APPENDIX A: ACTS 20:28 – PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS

Adapted from an article by Mark J. Bonocore, with, the author’s permission.

The position of historic orthodox catholic Christianity on the monarchical episcopate is that the three-fold office of bishop, presbyter, and deacon has existed in the Church since the earliest times and that it was established by the Apostles themselves. In opposition to this, numerous Protestant (as well as liberal Roman Catholic) historians have suggested that the earliest Apostolic Churches were not governed by monarchical bishops (in which one man served as the chief shepherd of the Church), but were rather governed by a college of absolutely co-equal presbyters. Indeed, a first- glance reading of the earliest patristic evidence may lead to such a conclusion. For instance, as seen in the New Testament literature itself, it is an indisputable fact that the earliest Christians used the terms “bishop” (“overseer”) and “presbyter” (“elder”) interchangeably:

Titus 1:5–7: For this reason, I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless, not arrogant...” (See also: 1Tim 3:1–7; 5:17–22)

Acts 20:17–28: From Miletus he (Paul) had the presbyters of the Church of Ephesus summoned. When they came to him, he addressed them... “Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the Church of God...”

Moreover, in the earliest patristic literature (especially when it applies to the Western ‘city-Churches,’ such as the Church of Rome), we notice several references to “the presbyters” (plural) but not explicitely to a monarchical bishop. Indeed, it is not until the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD, about ten years after the death of the last Apostle) that we see someone clearly distinguishing between “the bishop” and “the presbyters” who assist him in governing the catholic Church. However, even in this case, Ignatius only speaks of monarchical bishops when writing to several communities in the province of Asia (in the East). When writing to the Romans, Ignatius does not mention a “bishop” for that city-Church at all. As a result, some conclude that the office of monarchical bishop was an Eastern novelty that developed in the days of Ignatius, and that Rome and the West were governed by colleges of co-equal presbyters into the second century. Indeed, the inclination of Protestant apologists to deny the existence of monarchical bishops in Apostolic times cannot be surprising, since discrediting the monarchical episcopate was both a key and essential objective of the Protestant Reformation, without which the Reformation could not possibly have succeeded. Unlike previous schisms in ecclesiastical history, Protestantism was not a movement initiated by legitimate bishops. Rather, the main Protestant leaders were either Roman Catholic priests (e.g. Martin Luther) or deacons (e.g. John Calvin), with no bishops among them to confer some kind of ‘episcopal authority’ to their doctrines.

In point of fact, at the tail end of the Reformation, a few Roman Catholic bishops did join the Elizabethan ‘Church of England;’ but, by that time, the denial of a special episcopal charism was already a universally-established tenet of the Reformation; so much so that, at the ordination of Matthew Parker (Queen Elizabeth’s first truly-Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury), an ordained Roman Catholic priest (now-Protestant) and two Low Church ministers (laymen) participated in the consecration as equal partners with Bishop Barlow (who had also gone over to Protestantism). Hence, the idea of a “college of presbyters” was very clear in their minds, and actual episcopal authority was something to be rejected.

Thus, Protestant theology is very eager to disprove the existence of the monarchic episcopate, not as a purely academic disagreement about Church history, but as an extremely important part of its theological and organizational system.

Let us now review the historical data. Although there is no direct reference to a monarchical bishop in the earliest patristic evidence, it would be erroneous to conclude that no monarchical bishops existed. In fact, the evidence points to a change in Christian semantics, with the term “bishop” beginning to be used for the leading presbyter of a city-Church, especially as his importance became increasingly apparent during the heresy battles at the end of the first century. In other words, the apostolic city-Churches always possessed leading presbyters who functioned as permanent ex-officio presidents of the Eucharistic assembly and who presided over their fellow-presbyters (e.g. James at Jerusalem; Timothy at Ephesus; Titus at Crete, etc). Yet, these leading/presiding presbyters were not singled out or referred to exclusively as “bishops” until the latter half of the first century.

In New Testament times, the terms “bishop” (“overseer”) and “presbyter” (“elder”) were still being used interchangeably (e.g. Titus 1:5–7). Thus, in the original Christian usage, all “elders” were “overseers,” and all “overseers” were “elders.” “Elder” referred to their qualifications whereas “overseer” emphasized their functions as shepherds of the flock.

It was only in the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch that the term “overseer” was exclusively assigned to the leading presbyter of the Church, as opposed to being applied to all the other presbyters as well. Hence, we see a change in semantics between the terminology of St. Ignatius and the terminology of St. Paul (author of Titus) or St. Luke (author of Acts), who wrote a generation earlier. Undoubtedly, a change in semantics did occur, but the evidence shows that the underlying organization of the Church did not change.

