I have recently been discussing the subject of Bishops (overseers) and Elders (presbyters) with Paidion, and I thought it might make an interesting discussion for everyone. Paidion pointed out that the term ‘bishop’ and ‘elder’ in the NT is interchangeable. The argument goes that… ‘an elder is a bishop, and a bishop is an elder.’ They are two words meaning the same thing (in the context of church government).

I happen to think that the two words mean two different offices within the church, and the 2nd century fathers give testimony to this, such as: Ignatius, Hermas, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Cyprian, all of whom were born and ministered in the 2nd century (and some cases, ministered in the 3rd century as well). The distinctions in church leadership models affect our choices of denominations, such as Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist, Uniting, Episcopal and Pentecostal (I know a man who became a minister based on how many hours he had ‘spoken in tongues’). I hope there are some posters here who have some opinions and insights to offer.

Steve

How about posting the testimony of Hermas, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Cyprian which you believe indicate two different offices? If you do, please give references. As to Ignatius, it is questionable whether any of the writings ascribed to him are genuine. Or if some of them are, they seem to be heavily interpolated.

I think they are interchangable in scripture and thus were not different offices in the first century church. As the church grew though, there soon came a “need” to have different offices in the church. Was this organization of the church inspired by God or the work of man? I think it was likely both, but not meant to be a necessary pattern for all fellowships to follow. I think God inspires different fellowships to organize differently to expand His kingdom using many different approaches.

I am not entirely sure the terms were interchangeable in the first century church. I see the references in Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23 to be very difficult to interchange, unless you believe, as has been suggested elsewhere, that Jerusalem had from 2-6 bishops. I don’t find the plurality of bishops found in early churches, but you do find a plurality of “elders”. For instance, when the ECF’s give lists of successive bishops, they always mention one bishop succeeding another bishop. Again, see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, chapter 11 (the entire chapter speaks of a replacement bishop [singular] after the former one had died). Eusebius mentions that the “episcopal throne” of Jerusalem was held by James, and after James died a successor was chosen, which was Symeon:

Passage of the succession of bishops, as in Eusebius, give undeniable evidence that the church structure contained a singular bishop, and yet there were multiple elders (in Acts 15).

Steve

Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 3, chapter 12
“Innumerable commands like these are written in the Holy Scriptures, pertaining to chosen persons, some to presbyters, some to bishops, some to deacons.”

Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book 6, chapter 14
“According to my opinion, the grades here in the church, of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, are imitations of the angelic glory…”

Tertullian, On Prescriptions Against Heretics, Book 11, chapter 41
“And so it comes to pass that [among the heretics] today one man is their bishop, tomorrow another; today is a deacon who tomorrow is their reader; today he is a presbyter who tomorrow is a layman. For even on layman they impose the functions of priesthood.”

Hermas, The Pastor, Book 1, chapter 5
“Those square white stones that fitted exactly into each other are apostles, bishops, teachers [elders] and deacons, who have lived in Godly purity, and have acted as bishops, teachers [elders] and deacons chastely and reverently to the elect of God.”

Cyprian, Letters of, Epistle 25, verse 1
“To Caecilius Cyprian, bishop of the church of Carthage, Moyses and Maximus, presbyters [elders] and Nicostratus and Rufinius, deacons…”

Note, too, that Cyprian says elsewhere…
“Moreover, I also wrote to this effect at some length to the clergy in Rome, who were at the time managing affairs without a bishop…”
The letter Cyprian wrote when there was NO bishop at Rome, was addressed to the Presbyters. (see books.google.com.au/books?id=7lZZBPSo9t4C&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=Moyses+and+Maximus&source=bl&ots=1LVo22JfkN&sig=6tpfcplw6REvp9vbQ0faPg48VSY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hI-rUtH7Du6XiAfVx4HICQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Moyses%20and%20Maximus&f=false)

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 35
“In the preceding book, I have shown that all the disciples of the Lord are Levites and priests…”
In reference to the “Levites” and the “priests” being a 3rd or 4th century term.

There are many other references, but I mainly gave only 1 reference from each father. The continuation of bishop/elder distinction carry’s on, of course, right throughout history. To be fair, there are many reference that make no distinction, but theses passages must be read as general comments in light of the widespread practice of bishop/elder distinctions.

I assume that Ignatius’ separation of offices of bishop and elder is one of the chief reasons for you believing Ignatius (and the Constitutions) to be spurious. Are there other reasons for you claiming Ignatius to be spurious?

