Authority of Apostles vs Bishops-Catholic/Orthodox vs Mormon

[LivingWaters7]

For background on why I’m starting this thread, please see this other one.

One of the major differences between Catholics/Orthodox and LDS is that LDS have both apostles and bishops as priesthood offices. The LDS Church has 15 apostles: the First Presidency consisting of 3, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, with 12. These 15 men are not only regarded as apostles, but sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators”. They are at the top of the Church priesthood government. Bishops are the local leaders of our congregations (essentially equivalent to Catholic/Orthodox priests).

LDS believe that there are always supposed to be apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ. It is taught that when we look at the Bible, we do see apostolic succession, with Matthias for example, but we see an apostolic succession of apostles, not bishops. It is also taught that these apostles are guided by the Holy Ghost, and that the Church is led by revelation and guidance is given to these men through the Spirit. They have not gone through professional seminary to be instructed (a point many LDS like to bring up). Mormons believe that apostles are not bishops, and bishops are not apostles, and that bishops do not have the same authority as apostles. They are also believed to be called to be “special witnesses of Jesus Christ”.

In contrast, from my understanding, Catholics believe that the bishops succeeded the apostles, and received apostolic authority from the apostles. Catholics teach that the criteria to be an apostle is given in the Bible, when Matthias was chosen, so clearly no one after that time period could fit that criteria.

Out of all the issues I have as I continue my journey (and I’m currently leaning to revert back to Catholicism), this is one that I have most difficulty with understanding. I’m going to carefully reread the information given in my other thread as well. I can understand the Eucharist, intercession of saints, Mary, even the Trinity, but I’m having difficulty with understanding the bishops as successors of the apostles (and this was one reason why I became LDS, as it made sense to me at the time that apostles are succeeded by apostles, and that this must’ve been a sign of the apostasy, when there were no more apostles, to lead Christ’s Church, and that we have apostles in this day, just like the New Testament Church (something I always talk about when someone asks me about what makes LDS unique)). The rest of this post is a copy/paste of my last post in the other thread, and I’d also appreciate thoughts on that as well:

So I’m reading Nibley’s “Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity”. I’m debating whether I should start a separate thread on that (the differences b/w LDS and Catholic/Orthodox understandings of bishops and their relationship with apostles). Anyway, he says something interesting that I’m assuming Catholics would disagree with, so I’m interested in thoughts about it. This is also a common LDS understanding of how the Church of Jesus Christ should be led, so I’m sure the ex-LDS and others are familiar with it:

**unique apostolic gift. Though all officers of the church should be inspired, the great endowment of leadership is the prophetic gift. That was the great principle that set the Christians off from other religions. Justin Martyr, in defiance of modern Catholic teaching, says,

Neither by nature nor by human intelligence is it possible for men to know great and divine matters, but by the gift that descends from above upon holy men, who do not need the learned arts, neither skills in controversy and debate, but rather to resign themselves to the power of the Holy Spirit, which if they are in tune will come down like a divine plectrum from heaven and play upon them as upon instruments, making use of righteous men and revealing to them the divine and heavenly gnosis. (Address to the Greeks 8)

These men, unlike the philosophers, all tell the same story and all agree among themselves. Herein Christian leadership differed from that of other churches-it was led by prophets under direct, divine inspiration, whose wisdom was not the fruits of philosophy or training. In accusing the church of having lost the power while retaining the forms of godliness, Tertullian makes a sharp distinction between two clearly marked levels of religious operation: both are good and necessary, but the higher one has departed from the church. The higher type is apostolic and prophetic and its genius is power-potestas. Against this the present church, according to Tertullian, can only set up a succession of bishops with discipline, officium, in the place of potestas. The old church had imperium-the authority to initiate organization, doctrine, etc.-while the new one had instead ministerium-a prescribed routine. The temple was the center of the old church, the synagogue the model of the new; the Spirit was the highest guide in the former, the scripture in the latter. enthusiasmus was the guiding principle of interpretation then, allegory now. revelation was the source of doctrine then, reason now; the gnosis, tongues, and prophecy have ceased as predicted, and in their place are left only faith, love, and hope; the high priest has departed, the bishop is in his place; the Holy Ghost has become an intellectual exercise; inspiration has yielded to tradition, oracles to councils. “To James the Just and to John and Peter, the Lord gave the gnosis after his resurrection,” says Clement. “They gave it further to the other apostles, and the rest of the apostles in turn gave it to the seventy,” but there is no account of its ever being passed on any further. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.33.7)**

 

[RebeccaJ]

Our Bishops are guided by the Holy Spirit in leading the Church. There is a huge leap here that the only gift the Spirit provides for this purpose is prophecy. The quote from Justin Martyr doesn’t say this, neither does anything in the NT.

