Paul lays hands on Timothy

[submariner2]

Really? Which Catholic scholars are those? On the contrary, ordination began in the upper room with Jesus, and was continued by the Apostles when Matthias replaced Judas.

guano,

Here is Father Raymond E. Brown on the issue of laying on of hands and apostolic succession.

"1. Antioch church sends Barnabas and Saul; Mission to Cyprus and SE Asia monor (Acts 13;1-14:28)

In this context of prayer and fasting, hands are laid on Barnabas and Saul. We should not
anachronistically speak of this as an ordination; it is a commissioning by the church of Antioc
for a mission that is often counted as the first Pauline journey and dated to AD 46-49."
Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, P 303, Imprimatur.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.

Regarding Mattias, he says this.

Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.

In the early church there never was a suggestion of replacing any members of the Twelve
when they died. The replacement of Judas is because he gave up his role among the Twelve, and there had to be twelve to begin the renewal of Israel, since there were twelve
patriarchs for the old Israel.

I dont know where you get your information from. I do not see it in scripture or even mentioned by ECFs.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Yes, this is how Apostolic ordination is done. It commissions the recipient with Holy Orders- authorization for the journey to care for the flock.
There are many circumstances related to the laying on of hands, ordination being only one. Another is the transmission of the Holy Spirit (confirmation) to believers.

When Paul admonishes Timothy to stir into flame the gift that was given him, he is speaking of the laying on of hands in his ordination to the Bishopric.

guano,

I think those traditions as you explain it began in the 3rd century as Father Raymond E Brown explains. I have no idea where you get your interpretation of Paul’s mention of “stir into flame the gift that was given him.”

Rob

 

[adrift]

Acts chapter 13… i believe… Saul’s name changed to Paul during the time Paul had the imposition of hands.

His name was not changed.
As he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin he was given at the time of his circumcision the name of Saul, which must have been common in that tribe in memory of the first king of the Jews (Philippians 3:5). As a Roman citizen he also bore the Latin name of Paul. It was quite usual for the Jews of that time to have two names, one Hebrew, the other Latin or Greek, between which there was often a certain assonance and which were joined together exactly in the manner made use of by St. Luke (Acts 13:9: Saulos ho kai Paulos). See on this point Deissmann, “Bible Studies” (Edinburgh, 1903, 313-17.) It was natural that in inaugurating his apostolate among the Gentiles Paul should have adopted his Roman name, especially as the name Saul had a ludicrous meaning in Greek.

 

[submariner2]

a·nach·ro·nism (-nkr-nzm)
n.

1. The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.
2. One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a person or practice that belongs to an earlier time: "

The practice came to be known as ordination. I think Brown is saying this is the commissioning…which ordination is…commission to the sacrament of holy orders.

ordination - the status of being ordained to a sacred officeordination - the status of being ordained to a sacred office

pabolpe,

Brown says a blessing for a special mission. He does not say any kind of office.
You are welcome to your interpretation but I do not see it and I think Brown does not either or he would have said so.

In fact here is even more specific here when he discusses apostolic succession.

“Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.”
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.

He obvously is not saying that laying on of hands was a method of choosing successors in the NT (It was in the 3rd century). Nor does he hint it has anything to do with an office of any kind. In fact the NT does not even mention a need for successors of any office.

I have no idea where you get those interpretations from.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

Fr. Brown nowhere says that ordination did not exist, or that these accounts in the NT were NOT ordinations. What he is saying is that the procedure was not formalized immediately.

pablope,

Father Raymond E. Brown is an expert. He says that laying on of hands was not ordination in the NT but became such in the 3rd century. Here he is again on the apostolic succession issue. This is history and he is an expert on the subject.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.

Rob

It is curious that you reject a practice that was formalized in the third century, but reject other Sacred Traditions that were formalized after that, such as the Nicean Council, the canon of the NT, the hypostatic union, the creation of the term “Trinity” to describe God. It is likely that you accept all these others, so why reject ordination?

 

[JaKael02]

His name was not changed.
As he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin he was given at the time of his circumcision the name of Saul, which must have been common in that tribe in memory of the first king of the Jews (Philippians 3:5). As a Roman citizen he also bore the Latin name of Paul. It was quite usual for the Jews of that time to have two names, one Hebrew, the other Latin or Greek, between which there was often a certain assonance and which were joined together exactly in the manner made use of by St. Luke (Acts 13:9: Saulos ho kai Paulos). See on this point Deissmann, “Bible Studies” (Edinburgh, 1903, 313-17.) It was natural that in inaugurating his apostolate among the Gentiles Paul should have adopted his Roman name, especially as the name Saul had a ludicrous meaning in Greek.