Ignatius of Antioch was a man who was close in spirit and times to the Apostles. Whenever Ignatius uses the term “bishop,” he always applies it to the leading, one-man shepherd of a ‘city-Church’ or “catholic Church.” Ignatius did not use the term “bishop” as the New Testament does, that is interchangeably with “presbyter.” Rather, for Ignatius, “bishop” and “presbyter” are clearly separate offices. On several occasions, Ignatius refers to the traditional three-fold ministry of “bishop / presbyter / deacon,” in which the term “bishop” (“overseer”) is used for the monarchical proto-presbyter alone:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbyters as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered an assured²⁵²⁸ Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. (Ignatius, to the Smyrneans)

Your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Soto, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, inasmuch as he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God. (Ignatius, to the Magnesians, Chapter II)

Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God... Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one Cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbyters and my fellow-servants, the deacons. (Ignatius, to the Philadelphians, 3:2–4: l)

Furthermore, in spite of occasional assertions that St. Ignatius of Antioch was the ‘creator’ or first proponent of the monarchical episcopate, the fact is that the great Father spoke of these bishops as already-existing in each of the Asian city-Churches he writes to. Indeed, he even addresses all but one of these bishops by name:

I received therefore your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. (Ignatius, to the Ephesians, Chapter I)

I know that you possess a blameless and sincere mind in patience, and that not only in present practice, but according to inherent nature, as Polybius your bishop has shown me. (Ignatius, to the Trallians, Chapter I)

I salute your most worthy bishop Polycarp, and your venerable presbyters, and your Christ-bearing deacons, my fellow-servants… (Ignatius, to the Smyrneans, Chapter XI)

Since, then, I have 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 Soto, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, inasmuch as he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God. (Ignatius, to the Magnesians, Chapter II)

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, which is at Philadelphia, in Asia… which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if men are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit. (Ignatius, to the Philadelphians, Introduction and Chapter I)

Besides, Ignatius repeatedly refers to himself as either the “bishop of Antioch” or the “bishop of Syria,” meaning that he himself was the monarchical shepherd of the enormous first century Church of Antioch (capital of Syria). For example, he says:

Remember in your prayers the Church of Syria (Antioch), which now has God for its bishop instead of me. (Ignatius, to the Romans, Conclusion)

To summarize: at the time of Ignatius, about a decade after the death of the last Apostle, we find a pre-existing situation in which the following persons are already ruling as bishops over the following (corresponding) Churches:

Ignatius = Bishop of Antioch

Onesimus = Bishop of Ephesus

Polycarp = Bishop of Smyrna (a disciple of the Apostle John)

Damas = Bishop of Magnesia

Polybius = Bishop of Tralles

[Unnamed] = Bishop of Philadelphia.

At the very end of the apostolic age, we have six separate Churches²⁵²⁹ being governed by monarchical bishops. Furthermore, Ignatius of Antioch had never visited any of these other Churches before. Yet, they all possessed monarchical bishops before he reached them on his way to Rome.

With this fact in mind, one cannot help but ask the question: Who appointed all these monarchical bishops, especially in places such as Ephesus, Smyrna, and Philadelphia, over which the Apostle John himself had so recently wielded authority (and over the very same still-living Christians who Ignatius addresses in his epistles)? The most likely and sensible conclusion is that St. John himself had appointed these bishops to be the leading shepherds of the Asian city-Churches in his absence. Who then had appointed Ignatius as monarchical bishop of far-off Antioch? Given that Antioch was also clearly an apostolic ‘city-Church,’ it seems obvious that another Apostle had appointed his first predecessor to the office of monarchical bishop as well. Hence, (as we shall confirm from Scripture itself below), the office of monarchical bishop was established by the Apostles themselves, and was not some later development as some theologians believe.

This may be well-established for Eastern city-Churches like Antioch and those in Asia, but what about Western Churches? Many have wondered about the fact that Ignatius does not address a “bishop of Rome” or speak to the Romans as he does to the other (Asian) Churches he writes to, telling them to remain faithful to their bishops, etc. Yet, we should not conclude that the situation was different in Rome (or in the West), and that Rome was ruled by a ‘college of co-equal presbyters.’

