Modern Day Apostles?

[ThePol]

In a discussion today with a co-worker (who is a non-denominational Protestant) he made the claim that there are current day Apostles. He also tends to call baptized Christians “saints.”

Is this just a situation where the title ‘apostle’ and ‘saint’ are being used in more general, looser terms? It appears from Google that some Orthodox bishops are called Apostles…

From a Catholic perspective, what do we need to believe about the office of Apostle? The only thing I can think of is that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle…

 

[His_little1]

I always thought that “apostles” were those sent forth to spread the good news.The original apostles found new apostles to take their places and continue the work. This is how the Catholic church has remained from the beginning starting with Jesus. Apostolic succession is kind of mind-blowing when you consider that the Bishop you see today was ordained by someone, who was ordained by someone before him, etc way back to Jesus, Peter and the first apostles.
Disciples were those that followed the good news (Jesus).
And saints were everyday people with everyday problems who overcame them by seeking a relationship with God. The saints we refer back to from the past have been found to be worthy of Heaven and through their intercession with Jesus on our behalf we have had miracles to prove they are there with Him praying for us. So in a way, there are people walking around today that are saints (in training perhaps). We believe in the communion of the saints which includes the ones who have lived before us and those part of the body of Christ and His church.

Both are definitely worthy of our time and talents to join in and become a part. I understand the big reunion will be out of this world!

 

[budgie2]

I think the ordained ministry are the current day apostles as we believe that Catholic priests have apostolic line. The Church of England in Britain broke with apostolic line. That is that the laying on of hands can be traced back to Christ. Saint used to mean all the baptised but it also means somebody that is holy, near to perfection, fully human, someone who has achieved their full spiritual potential or near to fulfilling it.

 

[Halos1n2Horns]

agree apostles are bishops, popes and priest more so on the Priest end because there the one preaching the gospel to us.

Saints as said were all saints that do the will of god? So that would make everyone who follows christ and his teachings a saint.

My opinion Halos

Blessed be the Lord

 

[COPLAND_3]

Yes, apostles and saints can be used in generalization, apostle means ‘messenger’ while saint means ‘holy one.’ We can also use priest in a general sense, since we are a kingdom and priest because the “faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation” (see CCC 1546). But there has been specific vocations established by Christ, such as apostles and priests. The office of the Apostle were for those appointed and saw the risen Christ, and it ended after they died, but Bishops are their successsors. Saints do refer to Christians in a general sense because of Baptism, since saint means holy one, Baptism makes us holy, but in a more specific way a saint refers to those who live in heaven because they are in a complete state of holiness.

 

[juliamajor]

Two things-“apostolos” means to send for - like an ambassador or messenger-so in one sense all Christians are apostles and those ordained bishops spiritual descendants of the original apostles.Jesus’ friends, disciples, his first apostles where Jesus’ “unique” messengers" for one time and one place in history.Just as we are 'sons and daughters " of God but Jesus was the “unique” one and only Son of God.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Two things-“apostolos” means to send for - like an ambassador or messenger-so in one sense all Christians are apostles and those ordained bishops spiritual descendants of the original apostles.Jesus’ friends, disciples, his first apostles where Jesus’ “unique” messengers" for one time and one place in history.Just as we are 'sons and daughters " of God but Jesus was the “unique” one and only Son of God.

Very well said!

 

[NHInsider]

{Wearing my biliingual (Catholic and Evangelical) hat}

“Saints” refers to all the saved (St. Paul refers to “those who are being saved”) and in fact we are all called to be saints - the only alternative being “damned” - the roster of canonized saints represents only a small percentage of those in Heaven and purgatory - those saved by grace. This use is pretty common in Protestantism and not a problem for Catholics.

“Apostles” means, as has already been posted here, the “sent.” Jesus sent many more than just the Twelve (consider the 72 in Luke 10) and we are all, by virtue of our Baptisms, called to evangelize. As Catholics we tend to restrict the term to the Twelve and those they ordained (down, obviously, through the years in the bishops). Some Protestants use the term to refer to those with a particular spiritual gift for mission work or preaching/teaching/making converts, some use it for all missionaries. Some use the word “Disciples” when referring to the Twelve even though they acknowledge that we are all called to be disciples. What is important is not so much the words but the understanding (or lack thereof) of the office. We believe that Jesus gave the Twelve authority that was distinct from the mission He gave to all. Not all our Protestant brethren recognize that.

 

[Cashue]

When Jesus was on earth he eventually prayed all night and chose 12 men as “apostles” from all his disciples. He did this to show that all those (even those he hadn’t chosen) where the same.

The 12 he chose had no particular or special role in the establishment of christianity, individuals like Peter where no different from the others. There was no reason Jesus chose 12 and the 12 were the same as the other men in the christian group of disciples.

 

[ThePol]

He did this to show that all those (even those he hadn’t chosen) where the same.

The 12 he chose had no particular or special role in the establishment of christianity, individuals like Peter where no different from the others. There was no reason Jesus chose 12 and the 12 were the same as the other men in the christian group of disciples.

I’m sorry, but these unique claims just don’t hold up what we see in the Gospels and in Acts. In addition, we have ample historical evidence that the earliest Christians didn’t hold is view.

Here are some examples: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

One of the reasons I love being Catholic is that the Church reads the entire Bible and doesn’t pull a few verses out of context to support a theological position conceived in the 16th century (such as the one posted by Cashue).