Other than that, it just shows your basic Nibley, who was fond of rewriting history with a Mormon overlay.

 

[R_C]

We profess there is an apostolic succession. It starts with Christ Himself: “as the Father had sent me, so I send you”. The 12, chosen by Him, are the first Apostles. Mathias is chosen by God, and the apostles lay their hands over him and he receives a special grace…the grace to act in the person of Christ - for only Christ can forgive sins or consecrate the bread and wine into His own body and blood. This is the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Every bishop through history was ordained by a previous bishop (though there are degrees, namely Deacon, Priest, Bishop - these are described by Church Fathers almost 20 centuries ago) and nobody who has not been ordained by a valid bishop can consider himself more than a lay faithful. Lazarus was a good friend of Christ, and Christ even cried when he learned of his death, and brought him back to life. But Lazarus was not an apostle. Paul, on the other hand, was even accused by some rebellious people of never meeting Christ. But Paul was a legitimate apostle.

I invite you in your blessed search for the truth to learn more about the Sacrament of Holy Orders and about the apostolic succession. This is the root of an important part of the Christian Profession of Faith (the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, as it is also known): We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. The apostolicity of the Church is a crucial mark of the true Church, and is reflected by the lineage of the apostolic succession and not - as some have invented at some point - by honoring the authority of the scriptures.

 

[truthseeker32]

Just because something makes sense doesn’t mean it is correct. A car accident, for instance, could be explained several different ways, but there is only one true explanation, and to get that truth you must consider all the factors, not just isolated factors taken out of context. Using Justin Martyr to prove Mormon belief is like a police officer concluding that there was no other vehicle involved in an accident simply because it isn’t currently present, failing to acknowledge it could have driven away.

Nibley sees Justin Martyr and the early Christian tradition through his Mormon lens and thus reads his Mormon preconceptions into the text. This is a classic example of what I have stated in other threads. Rather than taking a passage objectively we read it with our biases in play. Justin Martyr does not deny the importance of reason. He was a philosopher! He simply acknowledges that man must rely on God for divine truth, and can’t find it alone. When you see such quotes from the church fathers I recommend doing two things:

1. Look at what else he had to say, either in that specific passage or others.
2. Ask yourself “Can this quote be interpreted in a different way?”.

 

[pablope]

For background on why I’m starting this thread, please see this other one.

One of the major differences between Catholics/Orthodox and LDS is that LDS have both apostles and bishops as priesthood offices. The LDS Church has 15 apostles: the First Presidency consisting of 3, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, with 12. These 15 men are not only regarded as apostles, but sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators”. They are at the top of the Church priesthood government. Bishops are the local leaders of our congregations (essentially equivalent to Catholic/Orthodox priests).

after his resurrection," says Clement. “They gave it further to the other apostles, and the rest of the apostles in turn gave it to the seventy,” but there is no account of its ever being passed on any further. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.33.7)

This is a written transcript of a discussion between Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin and a protestant (forgot the name)…on the priesthood…its sacramental nature…tracing its roots from the OT to today in the CC:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

From Ireneus…writing against the gnostics:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

 

[LivingWaters7]

Our Bishops are guided by the Holy Spirit in leading the Church. There is a huge leap here that the only gift the Spirit provides for this purpose is prophecy. The quote from Justin Martyr doesn’t say this, neither does anything in the NT.

Other than that, it just shows your basic Nibley, who was fond of rewriting history with a Mormon overlay.

Yeah, when I went back to some of the ECF quotes, I did see some out of context quoting.

Do you (or anyone else) have any Catholic and/or Orthodox statements, encyclicals, etc (i.e. official documents) that state the belief that the Bishops are guided by the Holy Spirit in leading the Church? I know you believe that and that is the actual belief of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, I just am also interested in official statements on the matter of Divine inspiration (one of my favorite topics, about God interacting and guiding us, 2 way communication). Does Dei Verbum talk about this?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Just because something makes sense doesn’t mean it is correct. A car accident, for instance, could be explained several different ways, but there is only one true explanation, and to get that truth you must consider all the factors, not just isolated factors taken out of context. Using Justin Martyr to prove Mormon belief is like a police officer concluding that there was no other vehicle involved in an accident simply because it isn’t currently present, failing to acknowledge it could have driven away.