Ignatius addresses neither a “bishop of Rome” nor a “college of presbyters.” Actually, he never addresses any presiding authority for the Roman Church, perhaps because of a vacancy in the episcopate or in order to protect the bishop in circumstances of intense persecution. However, Ignatius does refer to himself as a monarchical bishop when addressing the Romans, which in itself shows that it was an acceptable and understandable idea. He writes:

Remember in your prayers the Church of Syria (Antioch), which now has God for its bishop instead of me. (Ignatius, to the Romans, Conclusion)

Moreover, in chapter III of his Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Ignatius clearly says:

“And also bishops, settled everywhere, to the utmost bounds of the earth, are so by the will of Jesus Christ.”

Here, once again, we must remember that, for Ignatius, “bishop” was a term that exclusively referred to the leading presbyter of a city-Church. Thus, if “bishops” were “settled everywhere, to the utmost bounds of the earth” in Ignatius’ day, we can conclude that there was a bishop of Rome as well. Those who wish to deny this point, or maintain that Ignatius only recognized a ‘college of equal presbyters’ governing the Church of Rome, must explain this direct statement by Ignatius.

Furthermore, aside from the contextual reasons why Ignatius does not mention a bishop for Rome, it is likely that there were also semantic ones. Given the fact (as the New Testament illustrates) that the earliest Christians used the terms “bishop” and “presbyter” interchangeably and assuming that the Ignatian terminology (in which “bishop” is used exclusively for the monarchical leader of a city-Church) probably developed first in the East, it would therefore serve to reason that, at the time of Ignatius, the West was still using the original (interchangeable) New Testament terminology, as opposed to the newer (Ignatian) terminology. Clear evidence is found in the case of Ignatius’ associate St. Polycarp of Smyrna, one of the monarchical bishops whom Ignatius met (and later writes to) during his overland journey to Rome. Indeed, Polycarp is unquestionably the monarchical bishop of the Church of Smyrna:

I salute your most worthy bishop Polycarp, and your venerable presbyters, and your Christ-bearing deacons, my fellow-servants… (Ignatius, to the Smyrneans, Chapter XI)

Ignatius speaks of Polycarp as a monarchical bishop on several occasions in the two separate epistles he sent him (i.e., “Ignatius to the Smyrneans” and “Ignatius to Polycarp”). Yet, in the months that follow, as Polycarp corresponds with the Western (European) city-Church of Philippi (in Macedonia), first to check on Ignatius’ welfare and then to give them encouragement and advice, we notice a very significant change in semantics. In an Asian context, Polycarp is directly called “the bishop” of Smyrna, but when addressing the (Western) Philippians, Polycarp instead identifies himself as:

Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi: Mercy to you, and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior, be multiplied. (Polycarp, to the Philippians, Introduction)

This formula strongly implies a different semantic for Church at Philippi, as well as for the other city-Churches of the European West. In other words, the ‘Westerns’ were not yet using the term “bishop” to mean the leading presbyter of a Church (e.g. Polycarp), but were still apparently using the original New Testament terminology in which “bishop” and “presbyter” were interchangeable terms. This being the case, it is no wonder that Ignatius, Polycarp, and other contemporary (or earlier) patristic sources do not impose the Asian terminology on Rome or the other early Western city-Churches.

As a result, the solution is a semantic one: there was no ‘later development’ of the office of bishop itself. Indeed if we only possessed Polycarp’s “Epistle to the Philippians,” and not Ignatius’ two epistles “To Smyrna” and “To Polycarp” (in which he repeatedly identifies Polycarp as the monarchical bishop of Smyrna,) those who deny the existence of the episcopate would probably argue that Polycarp was merely an ‘equal member’ of the Smyrnean college of presbyters, as opposed to its presiding head. However, we find that no early city-Church was ever governed by a ‘college of absolutely equal presbyters.’ Rather, like the synagogue system that preceded the city-Church, there was always a leading figure who presided as its head. And this model becomes even more apparent when we turn to the Scriptural evidence.

SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE

When exploring the Scriptural evidence for the truth of the historical orthodox catholic position, one cannot help but immediately focus on the figure of St. James the Just who, without question, functioned as the one- man monarchical leader of the Church in Jerusalem. Indeed, both Scripture and the universal witness of the Fathers illustrate this fact most clearly. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea, drawing from much earlier sources, directly states that the Apostles Peter, James [bar-Zebedee], and John appointed James the Just as the monarchical head (“bishop”) of the mother Church of Jerusalem.

Similarly, in Galatians 2:12, as St. Paul complains about some Judaizing Christians from the Church of Jerusalem, he does not say that these Jewish brethren came “from Jerusalem” or from “the presbyters of Jerusalem,” but rather “from James,” thus equating James with the Church of Jerusalem itself. Also, in Acts 12:17, as Peter flees Jerusalem after his miraculous escape from prison, he does not command the local flock to “report this to the presbyters.” Instead, he directly says, “Report this to James,” thereby indicating that James was the leading authority.

