Are our bishops not valid?

[MoonlitYT]

So a protestant sent me a message, saying that our bishops are invalid. Since bishops were only present at the time of Paul, and no bishops were ordained after Paul.

How do we refute this?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

We ask for evidence of this ridiculous claim. When this person cannot provide any, we ignore them and go on with our days.

 

[InThePew]

Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. It stands to reason, especially given their persecution and expected martyrdom (St John excepted), as well as the growth and spread of the early Church as a result of their evangelism that they would have appointed successors and others to share in their ministry. This is why it’s important to not rely solely on scripture but on Tradition as well - as recorded in the writings of the Church Fathers - since scripture doesn’t tell us what happened next (and St Paul was, after all, only one of the apostles).

 

[tonyh12]

So the person doesn’t believe in apostolic succession, to send your guy in the right direction we can use scripture and early church history, so the following link to a CA article might help, it includes a good piece of supporting scripture, and some strong supportive statements by our early church fathers,

Thanks CA!

What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Succession | Catholic Answers.

 

[Bithynian]

Since bishops were only present at the time of Paul, and no bishops were ordained after Paul.

That’s an odd statement for a Protestant to make. Most traditions of Classical Protestantism understand the presbyterate (that is, the office of priests) and the episcopate (the office of bishops) to largely be one and the same. In most cases, the pastor of any particular Protestant or evangelical community is generally understood as functioning as a bishop.

Did the person actually mean apostleship, which is indeed restricted to the first generation of Christ’s immediate followers? In which case, that’s a bit of a non sequitur as the Catholic Church doesn’t make claim that our bishops are apostles.

 

[ReaderT]

So a protestant sent me a message, saying that our bishops are invalid. Since bishops were only present at the time of Paul, and no bishops were ordained after Paul.

How do we refute this?

By saying it’s clearly untrue.

Ignatius of Antioch wrote around 100AD. He met the Apostle John. And he mentions Bishops. In fact he was a Bishop and wrote to another Bishop (Polycarp):

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic [katholikos - whole, universal] Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop.”

 

[BartholomewB]

Since bishops were only present at the time of Paul, and no bishops were ordained after Paul.

It’s a minority view held by certain groups of radical Protestants. I have had long, friendly conversations online with an adherent of one of these sects. Their argument can be summarized as follows:

(1) Any true Christian church must be strictly modeled on the New Testament, by which they mean the specifications listed in the Pauline epistles.
(2) A true church has no ordained clergy. In the NT, only Judaism had priests (hiereis). The NT churches had apostles, elders, and overseers (apostoloi, presbuteroi, episkopoi).
(3) There were no more apostles after those named in the epistles. Titus, for instance, cannot correctly be described as “the first bishop of Crete,” because he was an apostle who was never replaced by a successor.
(4) Elders and overseers are members of their local communities who are elected or appointed to those posts by their fellow members.

I see it as a kind of time-warp ecclesiology. They are pretending that, since the day Paul wrote his last epistle, there has been no further historical development of Christian institutions. In particular, they regard “Constantinian Christianity” as a terrible mistake committed by Pope Sylvester.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

So a protestant sent me a message, saying that our bishops are invalid. Since bishops were only present at the time of Paul, and no bishops were ordained after Paul.

How do we refute this?

You ask the Protestant to show you a reliable source for his claim before you try to “refute” anything.

We don’t just go into a frenzy of refuting weird claims sent to us in a message by some non-Catholic somewhere. It’s on them to first support their claim.

 

[stpurl]

It’s the spirit of the age and a kind of frenzied ‘tolerance’ that has been inculcated in modern Catholics, to present ourselves as apologetic and respectful (not that those are not good things in and of themselves). As such, too often Catholics feel pressured to respond to all sorts of charges and claims.

While there are some points that can engender respectful dialog on both parts, too often all a non-Catholic has to do is fire off a badly phrased polemic ‘catchall’ of various “why do you/your Church do X”, and Catholics feel obligated to answer, often at great length and with sources. The OP meanwhile has all the luxury now FIRST of appearing to be equal and with legitimate ‘charges’ (because they are being answered) and then second, to ‘move the goalposts’ at will or to dismiss at will. HE will guide the discussion now, and the Catholic is put into the ‘defense’ and inferior position. It is now the Catholic’s ‘responsibility to satisfy’, not the non-Catholic’s ‘responsibility to prove’.

Haven’t we seen over the last 50 years or so the results of this? More and more Catholics (themselves often poorly educated) who wind up being ‘schooled’ by Protestants and atheists, confused by their own fellow Catholics, and winding up themselves believing false teachings, falling away, or being “Alinski-fied’ if they actually turn out to know their stuff.

Far better to do a Barney Fife “Nip it in the bud’ and start out with a smiling but firm, “How nice to hear from you. Could you please show the support/documentation for your first claim X so that we can discuss it, thank you?”

 

[TK421]

By saying it’s clearly untrue.

Ignatius of Antioch wrote around 100AD. He met the Apostle John. And he mentions Bishops. In fact he was a Bishop and wrote to another Bishop (Polycarp):

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic [katholikos - whole, universal] Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop.”

Yeah, Polycarp is another person who was a disciple of the 12, and he was a contemporary during the writing of the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, which were early enough that they were often included within the New Testament.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Why would Paul bother to include the qualifications for bishops in his letter to Timothy (which should be in any Protestant Bible) if he was the last one? Even with the most passive reading of the Bible, it should be clear to anyone that Paul is outlining future positions.

ETA: In the book of Acts, it specifically states that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders (another word for bishop) in each community they started.

Can this person show proof that there was a question about bishops being appointed after Paul that was held by people in the 100s-200s AD? I’d love to know why it was just accepted as fact that these bishops existed until whatever time period your friend’s “evidence” dates to.

 

[Thom18]

So a protestant sent me a message, saying that our bishops are invalid. Since bishops were only present at the time of Paul, and no bishops were ordained after Paul.

How do we refute this?

Step 1: ask for evidence

Step 2: remind Protestants that they are protesting Christ’s true Church, and that if our holy orders are invalid, then their own aren’t any less so.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Ask your Protestant friend then, why did Luther maintain that he was validly ordained? I suspect both Zwingli and Calvin maintained the same.

 

[otjm]

That’s an odd statement for a Protestant to make.

Well, there are some odd Protestants out there.

I just say Oooohhhhhhhw (about 3 seconds long), nod my head sagely, and then delete that person from my sphere.

 

[BartholomewB]

Step 2: remind Protestants that they are protesting Christ’s true Church, and that if our holy orders are invalid, then their own aren’t any less so.

This is missing the point. Those Protestants in churches that have holy orders, such as Lutherans and Anglicans, wouldn’t make the comment about bishops that the OP is asking about. That comment can only have come from a Protestant of the other kind, those that don’t have holy orders and reject as “unBiblical” or “unChristian” the very idea of “holy orders” and “ordination.” Please see my post #7 on this thread.