Bishops and Apostles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Truthstalker

Guest
This is more of a a fact-finding thread, I hope, than a debate.

In Catholic thought, what is the difference between an apostle and a bishop? Is a bishop fully an apostle as a successor of an apostle, or of the apostles, or is there a difference (besides in time), and what is that difference?

The focus here, if you don’t mind, should be regards Catholic Church authority in matters of faith and doctrine regarding these two offices, or one office, if they are considered the same.

The counter-position I am thinking of is that the apostolic ministry stopped with the apostles and we went into having elders and deacons administering and teaching. I give this not as ammunition, because I am more interested in what Catholics have to say about the distinction between apostles and bishops, than in defending a Reformed view of the church.
 
The apostles were the first bishops. The bishops are successors to the office of the apostles. We see that from early church writings.

I think that, when the bishops teach in union with each other and the pope, they teach truth. But a bishop could fall into heresy and teach something contrary to the faith if he separated himself from the other bishops.

I think the apostles differed from this in that IMO (not defined church teaching) they personally would/could never teach something contrary to what Jesus passed on to them. They never had doubts about Him or what He said because they SAW and HEARD Him after the resurrection. Something which would leave a profound impression on them.
 
Truthstalker said:
This is more of a a fact-finding thread, I hope, than a debate.

In Catholic thought, what is the difference between an apostle and a bishop? Is a bishop fully an apostle as a successor of an apostle, or of the apostles, or is there a difference (besides in time), and what is that difference?

The focus here, if you don’t mind, should be regards Catholic Church authority in matters of faith and doctrine regarding these two offices, or one office, if they are considered the same.

The counter-position I am thinking of is that the apostolic ministry stopped with the apostles and we went into having elders and deacons administering and teaching. I give this not as ammunition, because I am more interested in what Catholics have to say about the distinction between apostles and bishops, than in defending a Reformed view of the church.
Click to expand...
An Apostle is one who saw and walked with Christ and witnessed the Crucifixion and Resurrection. St. Paul is an Apostle because he was called and sent by Christ Himself.

The Apostles were Bishops, but the Bishops are not Apostles. They are Successors of the Apostles in the office of overseer for a particular Church.
 
Hi Truth_,

Although the bishops are the successors of the apostles and actually derive their power from an apostle and not from the Pope, there is a great difference between an apostle and a bishop. The apostles enjoyed individual infallibility whereas bishops are infallible only when teaching together (the College of Bishops) in communion with the Pope.

In other words, each single apostle taught infallibly. Each bishop has the authority to teach within his diocese, but he does not do it infallibly.

Verbum
 
in acts 1:20 KJV the correct greek is used. “bishopric” which is where the term “bishop” is derived is used for the office of apostle.

matthias took on this name and took the “office”(bishopric) of the apostle Judas. Matthias succeeded Judas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top