However, as with St. Polycarp himself, one could easily try to ‘camouflage’ St. James within a college of supposedly-equal presbyters. For example, Acts 21:18 reads:

The next day Paul accompanied us on a visit to James, and all the presbyters were present.

This is clearly reminiscent of “Polycarp and the presbyters with him.” Yet, while James is not called the “bishop” here, we know from both the context of this passage (and from the overall witness of Scripture itself) that James was the presiding leader of these presbyters (i.e. their “bishop”).

Also, in Acts 15:2, when a dispute arose between Paul, Barnabas and some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, it does not say that they decided to appeal to James (the bishop of Jerusalem) about the matter. Rather, it says that they decided to appeal to “the apostles and presbyters” (plural) in Jerusalem; and at the Jerusalem council that follows, we hear several times about these “presbyters” (plural)²⁵³⁰ with no direct mention made of a presiding “bishop” or “leading presbyter” in the person of James. Indeed, it is only in Acts 15:19 that we see him manifest his leadership. However, before that time, he is merely presented as an organic element within the college of presbyters at Jerusalem, with Acts seeing no need to identify him as its presiding head. Such was the mentality of the earliest Christian communities, and this is what we are seeing in the earliest (Western) patristic sources, when we hear about the “presbyters” (plural) of the Church of Rome, with no direct mention of a “bishop.”

Indeed if, as both Scripture and the patristic sources show us, the Apostles appointed one man (James) to act as the leader of Jerusalem, (which was without question the most important Church of New Testament times, and the model for all subsequent Churches founded by the Apostles), why would they set up entirely different systems of Church government elsewhere? However, it seems logical that the Apostles did not create other systems of government for the other Churches; but that each ‘college of presbyters’ in a particular locale always included a leading figure (a ‘proto-presbyter’), who was later designated as its “bishop” in the Ignatian terminology. This can be seen most clearly in Scripture itself. For example, we have already presented the witness of Titus 1:5, which reads:

For this reason I left you (i.e., Titus) in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you.

Here, St. Paul speaks to St. Titus in the “you-singular” in Greek, thereby showing that Titus possesses the exclusive episcopal authority to ordain presbyters throughout the entire island nation of Crete -- which is why tradition counts St. Titus as the first bishop of Crete. Specifically, the authority to ordain is a bishop’s authority. Titus was, without question, the presiding presbyter (i.e. “bishop”) over all the presbyters he ordained on the island. Thus, like James in Jerusalem, we see a monarchical system of authority manifested in New Testament-period Crete.

Yet, Crete was by no means the only place where this monarchical system existed at the time. In 1 Timothy 5:17–22, as with Titus, Paul speaks to Timothy in the same Greek “you-singular,” instructing him how to govern the other presbyters under his authority. St. Paul tells him:

Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor... Do not accept (“you-singular”) an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. Reprimand (singular) publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid. I charge you (singular) before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels to keep these rules without prejudice, doing nothing out of favoritism. Do not lay hands (singular) too readily on anyone...

In this passage, it is clear that Timothy possesses exclusive and personal authority over the other Ephesian presbyters. It is Timothy himself who is to “accept (or reject) an accusation against a presbyter” (just like modern- day bishops). It is Timothy himself who is to “publicly reprimand” a sinful presbyter, so as to inspire pious “fear” in all the others. It is Timothy himself who must personally “keep these rules” and not show “prejudice” (one can only ‘pre-judge’ if one has the authority to ‘judge’) or “favoritism” (another reference to authority or the possible exploitation of authority). And, it is for Timothy himself (just like modern-day bishops) to “lay hands” upon a man so as to ordain him to the presbyterate.

Thus, in at least three New Testament city-Churches (Jerusalem, Ephesus, and Crete) we see the office of what would later be termed the monarchical “bishop” in action. Furthermore, it is important to appreciate the fact that the first Christian Churches were based upon the old Jewish synagogue system that preceded them (e.g. Acts 18:7–8). While these synagogues clearly possessed ‘colleges of presbyters’ who acted as a governing body for a particular Jewish community, they also always possessed a ‘leading presbyter’ (e.g. a ‘chief rabbi’), who was the president and spiritual father of the Jewish community. It was no different for the earliest city-Churches in which this leading Christian presbyter (protos or first) would eventually be called “the bishop.” However, it was not a common first century semantic to separate this leading presbyter (the “bishop”) from his associate presbyters in the city-Church, but to speak of them as one conciliar body (“the presbyters”) instead, in accordance with Jewish practice.