Thank you, I stand corrected. I was misinformed.

 

[guanophore]

guano,

Here is Father Raymond E. Brown on the issue of laying on of hands and apostolic succession.

"1. Antioch church sends Barnabas and Saul; Mission to Cyprus and SE Asia monor (Acts 13;1-14:28)

In this context of prayer and fasting, hands are laid on Barnabas and Saul. We should not
anachronistically speak of this as an ordination; it is a commissioning by the church of Antioc
for a mission that is often counted as the first Pauline journey and dated to AD 46-49."
Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, P 303, Imprimatur.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.

I think that you have misunderstood the meaning of the term “anachronisically” as it is used here. I see another member has posted the definition - maybe that will help you. Paul, like the other Apostles, was ordained by Christ, and this ordination was validated by the Church on more than one occasion.

Regarding Mattias, he says this.

Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.

In the early church there never was a suggestion of replacing any members of the Twelve
when they died. The replacement of Judas is because he gave up his role among the Twelve, and there had to be twelve to begin the renewal of Israel, since there were twelve
patriarchs for the old Israel.

I dont know where you get your information from. I do not see it in scripture or even mentioned by ECFs.

Rob

I get my information from Scripture and the Fathers, but it is because I read them through the lens of Sacred Tradition. I read with the faith that produced the Scriptures, rather than reading them in isolation from it.

the 12 had a special role in the Kingdom. Matthias was ordained to take the place of Judas who “left his office”.

There were more than 12 Apostles ministering during NT times, but after the death of the Apostles, no one met the criteria again to be an apostle. The successors of the Apostles are the Bishops. Fr. Brown is not saying there were no successors to the Apostles, just that the successors were not themselves Apostles.

 

[JaKael02]

pablope,

Father Raymond E. Brown is an expert. He says that laying on of hands was not ordination in the NT but became such in the 3rd century. Here he is again on the apostolic succession issue. This is history and he is an expert on the subject.

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.

Rob

Rob,

You make a fine case. I struggle with the “blessing” interpretation. How do you get blessing from Mr. Brown case?

I see the seed of a “commissioning”. This is because little survived persecution, but what we do know is that an informal process of presbyters were appointed by the Church to their position. This informal process turned formal over time.

Maybe I am not seeing something. Thank you.

James

 

[pablope]

pabolpe,

In fact here is even more specific here when he discusses apostolic succession.

**Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed." **
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.

I have no idea where you get those interpretations from.

Rob

Rob…there goes the “Rub”…so to speak.

The pattern and selection and ordination was “regularized”…or made formal…in the 3rd century…meaning there was a process already in place prior to the 3rd century. It was made a universal method for the Church…so that in every place you went, it was the same practice and method…not a hodgepodge of practices.

In a previous post…I posted the OT roots with Moses to Joshua…Num 27…18 So the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership,[a] and lay your hand on him. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence…23 Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the Lord instructed through Moses

And you can see the same thing in Acts 13…with Paul.

Again…a·nach·ro·nism (-nkr-nzm)
n.

1. The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.
2. One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a person or practice that belongs to an earlier time: "

Meaning, it was not known as ordination at the time…we come to know it as ordination in this present day and age.

 

[submariner2]

pablope;9381875]Rob…there goes the “Rub”…so to speak.

The pattern and selection and ordination was “regularized”…or made formal…in the 3rd century…meaning there was a process already in place prior to the 3rd century. It was made a universal method for the Church…so that in every place you went, it was the same practice and method…not a hodgepodge of practices.

pablope,

Yes it was before but I dont think he meant long before. Not in the NT for sure and of course not mentioned either by the ECFs before late 2nd century. The idea of a clergy was late 2nd century.

In a previous post…I posted the OT roots with Moses to Joshua…Num 27…18 So the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership,[a] and lay your hand on him. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence…23 Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the Lord instructed through Moses

I am sure Fr. Brown was aware of this. Laying on of hands was for a special mission but not ordination until around the 3rd century. Brown is in agreement with other historians both Catholic and protestant.

Meaning, it was not known as ordination at the time…we come to know it as ordination in this present day and age.

The primary point is it did not mean clergy or some special separation from layman.
It simply meant a special mission for that person as Fr. Brown explains. The NT did not have any clergy. Perhaps you might want to read the entire book to get his entire history and opinions on the subject?

Rob

 

[guanophore]

Yes it was before but I dont think he meant long before. Not in the NT for sure and of course not mentioned either by the ECFs before late 2nd century.  The idea of a clergy was late 2nd century.

