Paul an Apostle?

[longwayhome]

Did Paul have Apostolic authority? If so, when was he ordained? If Apostolic authority is always traced back to the Twelve Apostles, then it seems Paul should have been ordained (in spite of his miraculous experience of the Risen Christ).

Paul seems to claim Apostolic authority here:

2Thes2: [15] “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

 

[NotWorthy]

Did Paul have Apostolic authority? If so, when was he ordained? If Apostolic authority is always traced back to the Twelve Apostles, then it seems Paul should have been ordained (in spite of his miraculous experience of the Risen Christ).

Paul seems to claim Apostolic authority here:

2Thes2: [15] “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

Jesus gave Him Apostolic Authority. Paul makes this claim numerous times.

He was ordained by Ananius, as a priest, (the laying on of hands) in Damascus.

 

[Mike_Brick]

Did Paul have Apostolic authority? If so, when was he ordained? If Apostolic authority is always traced back to the Twelve Apostles, then it seems Paul should have been ordained (in spite of his miraculous experience of the Risen Christ).

Paul seems to claim Apostolic authority here:

2Thes2: [15] “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

Yours is a very good question, because Scripture is silent about his “ordination” except for Acts 9:6 where Jesus sends him into the city to be told what to do. Later on, in verse 27, Saul was introduced to the Apostles where his selection by Jesus was explained to them, and he remained there with them for some time. Paul was apparently chosen by Jesus and sent, (apostle means sent), to preach to the Gentiles, while all the other apostles had been chosen from among the Jews, and understood that Jesus had come to save only the Jews at that time. Clearly God chose to reach out to the non-Jews, and Paul apparently was chosen as an instrument by God Himself, and therefore was not a successor of the Apostles, but was sent by God to be one of them.

There are many detractors of Christianity who insist that Saul of Tarsus was a pretender and self-ordained fraud. This is another reason for the importance of Sacred Tradition and Scripture itself to be used in combination. Paul was accepted by the Apostles and history showed he behaved and suffered as one of them.

I hope I didn’t confuse you.

 

[NotWorthy]

Paul went out to the Gentiles because the Jews felt he was a traitor. They often tried to disrupt his Evangelism. It’s odd, though, that the Apostles were all Jews as well. I guess they were never Anti-Christian like Saul was, before he flip-flopped.

For this reason, he never would have made a good Presidential Candidate (sorry, some jokes are just for my own laughter).

 

[TOME]

I think part of the answer to this question is to understand the term “Apostle”. I think for most of us when we hear or read the word apostle we automatically think of one of the “12” apostles, that is, the 12 men choosen by Christ himself and who were present throughout his ministry, were present at the “Last Supper” and received from “Christ” the great commission as found in Matthew 28: 16 - 20 - an this includes Matthias as well.
It is upon the “12” that the “Apostolic Tradition” is rooted.

But the question has to do with Paul and his ordination as an “Apostle” and whose authority was equal to the “12”. As was suggested Paul was ordained by Ananias but this is a misunderstanding of Ananias’ actions and Paul’s commission.
First, Ananias laid hands on Paul to heal Paul not to ordain him. In Acts 9: 10 - 12 we read Christ directing Ananias to go to Paul to heal him.

Ananias could not ordain Paul to be an “Apostle” on par with the “12” because this “ordination” or “commission” could only come Christ Jesus Himself. The “12” again received this ordination for Jesus directly (Mt 28: 16 - 20) and we read of Paul’s direct commission from Jesus Christ in Acts 9 (1 Cor 9 :1).

We can find elsewhere in the New Testament, especially in the letter of Paul, men who were called “apostles” however these men
we not one of the “12” but received their commission either from the “12” themselves or from the Church. There role, rooted in the authority of the “12”, was to travel and to spread the “Good News”. These men’s ministry we different from that of “Overseers” in that they were not to remain and minister to a particular Church.

It was in the fact that they were called to preach the “Good New” baptize and help establish the Church in a particular area then move on that made their ministry similar to that of the “12” “Apostles” but, again they were not one of the “12”. It was about men who were continually moving about and preaching a false gospel and proclaiming themselves to be apostles that Paul call “false apostles” and warn others about their activities. We can also read about the ministry of “apostles” in excanonical works such as the “Didache”.