Steve

How can you consider Eusebius’ statements as giving "undeniable evidence that the church structure contained a singular bishop, and yet there were multiple elders "? Eusebius was born no earlier than 260 A.D. and died in 340 A.D. By that time a hierarcy began to develop in the church and “bishops” came into being. So certainly, writers would try to identify their system with the church of the first century.That’s what the RC and the Eastern Orthodox do to this very day, even though their church system and practice differ widely from the first-century church.

Some translators of the New Testament have rendered “ἐπισκοπη” (episkopā) as bishop, but should have rendered it as “overseer”.
In the first-century church there was no such thing as “bishop”. This was a later development.

In the church that existed during the days in which the events in Acts took place as well as years afterward, the elders WERE overseers.

Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor… (1Tim. 5:17 ESV)

If the elders rule, then they were overseers.

And here is absolute evidence that “elders” and “overseers” were the same thing in the church during the days of the events recorded in Acts:

Luke wrote the following sentence:
From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. (Acts 20:17)

In the next ten verses, Paul gives a speech to these elders, and then he calls these same people “overseers”!

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the holy spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

If “elders” and “overseers” had been two different offices in the church at Ephesus, why did Luke the writer of Acts call them “elders”, whereas Paul called the very same individuals “overseers” (translated by some as “bishops”)?

I have already demonstrated that the distinction between “elder” and “bishop” was a 2nd century reference. You keep trying to stretch the date out to better fit your hypothesis. The Catholics and Orthodox cannot be blamed for customs of the 2nd century. This 2nd century custom was practiced as the NT text was understood, and not an interpolation as you suggest.

James was known as “the bishop of Jerusalem” from the 1st century, when Clement of Rome had written to James:

Eusebius simply outlines the history of the succession of bishops, which was a custom since the 1st century.

List of Bishops of Alexandria
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_Orthodox_Patriarchs_of_Alexandria

List of Bishops of Antioch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch

List of Bishops of Athens
orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_Archbishops_of_Athens

List of Bishops of Edessa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bishops_of_Edessa

List of Bishops of Rome
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

All of these lists have a singular bishop. What you have imagined in your reading of the New Testament is that there were 2-6 bishops in any given church, and this is owing to the mention of “elders” (plural) mentioned in Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23. Either Jerusalem had these multiple bishops, as you suggest, or these were simply elders who accompanied the bishop while James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. If your view is correct, please show your lists of multiple bishops. You have no evidence to support your theory, whereas I have supplied a comprehensive list of evidences that contradict your view. I understand how hard it is to let go of a pet belief. It is up to you.

With all due respect, Paidion, this is only evidence of your locked-in theology. You think this verse is “absolute evidence”; whereas you can really only show that bishops were chosen from among the elders, and the two groups were consequently spoken of as one group. You need to illustrate “absolute evidence” that your view was understood ‘only’ in the way you describe by the early church fathers, and this, I have shown, is impossible.

Steve

You have offered the following quotes in your attempt to demonstrate that elders and overseers were two different position in the second century church:

Cyprian was born in the third century after the overseer/elder distinction came about.

You have no basis for identifying teachers with elders. Yes, some teachers were elders, and some were not. Likewise some elders were teachers, and some were not.

In this quote Tertullian did not necessarily indicate that “bishops” and presbyters were two different peoples. Rather they were two different functions of the same group of people. So he indicates that amond the heritics, they keep changing overseers, and also among the heretics a person can quickly become an elder one day and an non-elder the next. There is no permancy.

Not only that, but Tertullian became a Montanist in his later years, and thus had beliefs and practices which differered from that of the original church. For example, according to Wikipedia:

So Tertullian’s Christology sounds quite a bit like Arianism before its time. Of course (as I see it), Trinitarianism wasn’t the view of the main line second century church either.

Of course, ALL disciples of the Lord are Levites and Priests rather than there being a certain order of these under the Old Covenant. The writer of Revelation indicates that the redeemed have been made kings and priests (Rev. 1:6, 5:10). Under the Old Covenant there had to be Levites or priests who approached God on behalf of the people. But under the New Covenant all alike can approach Him, and thus ALL act as “Levites or priests”. Jesus made clear that after His resurrection, his disciples could approach God directly.

"And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you. (John 16:23)

So this quote from Irenæus says nothing about overseers and elders.

Here you’ve gotten somewhere with your argument. Here is the only evidence which you have presented so far that in the second century, someone taught that “bishops” and presbyters were two different groups of people.