The model of the organization is already present in the OT. There is a High Priest, a ministerial priesthood, and the priesthood of all believers.

…I posted the OT roots with Moses to Joshua…Num 27…18 So the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership,[a] and lay your hand on him. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence…23 Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the Lord instructed through Moses

I am sure Fr. Brown was aware of this. Laying on of hands was for a special mission but not ordination until around the 3rd century. Brown is in agreement with other historians both Catholic and protestant.

Then this is a poor example for you to use to deny the reality of clergy in the Church. In this passage it is clear that Joshua was ordained - God took some of the Spirit that was on Moses, and gave it to Joshua.

The primary point is it did not mean clergy or some special separation from layman.
It simply meant a special mission for that person as Fr. Brown explains. The NT did not have any clergy. Perhaps you might want to read the entire book to get his entire history and opinions on the subject?

Rob

The role of the clergy does not mean “special separation” from laypersons. They minister to the Body, so that the laypersons can do the work of the ministry.

 

[TimothyH]

The Apostles had no successors (except for Judas). They were not replaced. Bishops, i.e., governors of local churches existed during and after the presence of apostles. There was a bishop of Rome before Peter arrived. He met the local church members when he went to Rome, and there was a leader, bishop, of the Roman church before Peter arrived.

That today’s Bishops are the successors to the Apostles is clear in scripture and throught Church teaching. .

So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:23-26)

The subject is addressed in many Church documents and including “On the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church” - Lumen Gentium.

Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God. (Chapter 3, 18)

That divine mission, entrusted by Christ to the apostles, will last until the end of the world, since the Gospel they are to teach is for all time the source of all life for the Church. And for this reason the apostles, appointed as rulers in this society, took care to appoint successors. (Chapter 3, 20)

There are dozens of footnotes in Lumen Gengium which point to writings of other Popes and Early Church Fathers.

-Tim-

 

[guanophore]

That today’s Bishops are the successors to the Apostles is clear in scripture and throught Church teaching. .

So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:23-26)

The subject is addressed in many Church documents and including “On the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church” - Lumen Gentium.

Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God. (Chapter 3, 18)

That divine mission, entrusted by Christ to the apostles, will last until the end of the world, since the Gospel they are to teach is for all time the source of all life for the Church. And for this reason the apostles, appointed as rulers in this society, took care to appoint successors. (Chapter 3, 20)

There are dozens of footnotes in Lumen Gengium which point to writings of other Popes and Early Church Fathers.

-Tim-

There are persons on this thread who don’t accept that the Apostles were ordained, much less that they ordained other clergy, such as bishops, priests, and deacons.

There are none so blind, as those who do not wish to see.

 

[PeterJohn]

Fr. Browns work is of a different nature then scripture. Scripture doesnt follow the same historical paterns as historians are used to seeking. He is a historian of sorts, and his works are often cited by Protestant scholars as being “proof” of something vague. Many Protestants choose Fr Brown’s work out of many quality catholic works available for a reason. It’s worded in such a way it can be seen as saying more then one thing. If anyone like catholic historians, I can suggest a few others to read that might add to a well rounded catholic view of history.

 

[guanophore]

Fr. Browns work is of a different nature then scripture. Scripture doesnt follow the same historical paterns as historians are used to seeking. He is a historian of sorts, and his works are often cited by Protestant scholars as being “proof” of something vague. Many Protestants choose Fr Brown’s work out of many quality catholic works available for a reason. It’s worded in such a way it can be seen as saying more then one thing. If anyone like catholic historians, I can suggest a few others to read that might add to a well rounded catholic view of history.

I don’t think that the person on this thread who most needs to read them is willing to consider that his views might not be accurate. He has chosen Brown to reinforce his own ideas, and the facts are really irrelevant.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I don’t think Raymond Brown knows what he’s talking about!

There–I said it!

Answer me this Oh Raymond Brown worshipers: If you had to bet your soul on 1900 years of Catholic scholarship versus the last 100 years who would you side with?

Raymond Brown encapsulates what is wrong with historical criticism.

I guess if you believe what he says you’re sophisticated–you wouldn’t believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ but you would be a “modern biblical scholar”.

There are too many American Catholics who non believe with him in their heart of hearts but can’t come right out with their unbelief.

St. Thomas Aquinas pray for us! St. Pius X whose pontifical biblical commission didn’t believe in Q also pray for us!

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think Raymond Brown knows what he’s talking about!

There–I said it!

Answer me this Oh Raymond Brown worshipers: If you had to bet your soul on 1900 years of Catholic scholarship versus the last 100 years who would you side with?