Nibley sees Justin Martyr and the early Christian tradition through his Mormon lens and thus reads his Mormon preconceptions into the text. This is a classic example of what I have stated in other threads. Rather than taking a passage objectively we read it with our biases in play. Justin Martyr does not deny the importance of reason. He was a philosopher! He simply acknowledges that man must rely on God for divine truth, and can’t find it alone. When you see such quotes from the church fathers I recommend doing two things:

1. Look at what else he had to say, either in that specific passage or others.
2. Ask yourself “Can this quote be interpreted in a different way?”.

Thanks yeah, I’m trying to go back to New Advent with its library of ECF documents and look at the context.

 

[LivingWaters7]

We profess there is an apostolic succession. It starts with Christ Himself: “as the Father had sent me, so I send you”. The 12, chosen by Him, are the first Apostles. Mathias is chosen by God, and the apostles lay their hands over him and he receives a special grace…the grace to act in the person of Christ - for only Christ can forgive sins or consecrate the bread and wine into His own body and blood. This is the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Every bishop through history was ordained by a previous bishop (though there are degrees, namely Deacon, Priest, Bishop - these are described by Church Fathers almost 20 centuries ago) and nobody who has not been ordained by a valid bishop can consider himself more than a lay faithful. Lazarus was a good friend of Christ, and Christ even cried when he learned of his death, and brought him back to life. But Lazarus was not an apostle. Paul, on the other hand, was even accused by some rebellious people of never meeting Christ. But Paul was a legitimate apostle.

I invite you in your blessed search for the truth to learn more about the Sacrament of Holy Orders and about the apostolic succession. This is the root of an important part of the Christian Profession of Faith (the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, as it is also known): We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. The apostolicity of the Church is a crucial mark of the true Church, and is reflected by the lineage of the apostolic succession and not - as some have invented at some point - by honoring the authority of the scriptures.

Thank you. I guess I’m just trying to understand when the bishops were understood to be successors to the apostles, with the same (or similar?) apostolic authority. Nibley claims that during the New Testament, apostles and bishops functioned side by side, and that apostles were traveling authorities, while bishops were local church leaders, and had different roles. Now as I understand it, Catholic/Orthodox bishops are local authorities in the sense that they are in charge of the Church in a local area, and they travel as well. He argues that the bishops were certainly ordained by the apostles, but that doesn’t mean that they have the authority of the apostles. He argues that deacons and others could have also been ordained by the apostles, making them “apostolic” in a sense, but that doesn’t mean that they have the authority of the apostles. I’m just trying to understand when/how/why it became understood that because the apostles died, the bishops became the leaders of the Church, with the authority to guide the flock, similarly to the apostles.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yeah, when I went back to some of the ECF quotes, I did see some out of context quoting.

Do you (or anyone else) have any Catholic and/or Orthodox statements, encyclicals, etc (i.e. official documents) that state the belief that the Bishops are guided by the Holy Spirit in leading the Church? I know you believe that and that is the actual belief of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, I just am also interested in official statements on the matter of Divine inspiration (one of my favorite topics, about God interacting and guiding us, 2 way communication). Does Dei Verbum talk about this?

Yes, Dei Verbum is the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation. Lumen Gentium is the dogmatic constitution on the Church. They are both documents from the Vatican II Council.

Spe Salvi, an encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI, which has a beautiful section on prayer. (This encyclical is one of my favorite writings from Pope Benedict.)

Also, don’t forget the Catechism. I’m guessing as a student that you have Google skills, but just in case. I search the catechism, and other documents at the Vatican by adding the “site” qualifier. Like so:

“Divine revelation” catechism site:Vatican.va

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thank you. I guess I’m just trying to understand when the bishops were understood to be successors to the apostles, with the same (or similar?) apostolic authority. Nibley claims that during the New Testament, apostles and bishops functioned side by side, and that apostles were traveling authorities, while bishops were local church leaders, and had different roles. Now as I understand it, Catholic/Orthodox bishops are local authorities in the sense that they are in charge of the Church in a local area, and they travel as well. He argues that the bishops were certainly ordained by the apostles, but that doesn’t mean that they have the authority of the apostles. He argues that deacons and others could have also been ordained by the apostles, making them “apostolic” in a sense, but that doesn’t mean that they have the authority of the apostles. I’m just trying to understand when/how/why it became understood that because the apostles died, the bishops became the leaders of the Church, with the authority to guide the flock, similarly to the apostles.

