Quorum fulfilled it's purpose? Other than to begin missionary work and begin to establish the Church, what other reason would exist to continue their council?

Paul was an apostle, but not one of the Twelve.

To me, this whole chapter demonstrates that when questions of doctrine or ordinances came up, the matter was settled by the apostles at Jerusalem. The controversy over Gentiles needing circumcision originated in the church at Antioch, but the bishop of Antioch didn't settle the dispute. The apostles at Jerusalem did.

Interesting, no?

Certainly. Did you catch that it was James, not Peter, who presided at the council in Jerusalem?

I might point out (and frankly, we're all grasping at shadows of history here) that this was still rather early in the Church. By the end of the first century, the church was established enough that the need of the quorum was not necessary. Regional leaders, holding all the keys, and presumably receiving revelation from God on all matters, would be sufficient as had been the case in every dispensation previous.

No?

[CrimsonKairos]

Consider how quickly the Apostles appointed a replacement to fill the quorum. Why? And when one of their number fell, why didn't they feel the same sense of urgency to fill it as previously?

Which instance do you mean when you cite one of their number falling? I know they replaced Judas in Acts 1, but after that what do you refer to?

Did you catch that it was James, not Peter, who presided at the council in Jerusalem?

I don't think James presided over the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. I simply think he offered the idea that everyone--including Peter--was comfortable sustaining. In other words, I think he happened to be the one who said what many were thinking. But again, this is personal opinion and I'm not saying it's my way or the highway.

Regional leaders, holding all the keys, and presumably receiving revelation from God on all matters, would be sufficient as had been the case in every dispensation previous.

I'm not sure I'd buy that, no. In previous dispensations, it seems that there was always a hierarchy of priesthood authority, even if a tenuous one or a lack of its existence being recorded.

Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. Each of the twelve tribes didn't have their own high priest with their own feasts and festivals. There seems to me to have always been an emphasis on uniformity of practice, belief and covenant.

I still believe Christ would want a central authority to preside over the various New Testament congregations or Churches in order to ensure unity of belief, ordinances, and policy. But again, it could be argued this is merely confirmation bias rearing its ugly head so I'm not going to try to argue it to your satisfaction. It's just a belief of mine, and interesting to discuss.

[Jason]

Which instance do you mean when you cite one of their number falling? I know they replaced Judas in Acts 1, but after that what do you refer to?

Just the one in Acts. If there was another instance, it would add considerable weight to your belief that the Apostolic office was meant to be continued, and not limited to a Bishopric.

I don't think James presided over the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. I simply think he offered the idea that everyone--including Peter--was comfortable sustaining. In other words, I think he happened to be the one who said what many were thinking. But again, this is personal opinion and I'm not saying it's my way or the highway.

It is my understanding that all Bible scholars say that James presided over the Council. Do you know of a source, LDS or not, that says otherwise?

I'm not sure I'd buy that, no. In previous dispensations, it seems that there was always a hierarchy of priesthood authority, even if a tenuous one or a lack of its existence being recorded.

Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek.

I'm not sure I see where you get this idea from. I mean I know why you believe this, but I'm not seeing it. Let's stick to pre-Mosaic times.

I still believe Christ would want a central authority to preside over the various New Testament congregations or Churches in order to ensure unity of belief, ordinances, and policy. But again, it could be argued this is merely confirmation bias rearing its ugly head so I'm not going to try to argue it to your satisfaction. It's just a belief of mine, and interesting to discuss.

Probably confirmation bias.

But let's pretend for a moment it's not. Why is a "central authority" really necessary? One might argue that Joseph Smith didn't have that in mind originally, but in Nauvoo years decided he was alone in charge.

What about the so-called Patriarchal Priesthood?

[CrimsonKairos]

It is my understanding that all Bible scholars say that James presided over the Council. Do you know of a source, LDS or not, that says otherwise?

Yeah, me. B) Seriously though, it just seemed to me that Peter was leading the meeting. Amid the disputing, he stands up and lays it out in Acts 15:7-11. In fact, in those verses, Peter refers to the revelation he received concerning it being okay to baptize Gentile converts and welcome them into the Churches. In the end, neither your position nor mine can be decisively proved with just the text of Acts 15.

I'm not sure I see where you get this idea from. I mean I know why you believe this, but I'm not seeing it. Let's stick to pre-Mosaic times.

Weren't Abraham and Melchizedek before the time of Moses? What do you mean by "pre-Mosaic?"

Why is a "central authority" really necessary?

Because there will always be disputes among mortals about what the scriptures mean, and even what the words of living prophets mean. If God said, "Bishops, project your best intrepretations and ideas onto your local congregations, even if they differ from other Bishops' ideas," then quickly division, confusion and apostasy would result. It's just human nature.

Even with telephones, satellites, and the internet, the LDS HQ in SLC still has to run around putting out fires so to speak and making sure the same things are taught, practiced and believed worldwide. Imagine if SLC sent a letter out to all the wards saying, "Study the scriptures, pay attention to your bishops, and live the gospel. You're on your own." I'm convinced that many, many congregations would sink into apostasy within 50 years.

But there's a more pragmatic and pressing need for a central authority. God's kingdom isn't a democracy, though it operates upon the principle of unanimous consent. God reveals who He has chosen as his leaders (or Kings, in the OT) and then requires us to sustain them. We don't "run for office" and seek votes like in a political democracy. Hence, there needs to be a central, presiding authority to speak and act for God in calling Bishops to replace old ones, etc...

If the NT congregations in Antioch, Smyrna, et al, were to be self-sufficient and accountable only to their Bishops, then how would they decide who the successive Bishops would be when the old ones died or could no longer serve? Without an external, central presiding leadership, it would devolve into local nominations and elections, not divine appointments from above. Does that make sense?

Now I'm not sure where you're headed with the Patriarchal Priesthood comment. Care to expand on that?