Lastly, St. Irenaeus of Lyons (a disciple of St. Polycarp), along with several other second century Fathers, spoke extensively on the necessity of monarchical bishops. Irenaeus himself holds up the monarchical bishop as a safeguard against the countless heresies threatening the Churches at this time, and even presents us with lists tracing one-man succession from the Apostles to the reigning monarchical bishops of his own day. The reason for this interest in apostolic lineage was to demolish the Gnostic claim that the Apostles imparted “secret knowledge” to some of their followers;²⁵³¹ and that the Gnostic heresies were part of this “secret knowledge.” In this, Irenaeus brilliantly argues that, if the Apostles were to entrust such “secrets” to any of their disciples, it would most certainly have included those to whom they entrusted the care of the Churches. Yet, as he goes on to point out, none of the succeeding monarchical bishops ever taught anything remotely similar to the Gnostic doctrines; and the succession lists of these bishops (available in all of the second century Churches) proved this to be an indisputable fact. Thus, Irenaeus was basing the very integrity of orthodox Christian doctrine on the fact that there were always monarchical bishops from apostolic times.

St. Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians, written before the end of the first century, should also be mentioned. Clement indirectly recognized the traditional three-fold ministry of “bishop/presbyter/deacon” (as reflected in Ignatius’ contemporary ecclesiology) by drawing a parallel between first-century Christian ministry and the three-fold ministry of “high priest/priest/Levite” in the Jewish Temple. Here, we must keep in mind that 1 Clement was written to correct a schism in the Corinthian Church, in which the legitimate presbyters had been overthrown and cast out of the Church. Clement writes to tell the Corinthians that such behavior is unacceptable, and that the Corinthian laity had no authority to overthrow its legitimate presbyters.

While Clement is speaking of the literal high priest, the literal priests, and the literal Levites of the Jewish temple in the passage in question, he refers to this three-fold Jewish ministry as a parallel example when arguing for the legitimacy and divinely-created character of the Christian ministerial offices. There would be no reason to cite the three-fold Jewish ministry unless it held some significance for his audience.

If we approach 1 Clement from the Western terminological perspective, we have seen that the ancient author only recognized two (nominal) Church ministries, “presbyter/bishop” and “deacon.” This is because he was still utilizing the New Testament-period terminology, in which “presbyter” and “bishop” were interchangeable terms. However, from a practical, ministerial, and Eucharistic perspective, the author of 1 Clement would also have distinguished between the man serving as Corinth’s leading presbyter (e.g. the “high priest,” permanent president of the Eucharistic liturgy) and the other presbyters among him (e.g. “the priests”), because this individual leading presbyter would have had special duties within the college of Corinthian presbyters that made his ministry unique. This explains the fitting analogy to the Jewish “high priest” whose priestly ministry was ontologically identical to that of the other Jewish priests, save for special privileges and duties.

Hence, in the case of 1 Clement, we come full circle and return to the observation that in the late first-century, many Churches (especially in the West) were still using the terms “presbyter” and “bishop” interchangeably. Yet, there is nothing in 1 Clement, or in any other patristic source, which in any way suggests that these Churches did not possess a leading presbyter who presided over the other presbyters.

Significantly, the ‘Levitical analogy’ is also used by St. Athanasius of Alexandria:

You shall see the Levites (i.e. deacons) bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. And so, long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread has become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, c. 373 A.D.)

This quote illustrates the profound connection in traditional Christian ecclesiology, in which the sacrifices of the Jewish Temple were equated with the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Church, and in which the sacrificing ministerial offices of the Jewish Temple were equated with the sacrificing ministerial offices of the Church.

St. Paul (a short generation before Clement) made reference to the same sacrificial mystery of the Eucharist and compared it to the Jewish altar in 1Corinthians 10:16–22, writing:

The Cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The Bread that we break, is it not a participation in Body of Christ? Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? So, what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they (the pagans) sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. You cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord and also of the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the Table of the Lord and also of the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger?

Both St. Paul and St. Clement are writing to the same Corinthian Church (and within the living memories of Clement’s audience). Hence, the sensitivity to the Eucharist as sacrifice was there, and the ministerial parallel would have been meaningful for Clement’s readers.

Because the Church is made manifest in the mystery of the Eucharist, the one ordained and consecrated to preside over its celebration (“the bishop”) has an essential role in the divine economy of salvation. The words of St. Cyprian are as true today as in the middle of the third century:

From these things, you should know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and that anyone who is not [united] with the bishop is not in the Church. (Epistle 68, to Florentius Pupianus)