Nibley makes a distinction where there is none.

 

[Nine_Two]

The word “Apostle” means one who passes on (and is related to the English word “Postal”). Generally the term “apostle” is used to delineate those who were first given the message of Christ (which is why we call the first generation of Christians the “apostolic age”). The Bishops hold an apostolic office, being part of the lineage which is handing down the message of Christ, but were not handed the message by Christ himself.

The idea that you can have distinct offices of “Apostle” and “bishop” coexisting at the same time suggests a deep misunderstanding of the nature of those offices.

 

[SteveVH]

Thank you. I guess I’m just trying to understand when the bishops were understood to be successors to the apostles, with the same (or similar?) apostolic authority. Nibley claims that during the New Testament, apostles and bishops functioned side by side, and that apostles were traveling authorities, while bishops were local church leaders, and had different roles. Now as I understand it, Catholic/Orthodox bishops are local authorities in the sense that they are in charge of the Church in a local area, and they travel as well. He argues that the bishops were certainly ordained by the apostles, but that doesn’t mean that they have the authority of the apostles. He argues that deacons and others could have also been ordained by the apostles, making them “apostolic” in a sense, but that doesn’t mean that they have the authority of the apostles. I’m just trying to understand when/how/why it became understood that because the apostles died, the bishops became the leaders of the Church, with the authority to guide the flock, similarly to the apostles.

The Apostles were unique only as the original founders of the faith. The qualifications for an Apostle prevent anyone who was not a personal witness to the life of Christ and his resurrection from becoming one. Christ gave the Apostles his own authority and gave them the command to preach the Gospel to every nation. Why would he then give authority which would end with the Apostles? There is no way that they could carry out Christ’s command in their life time alone.

The authority to bind and loose and to forgive sins (priestly functions) would logically be past down in the Church or the Church would end. Of course, this is what the LDS want everyone to believe, but it defies reason. There were twelve Apostles and there will never be more than those original twelve. But it was their priestly authority that was passed on to others, not their status as the founders of Christianity.

We have the founding fathers of our country. The authority they assumed was passed down to subsequent leaders of the country. None of these leaders could ever call themselves a founding father, but that does not mean that they could not be given the same authority. Indeed, they must be given the same authority if we are to live according to our founding documents. The bishops must receive Apostolic authority as well if Christ’s own command is to be carried out.

 

[PJM]

=LivingWaters7;10425809]For background on why I’m starting this thread, please see this other one.

One of the major differences between Catholics/Orthodox and LDS is that LDS have both apostles and bishops as priesthood offices. The LDS Church has 15 apostles: the First Presidency consisting of 3, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, with 12. These 15 men are not only regarded as apostles, but sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators”. They are at the top of the Church priesthood government. Bishops are the local leaders of our congregations (essentially equivalent to Catholic/Orthodox priests).

A full and supported reply would require FAR MORE space than the FORUM permits

Truth is a singular thing. Pope Benedict XVI in his first Teaching as Pope said the following:
THERE CANNOT BE YOUR TRUTH AND MY TRUTH OR THEIR WOULD BE NO TRUTH

Because their is but One true God; logically their can be and factually is one One true set of Faith Beliefs: Because God is PERFECT we can KNOW that He did not wait for Henry the VIII, Calvin, Luther, or Smith or anyone else to make His One Truth Known.

The BIBLE is extremely clear as to where that Truth lies. Please read each of the following passages in the sequence provided, NOTING that in each and every case:

Jesus is Speaking directly to; and exclusively too His Apostles alone from whom today’s CC get’s it’s authority>

This site will make the task easy for you: drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=9&l=48#x

Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16:15-19 NOTE to WHOM ALONE the keys to heaven are given too
Mt. 18:18 passes to ALL of the Apostles
Jn. 14: 16-17
Jn. 20: 21-22
Jn. 17: 15-19
Mk. 16: 14-19
Mt. 28:16-20

THERE IS a GREAT deal more information but space is limited.