However, Clement wrote at the close of the second century when the church began to change, and doubtless the overseer/elder distinction was one of those changes. The introductory note to Clement of Alexandria, found in The Ante-Nicene Father Volume 2, the very first sentence reads, “The second century of illumination is drawing to a close, as the great name of this Father comes into view, and introduces a new stage of the Church’s progress.”

Clement of Rome who wrote to the Corinthians shortly after Paul and Peter’s death, makes no disctinction between people who were overseers and those who were presbyters (as Luke did not do so in the book of Acts which I previously quoted, but indicated that they were the same persons.)

Hi Paidion,

I fail to see how Cyprian has anything to do with your reference to Eusebius. The info on Eusebius actually destroys your own premise, as you say: “By that time (260AD-340AD) a hierarcy began to develop in the church and “bishops” came into being.” The passage of Cyprian was made before this period, so it negates what you have said.

I have good evidence for making the connection of ‘teachers’ with ‘elders’; but I think you would dismiss this based on your pre-judgment, as you have done with other passages I have offered as evidence.

No, Tertullian made his views clear here and elsewhere. For instance:

Again"

Regardless of what derogative view you might invent against Tertullian; here he gives clear evidence of the 2nd and 3rd century distinctions of the offices of “elder” and “bishop”.

This criticism of Tertullian, based on Jerome, is unfounded. It is ironic that you accept the truthfulness of one historian, Jerome, while rejecting the truthfulness of Eusebius. Claims need to be verified. Even if Tertullian became a Montanist, there is evidence to show that early Montanism was very different from late Montanism.

This is a catholic view… often leveled at the early church fathers because they differed in theology to the Nicene creed. It proves nothing.

IMO, all you are doing here is trying to divert the subject elsewhere, and to deflect anything Tertullian says because he gives evidence against your own views of “elder/bishop”.

No, I have given you a great deal of evidence, while you have given NONE! You are simply deflecting by giving excuses why you do not need to listen to certain fathers, even though they give clear evidence that your view (on elders/bishops) was not a later innovation, as you have claimed.

Your argument is based on silence. According to your logic, Clement does not mention anything about humans reaching the moon, so it cannot have happened. This is a very unstable reasoning, and it leads to any sort of ridiculous conclusions. It is clear you have made your mind up, and no amount of evidence will suffice to impress upon you. That is your choice, and you are entitled to hold your views religiously. No problem.

Steve

A senior moment. Confusion.

NOT SO, The passage I quoted is not “silence” concerning the subject. I quote again:

In this part of the letter, Clement clearly links the episcopate (body of overseers) whom certain sectarian person wished to eject, with the presbyters who had already died. There were the same class of people. It was just that some were still living and others had died. They were all overseers and were all presbyters. Even more clear is the passage in Acts to which I referred… Luke clearly identified the elders whom Paul called together as “elders”. The same body of men, Paul called “overseers”.

There is no evidence that any letters from Clement of Rome surive except his letter to the Corinthians.

Yes, and this can easily be explained to accommodate the practice of Hermas, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and many others. You have read this passage with the expectation that the term presbyters is strictly referring to bishops. Sometimes the scriptures speak this way, and sometimes they don’t (Acts 15). It is not uncommon to refer to all of the bishops as “elders” (generally), or to distinguish them according to their distinct offices (specifically). You are insisting that these terms can only be used according to your definition - whereas the fathers had clearly used this term generally and specifically, as it is also in the scriptures.

That is your opinion. I am certain that you have not looked at all of the evidence.

Steve

Have you? If so, please provide it.

I don’t think any of amount of evidence will change your views, Paidion. You are very entrenched in what you have decided to be true. It is best that we just leave it that. Thanks.

Although quotes from the 1st century Bishop, Ignatius, have been deliberately kept out of this debate thus far (because Paidion believes Ignatius’ works were authored [or interpolated] at a later time); I personally do not hold the same view as Paidion. Paidion believes that the distinction between “bishop” and “elder” was falsified into the text to agree with 4th century customs. If this was true, then why did the interpolators not also change the text to identify with the practice of celibacy. Paidion’s view cannot be supported with evidence, although it is widely held by dissonant exegetes. I do not hold this view of the dissonant exegetes; except that I believe that some texts were altered (i.e., the Latin texts) in order to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of Ignatius period. These interpolations were made in the Latin translation of the Greek (AKA., the longer and shorter versions); but I will here supply relevant texts from Ignatius’ Greek version, which I believe to be pure:

Ignatius, To the Magnesians, Chapter I
“I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas, your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow servant, the deacon Sotio.”