Therefore, because Paul was directly commission by Christ in his ministry to the gentiles he could claim that he too was an “Apostle” whose authority was equal to the “12” but just as with the “12” (with the exception of Matthias there was no “Ordination” or “Laying on Hands” but a direct commission from Christ Himself. However, it should be noted that Paul was not out doing his “own thing” and preaching a gospel different from everyone else. We see this especially in Paul’s letter to the Galatians Chapters 1 & 2 and in Acts 15 & 21 and with Paul’s emphasis that he was in fellowship (or communion - to use a term dear to Our Holy Father).

 

[longwayhome]

So is the Catholic position that Apostolic Succession is strictly necessary except in the case of St. Paul? Because I thought Apostolic succession meant that any Bishop could trace himself back to one of the Twelve Apostles.

Is there a line of Apostolic succession which goes back to Paul? He seems to strongly imply that he ordained Timothy.

 

[epostle]

So is the Catholic position that Apostolic Succession is strictly necessary except in the case of St. Paul? Because I thought Apostolic succession meant that any Bishop could trace himself back to one of the Twelve Apostles.

Is there a line of Apostolic succession which goes back to Paul? He seems to strongly imply that he ordained Timothy.

Paul

1. had his ministry initiated by God in Acts 9:6, but did not publically speak with authority when he was blind.
2. received ordination by the laying on of hands by Ananias who
   A) was ordained as a bishop, an official representative of the Church
   B) received directly from God instructions to heal / ordain Paul by the laying on of hands.
3. Paul consulted Peter, James and others to verify that his Gospel was true, “lest my preaching be in vain”. (Galatians)

Yes, Paul ordained Timothy, and others. Scripture clearly calls St. Timothy an apostle, thereby attesting to his apostolic authority:

“Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:6)

It is not only St. Timothy who is called an apostle by Sacred Scripture, but also St. Barnabus, Apollos, and St. Titus:

St. Barnabus
“But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude…” (Acts 14:14)

Apollos
“I planted, Apollos watered… He who plants and he who waters are equal.” (1 Cor. 3:6, 8)

“I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren… For I think that **God has exhibited us apostles **as last of all, like men sentenced to death.” (1 Cor. 4:6,9)

The objection will be raised: Titus is nowhere in Scripture explicitly called an apostle. I reply, it is implicit in what kind of authority is accorded to the apostles. Scripture testifies that only apostles are given full authority. Compare what is said of St. Paul and St. Timothy (both of whom are called “apostles”) with what is said of St. Titus:

St. Paul
“…nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” (1 Thess. 2:6)

St. Timothy
“As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that **you may charge **certain persons not to teach any different doctrine…” (1 Tim. 1:3)

“Command and teach these things.” (1 Tim. 4:11)

“Remind them of this, **and charge them before the Lord **to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.” (2 Tim. 2:14)

St. Titus
“This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” (Tit.1:5)

“Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” (Tit. 2:15)

“…our boasting before Titus has proved true. And his heart goes out all the more to you, as he remembers** the obedience of you **all, and the fear and trembling with which you received him.” (2 Cor. 7:14-15)

By What Authority? A Challenge to Protestant Pastors

 

[Todd_Easton]

Paul and Barnabas also received the laying on of hands at Antioch in Acts 13:1-3.

 

[longwayhome]

The laying on of hands is indicative first of the Sacrament of Confirmation (the extension of Pentecost). There is no indication in the text that Ananias was a Bishop (the text says he was a “disciple”). He conferred upon Paul the Sacraments of Initiation. Holy Orders is not a Sacrament of Initiation. Nice try but you are reading into the text.

Anyone know whether/when Paul was ordained as a Bishop?

 

[NotWorthy]

The laying on of hands is indicative first of the Sacrament of Confirmation (the extension of Pentecost). There is no indication in the text that Ananias was a Bishop (the text says he was a “disciple”). He conferred upon Paul the Sacraments of Initiation. Holy Orders is not a Sacrament of Initiation. Nice try but you are reading into the text.

OK…

Did you read Todd Easton’s quote?

Paul and Barnabas also received the laying on of hands at Antioch in Acts 13:1-3.

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.

Anyone know whether/when Paul was ordained as a Bishop?

I don’t know that he was ever ordained a bishop. His mission was to mission, so to speak.

BTW, Welcome to the Forums!!!

 

[longwayhome]

Thanks guys! Sorry I missed that Todd. It’s something I should know but didn’t and couldn’t find it.

I was actually an active poster before the boards “crashed” about a year ago. When they came up I became a “newbie” again. Lately, I’ve been hanging out at Jimmy Akin and some other boards. But I know this is a great place to get a question answered.

Best,

Mark