ALL of the Apostles were Bishops and Ordained other Bishops

ALL of the Bishops reported to and supported Peter as the First Bishop among equals; later termed a Pope. [Mt. 10:1-3]

CLEARLY and indisputably Jesus; GOD Himself selected 12 Apostles and EACH of the above passages [and many more] pertain directly and exclusively only to THEM.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[R_C]

I’m just trying to understand when/how/why it became understood that because the apostles died, the bishops became the leaders of the Church, with the authority to guide the flock, similarly to the apostles.

A legitimate question! The bishops are, in terms of authority, apostles, for no bishop is made bishop except by the laying of hands of a previous bishop, and this is traced back to the first apostles chosen personally by Christ. Indeed, there were several degrees, from deacon to bishop - the latter having the fullness of the Holy Orders. As for the development of this doctrine, it can be traced back to the Gospels, of course, but more generally to the Church Fathers from the year 80 AD until the year 400 AD (and is of course sealed in the Profession of Faith when we speak of the apostolic Church and kept consistently for the next 16 centuries up to this very day). Following is my modest summary of their teaching on this matter.

 

[R_C]

Clement I, Pope and Church Father, wrote this around the year 80 AD:

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry

Ignatius of Antioch, Church Father, wrote shortly thereafter (around 110 AD):

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery 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 a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints.

Iraeneus, Church Father, would write around 189 AD:

It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times …]

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition …]

if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority. …]

It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever …]

The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere

In 209 AD, Tertullian, Church Father, writes about those who question the authority of the bishops:

let them show the origin of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles.

Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those Churches which are of much later date – for they are being established daily – and whose founder is not from among the Apostles nor from among the apostolic men; for those which agree in the same faith are reckoned as apostolic on account of the blood ties in their doctrine. Then let all heresies prove how they regard themselves as apostolic, when they are challenged by our Churches to meet either test. But in fact they are not apostolic, nor can they prove themselves to be what they are not. Neither are they received in peace and communion by the Churches which are in any way apostolic, since on account of their diverse belief they are in no way apostolic.

Jerome, the great translator of the Biblia Sacra Vulgata, wrote in 396 AD:

Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians

And finally, St. Augustine of Hippo, a Church Father whose praise resounds throughout history, wrote in 397 AD:

There are many other things which most properly can keep me in the Catholic Church’s bosom. …] The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here.

 

[havasupai]

From the Catechism

III. The Church Is the Temple of the Holy Spirit

797***“What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”243 “To this Spirit of Christ, as an invisible principle, is to be ascribed the fact that all the parts of the body are joined one with the other and with their exalted head; for the whole Spirit of Christ is in the head, the whole Spirit is in the body, and the whole Spirit is in each of the members.”244 The Holy Spirit makes the Church “the temple of the living God”:245 (813, 586)

Indeed, it is to the Church herself that the “Gift of God” has been entrusted… It is in her that communion with Christ has been deposited, that is to say: the Holy Spirit, the pledge of incorruptibility, the strengthening of our faith and the ladder of our ascent to God… For where the Church is, there also is God’s Spirit; where God’s Spirit is, there is the Church and every grace.246

798***The Holy Spirit is “the principle of every vital and truly saving action in each part of the Body.”247 He works in many ways to build up the whole Body in charity:248 by God’s Word “which is able to build you up”;249 by Baptism, through which he forms Christ’s Body;250 by the sacraments, which give growth and healing to Christ’s members; by “the grace of the apostles, which holds first place among his gifts”;251 by the virtues, which make us act according to what is good; finally, by the many special graces (called “charisms”), by which he makes the faithful “fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church.”252 (737, 1091-1109, 791)

Charisms

799***Whether extraordinary or simple and humble, charisms are graces of the Holy Spirit which directly or indirectly benefit the Church, ordered as they are to her building up, to the good of men, and to the needs of the world. (951, 2003)

800***Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them and by all members of the Church as well. They are a wonderfully rich grace for the apostolic vitality and for the holiness of the entire Body of Christ, provided they really are genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit and are used in full conformity with authentic promptings of this same Spirit, that is, in keeping with charity, the true measure of all charisms.253