 

[Cashue]

I’m sorry, but these unique claims just don’t hold up what we see in the Gospels and in Acts. In addition, we have ample historical evidence that the earliest Christians didn’t hold is view.

Here are some examples: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

One of the reasons I love being Catholic is that the Church reads the entire Bible and doesn’t pull a few verses out of context to support a theological position conceived in the 16th century (such as the one posted by Cashue).

Maybe I didn’t express it well, NHInsider put it better than me…

“Apostles” means, as has already been posted here, the “sent.” Jesus sent many more than just the Twelve (consider the 72 in Luke 10) and we are all, by virtue of our Baptisms, called to evangelize.

I simply meant that the 12 were the same as all the bishops as has come out in this thread.

 

[ThePol]

Maybe I didn’t express it well, NHInsider put it better than me…

I simply meant that the 12 were the same as all the bishops as has come out in this thread.

My apologies Cashue! I took your post to mean that there wasn’t anything different between the 12 Apostles and every other Christian, something you didn’t mean. Again, I misunderstood your post. Sorry.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

My apologies Cashue! I took your post to mean that there wasn’t anything different between the 12 Apostles and every other Christian, something you didn’t mean. Again, I misunderstood your post. Sorry.

Don’t feel bad. It sounded that way to me too.

 

[DorianGregorian]

I have heard this before, especially from Protestants, this is what I understand of the Church’s teaching.

We are ‘saints’ but not “Saints”

The English ‘saint’ is derived from the Latin ‘Sanctus’, which is translated ‘Holy’. Any person who lives a holy life is a ‘saint’.

However a “Saint” is a person, who after careful examination by the Church, is canonized and is formally declared to be in Heaven.

We are ‘apostles’ but not “Apostles”

The English ‘apostle’ is derived from the Greek apóstolos, meaning ‘one who is sent (out).’ So technically speaking any body who is sent by the Church is an ‘apostle’. Of course we are all sent because of the Great Commission, so all Christians who proclaim the Gospel are ‘apostles’.

The “Apostles” mean the 12 disciples of Jesus.

Laus Deo

 

[Morgan2375]

Two things-“apostolos” means to send for - like an ambassador or messenger-so in one sense all Christians are apostles and those ordained bishops spiritual descendants of the original apostles.Jesus’ friends, disciples, his first apostles where Jesus’ “unique” messengers" for one time and one place in history.Just as we are 'sons and daughters " of God but Jesus was the “unique” one and only Son of God.

It is a very nice thought to think that all Christians are apostles but is it really true? I certainly understand the Pope as an apostle through Apostolic succession and of course, I can see Bishops as apostles by virtue of their succession/laying on of hands at their ordination. In fact I can see where all Priests and Deacons by virtue (again through laying on of hands) of their ordination are apostles since they have all been “sent” with a mission to spread the gospel. However, here is where it gets a little tricky. It’s here where we have to ask the question “What is a Christian”.

If you mean a person baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, one confirmed by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, then I can certainly see that since they are confirmed by successors of the apostles and are “sent” with the mission of bearing witness to Christ.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1313) then I can certainly see that.

Outside of that it’s difficult to say definitively who is clearly an apostle of Christ.

I’m not sure that a person who says they believe in God and has asked Christ into their hearts but has not been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is an apostle because it does not appear to be historically consistent.

However, I’m not going to say that this (unbaptized/unconfirmed) person did not receive personal revelation whereby the Holy Spirit named them as an apostle and “sent” them on a mission.

What we do know is that baptized Catholics confirmed through apostolic succession are “sent” with the mission of bearing witness to Christ and at each Mass are “sent” to be Christ present in the world.

 

[Morgan2375]

I have heard this before, especially from Protestants, this is what I understand of the Church’s teaching.

We are ‘saints’ but not “Saints”

The English ‘saint’ is derived from the Latin ‘Sanctus’, which is translated ‘Holy’. Any person who lives a holy life is a ‘saint’.

However a “Saint” is a person, who after careful examination by the Church, is canonized and is formally declared to be in Heaven.

We are ‘apostles’ but not “Apostles”

The English ‘apostle’ is derived from the Greek apóstolos, meaning ‘one who is sent (out).’ So technically speaking any body who is sent by the Church is an ‘apostle’. Of course we are all sent because of the Great Commission, so all Christians who proclaim the Gospel are ‘apostles’.

The “Apostles” mean the 12 disciples of Jesus.

Laus Deo

I certainly get what you are saying here however, “Et Missa Est” you are sent] since at every Mass everyone is “sent”, does that mean everyone is an apostle? Is a child who has not made their “First Holy Communion” an apostle? It seems to me that at Mass we come into communion with Christ and one another through Jesus’ Eucharistic presence in us.

It seems that an “apostle” who is not in “Communion” with Christ and the church may be inadequately equipped to complete the mission he was sent to do. Something just doesn’t seem right about this. Please elaborate.

 

[James82]

I’m going to go out on a limb here…

I thought it was only those who witnessed the Resurrected Jesus Christ that were Apostles, and that their successors (Bishops etc) were just that, successors to the original 12.

Similarly I believe it is correct (and correct Roman Catholic theology) to see the successive popes after Peter as just that as well, but not holding the same ‘position’ as St. Peter himself, that being ‘the ROCK’ of Christ’s Church Militant?

I’m just grabbing at straws here mostly from things I have glanced at in reading.