Ignatius, To the Magnesians, Chapter VI
“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.”

Ignatius, To the Magnesians, Chapter XIII
“… with your most admirable bishop, and the well-formed spiritual crown of your presby­tery, and the deacons, who are according to God.”

Ignatius, To the Philadelphians, Chapter IV
“There is one bishop, along with the presbyters and deacons, my fellow servants.”

Ignatius, To the Trallians, Chapter III
“Let everyone reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ; and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father; and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no church.”

Ignatius, To the Trallians, Chapter VII
*“He who does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.” *

Ignatius, To the Ephesians, Chapter II
“Being subject to the bishop and the presbyter, you may in all respects be sanctified.”

Ignatius, To the Ephesians, Chapter XX
“Obey the bishop and the presbyters with an undivided mind.”

Below are some more quotations from 2nd century father, Clement of Alexandria, whom Paidion thought was a worthy witness:

Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book III, Chapter 12
“Innumerable commands like these are written in the Holy Scriptures, pertaining to chosen persons: some to presbyters, some to bishops, some to deacons.”

Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book IV, Chapter 13
“According to my opinion, the grades here in the church, of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, are imitations of the angelic glory, and of that arrangement which (the Scriptures say) awaits those who, following the footsteps of the apostles, have lived in perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel.”

I will follow with some more conclusive evidence on the singularity of bishops in each church, which Paidion also believes to be a later invention.

Note, I am in total agreement with Paidion that there were some latter interpolations in writings, particularly in reference to the Trinity and the primacy of the Chair of Rome (Pope). When one is unraveling the historical writings, one needs to be very careful about plucking up evidence to support our hypothesis, while ignoring all other evidence. We need to be resolved that our hypothesis might be wrong.

Steve

[size=150]Succession of Bishops[/size]

Following is a list of quotes to demonstrate succession of ministries, which in the case of the “bishop”, this office was passed from one man to another, not to several different people. Paidion believes that each church had between 2-6 bishops, yet nowhere is this to be found. The reason for this number is that such a conclusion would be the necessary reading of Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22 & 23, if the “elders” mentioned (in Acts) are actually “bishops”. This view is not supported by scripture or by history. Acts 15 demonstrates that “elders” was a term that referred to an office other than that of a “bishop”.

Cyprian, Epistle 9:2
“In smaller sins, sinners may do penance for a set time and come to public confession according to the rules of discipline. They then receive the right of communion through the imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy.”

Cyprian, Epistle 75:5
“He cannot be reckoned as a bishop who succeeds no one. For he has despised the evangelical and apostolic tradition, springing from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the church can neither have nor hold to the church in any way. . . . How can he be esteemed a pastor, who succeeds to no one, but begins from himself? For the true shepherd remains and presides over the church of God by successive ordination. Therefore, the other one becomes a stranger and a profane person, an enemy of the Lord’s peace.”

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3:3
*“The blessed apostles, then, founded and built up the church [in Rome]. They committed the office of bishop into the hands of Linus. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus. After him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the office of bishop.” *

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 32:8
“True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles and the ancient constitution of the church throughout all the world. It also consists in the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of the bishops. For by this they have handed down that church which exists in every place and which has come down even unto us. She is guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine. She neither receives any addition to, nor does she allow any diminishing of, the truths which she believes. True knowledge also consists of reading the Word of God without falsification, but with a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures— both without danger and without blasphemy. Above all, it consists in the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts of God.”

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 36:2
“It is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles. For those presbyters, together with the succession of the bishops, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But we should hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever. For they are either heretics of perverse minds, or else they are schismatics who are puffed up and self-pleasing. Or, perhaps, they are hypocrites, acting this way for the sake of money and vainglory. . . . Therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof from all such persons and to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, hold the doctrine of the apostles. For they, together with the order of presbyters, display sound speech and blameless conduct for the confirmation and correction of others.”

Tertullian, On Prescriptions Against Heretics, Chapter 32
“Let them [the heretics] produce the original records of their churches. Let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that the first bishop of theirs can show for his ordainer and predecessor one of the apostles or apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers. For example, the church of Smyrna records that Polycarp was placed there by John. Likewise, the church of Rome demonstrates Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way, the other churches similarly exhibit [their list of bishops], whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.”

Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 17
"Of giving [baptism], the chief priest (who is the bishop) has the right. In the next place, the presbyters and deacons—yet, not without the bishop’s authority, on account of the honor of the church. For when it is preserved, peace is preserved. In addition to these, laymen have the right. For what is equally received can be equally given. So, unless bishops, presbyters, or deacons are present at that location, other disciples are called to the work. . . . But how much more is the rule of reverence and modesty necessary to laymen—seeing that these powers belong to their superiors. . . . The most holy apostle has said, “all things are lawful, but not all expedient.”

Origen, First Principles, Book 4:9
“We cling to the standard of the heavenly church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles.”

Dionysius of Alexandria, Epistle to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, Epistle 5
“…understand, however, my brother that … all those at the head of the churches everywhere are of one mind. They all rejoice exceedingly because of the peace [from persecution] that has been restored beyond all expectation. I might mention Demetrianus in Antioch, Theoctistus in Caesaria; Mazabanes in Aelia, … Marinus in Tyre, Heliodorus in Laodicea, … Helenus in Tarsus (and with him all the churches of Cilicia), and Firmilian and all Cappadocia. Now, I have named only the more illustrious of the bishops, so as to not make my letter too long.”

Malchion, Epistle Concerning Paul of Samosata
To Dionysius and Maximus, and to all our fellows in the ministry throughout the world, both bishops and presbyters and deacons… both bishops and presbyters and deacons, together with the churches of God, send our greetings to out brethren beloved of the Lord. …We wrote to many of the bishops, even those who live at a distance, and urged them to give their help in relieving us from this deadly doctrine. Among those whom we addressed were Dionysius, the bishop of Alexandria, and Firmilian of Cappadocia—those men of blessed name."

See also the succession of bishops as outlined in the following Wiki articles.

List of Bishops of Alexandria
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_Orthodox_Patriarchs_of_Alexandria

List of Bishops of Antioch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch

List of Bishops of Athens
orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_Archbishops_of_Athens

List of Bishops of Edessa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bishops_of_Edessa

List of Bishops of Rome
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

There were alterations that began to occur in writings of the church fathers, but these were mainly in respect to the Catholic Papacy and the Nicene Trinity. These modifications began with the Church of Rome, where heretics had concentrated most strongly. I will follow up with the clues of when this breach of security into the Roman church had first begun. It would eventually lead to the Roman bishops demanding primacy, which led to the establishment of the papacy. Those loyal to the Roman papacy would soon become the greatest interpolators of the Early Church Fathers, but fortunately for us, only a portion of the writings were altered, and the priority of altering the fathers was soon forgotten with wars and new enemies emerging.

Steve

[size=150]The Emergence of the Papacy[/size]

Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, to Cyprian, Against the Letter of Stephen. A.D. 256. (6)
“However, those who are at Rome do not always observe those things that were handed down from the beginning. Yet, they vainly pretend the authority of the apostles. Anyone may know also from the fact that, concerning the celebration of Easter … he may see that there are some diversities… . Similarly, in very mam other provinces, many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. Nevertheless, there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the catholic church on this account—such as Stephen has dared to make.”

St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter of Cyprian to Quintus, Bishop in Mauretania. A.D. 254/255
“Peter—whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His church—did not insolently claim anything to himself. Nor did he arrogantly assume anything when Paul later disputed with him about circumcision. He did not say that he held the primacy and that he needed to be obeyed by novices and those more recently arrived!”

**Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, to Cyprian, Against the Letter of Stephen. A.D. 256 (17) **
“I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound by the grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine layer. He who concedes and gives up to heretics in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church, what else does he do but communicate with them for whom he maintains and claims so much grace? And now he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to meet together with them, and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar and sacrifice."

From the time of Victor, the Bishops of Rome had developed the vision of primacy over all the other churches. Zephyrinus, Callistus, Stephen, etc., followed on with this agenda, which had only just started to emerge in the late 2nd century and early 3rd century. Many doctrines became diluted or poisoned during this breach of the Apostolic Church. That does not mean to say that the Catholics are evil, or bad - only that they are the first major break with the church established by the apostles. As all other churches have built upon the foundations established by Catholics, all other churches have consequently followed the same drift away from the Apostolic church. Origen was probably the greatest voice for pre-Catholicim, yet some of his writings were also altered by disgruntled Catholics. If one wishes to discern the teachings that were handed down through the apostles, one needs to first recognize that there was a time when the teaching was pure (relatively), and there was a time when the teachings conformed to the particular brand of Catholicism. This is not an easy history to understand, but it is essential to be solid in foundational beliefs. That is my opinion, anyway.

Steve