801***It is in this sense that discernment of charisms is always necessary. No charism is exempt from being referred and submitted to the Church’s shepherds. “Their office [is] not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to what is good,”254 so that all the diverse and complementary charisms work together “for the common good.”255 (894, 1905)

 

[havasupai]

IV. The Church Is Apostolic

857***The Church is apostolic because she is founded on the apostles, in three ways: (75, 171, 880, 1575)

—she was and remains built on “the foundation of the Apostles,”362 the witnesses chosen and sent on mission by Christ himself;363

—with the help of the Spirit dwelling in her, the Church keeps and hands on the teaching,364 the “good deposit,” the salutary words she has heard from the apostles;365

—she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ’s return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, “assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church’s supreme pastor”:366

You are the eternal Shepherd
who never leaves his flock untended.
Through the apostles
you watch over us and protect us always.
You made them shepherds of the flock
to share in the work of your Son… 367

The Apostles’ mission

858Jesus is the Father’s Emissary. From the beginning of his ministry, he “called to him those whom he desired;… And he appointed twelve, whom also he named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach.”368 From then on, they would also be his “emissaries” (Greek apostoloi). In them, Christ continues his own mission: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”369 The apostles’ ministry is the continuation of his mission; Jesus said to the Twelve: “he who receives you receives me.”370 (551, 425, 1086)
859Jesus unites them to the mission he received from the Father. As “the Son can do nothing of his own accord,” but receives everything from the Father who sent him, so those whom Jesus sends can do nothing apart from him,371 from whom they received both the mandate for their mission and the power to carry it out. Christ’s apostles knew that they were called by God as “ministers of a new covenant,” “servants of God,” “ambassadors for Christ,” “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.”372 (876)

860***** In the office of the apostles there is one aspect that cannot be transmitted: to be the chosen witnesses of the Lord’s Resurrection and so the foundation stones of the Church. But their office also has a permanent aspect. Christ promised to remain with them always. The divine mission entrusted by Jesus to them “will continue to the end of time, since the Gospel they handed on is the lasting source of all life for the Church. Therefore,… the apostles took care to appoint successors.”373 (642, 765, 1087)

 

[havasupai]

The bishops—successors of the apostles
861***“In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry.”374 (77, 1087)
862***“Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.”375 Hence the Church teaches that “the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.”376 (880, 1556)

 

[havasupai]

Thank you. I guess I’m just trying to understand when the bishops were understood to be successors to the apostles, with the same (or similar?) apostolic authority. Nibley claims that during the New Testament, apostles and bishops functioned side by side, and that apostles were traveling authorities, while bishops were local church leaders, and had different roles. Now as I understand it, Catholic/Orthodox bishops are local authorities in the sense that they are in charge of the Church in a local area, and they travel as well. He argues that the bishops were certainly ordained by the apostles, but that doesn’t mean that they have the authority of the apostles. He argues that deacons and others could have also been ordained by the apostles, making them “apostolic” in a sense, but that doesn’t mean that they have the authority of the apostles. I’m just trying to understand when/how/why it became understood that because the apostles died, the bishops became the leaders of the Church, with the authority to guide the flock, similarly to the apostles.

Probably the apostles themselves instructed the churches to follow their bishops once they themselves were gone. Peter knew he was going to die in Rome. Did he just drop the ball so to speak and let the church fall apart after his death? Or did the Holy Spirit abandon the Church right when guidance was needed the most? 1700 years of darkness and apostasy is a long time just because someone forgot to ordain new apostles.

The historical fact is that by the time we get to the early 2nd century bishops/presbyters were the acknowledged leaders of the church, with the church at Rome already acquiring a special status. The simplest explanation for this fact is that the apostles designated these men as having their authority to teach the faith, govern the church, and administer the sacraments. It’s also the explanation most consistent with Jesus being the good shepherd and the Church being his very Body and Bride. Peter identified himself as a “fellow presbyter”. The replacement for Judas was “taking his bishopric” As far as I’m aware, there wasnt anyone going around claiming to have a new quorum of the 12 or arguing that such a quorum was a requirement for the church. Why not? Because the original apostles did not teach it. All of the Mormon offshoots had 12 apostles in their sects. Why? Because Joseph Smith taught that it was necessary.

 

[Thecourts]

Going to the first poster ---- Nibley was speaking for himself. He was not speaking for the Brethren and was not a official representative of the church.

Again, he was speaking for himself.