Raymond Brown encapsulates what is wrong with historical criticism.

I guess if you believe what he says you’re sophisticated–you wouldn’t believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ but you would be a “modern biblical scholar”.

There are too many American Catholics who non believe with him in their heart of hearts but can’t come right out with their unbelief.

St. Thomas Aquinas pray for us! St. Pius X whose pontifical biblical commission didn’t believe in Q also pray for us!

Was there something that made you think Raymond Brown was not a believer?

What Fr. Brown has written, that ordination was not formalized in the first century, is not a problem for those who have received the paradosis. The lack of formal ritualization does not make the ordinations that took place from the time of the upper room to the proclamaiton of the NT canon in 382 invalid.

 

[submariner2]

guanophore;9386832]The model of the organization is already present in the OT. There is a High Priest, a ministerial priesthood, and the priesthood of all believers.

guano,

There of course was the levitical priesthood of the OT and mentioned in the NT. The levites though were determinined by geneology and not ordination. The priesthood of all believers was not in the OT but rather a NT innovation. Also mentioned in the NT was Christ as our High Priest. But no other kind of priests are mentioned - no christian clergy priests in the NT.

Then this is a poor example for you to use to deny the reality of clergy in the Church. In this passage it is clear that Joshua was ordained - God took some of the Spirit that was on Moses, and gave it to Joshua.

Josua was not a clergy. The Levites were the official priests of the OT.

I do not deny clergy in the church. I simply cite the plain history that this started in the end of the 2nd century and became established in the 3rd.

The role of the clergy does not mean “special separation” from laypersons. They minister to the Body, so that the laypersons can do the work of the ministry

Clergy has always meant an ordained individual selected to handle the sacraments and an official leadership office not to be held by a layman. It started in the 3rd century. If you start changing the terminology around it makes it hard to communicate.

Interesting subject for conversation.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Rob,

You make a fine case. I struggle with the “blessing” interpretation. How do you get blessing from Mr. Brown case?

I see the seed of a “commissioning”. This is because little survived persecution, but what we do know is that an informal process of presbyters were appointed by the Church to their position. This informal process turned formal over time.

Maybe I am not seeing something. Thank you.

James

James,

Here is the definition by Brown. I just added blessing as my take on the general meaning. It was used for different purposes.

"1. Antioch church sends Barnabas and Saul; Mission to Cyprus and SE Asia monor (Acts 13;1-14:28)

In this context of prayer and fasting, hands are laid on Barnabas and Saul. We should not
anachronistically speak of this as an ordination; it is a commissioning by the church of Antioc
for a mission that is often counted as the first Pauline journey and dated to AD 46-49."
Raymond Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, P 303, Imprimatur.

I would disagree that laying on of hands was used for appointing presbyters. It was possible sometimes but we do not have any evidence for that. Of course some presbyters were appointed, or recruited might be a better word to lead or assist in leading of a church body. Some may have appointed themself as did Paul appoint himself to be an apostle. There is no evidence there was any process at all except simply convincing someone to take on a responsiblity to use their house for gatherings.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

guanophore;9381425]I think that you have misunderstood the meaning of the term “anachronisically” as it is used here. I see another member has posted the definition - maybe that will help you. Paul, like the other Apostles, was ordained by Christ, and this ordination was validated by the Church on more than one occasion.

guano,

Cannot find evidence for that anywhere. Paul plainly says he was not apporinted by any person. (Gal 1.1)

Anyone can look up the definition of “acachronisically” in the dictionary. Mine says it is something “not in keeping with the period.” In other words ordination happened in the 3rd century according to Brown but it was “not in keeping with the period” of the NT.
I take that to mean it did not happen. This should be easy to check since the ECFs after the NT period in the 1st and 2nd centuries wrote tons about all important issues

I get my information from Scripture and the Fathers, but it is because I read them through the lens of Sacred Tradition. I read with the faith that produced the Scriptures, rather than reading them in isolation from it.

I dont think Sacred Tradition deals with history questions as I understand the Catholic definition of the term.

the 12 had a special role in the Kingdom. Matthias was ordained to take the place of Judas who “left his office”.

No evidence that Mattias was ordained. He was replaced because they needed 12. There was no indication of successors in the NT.

There were more than 12 Apostles ministering during NT times, but after the death of the Apostles, no one met the criteria again to be an apostle. The successors of the Apostles are the Bishops. Fr. Brown is not saying there were no successors to the Apostles, just that the successors were not themselves Apostles

I will let Fr Brown speak for himself on Mattias.

Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible.
“In the early church there never was a suggestion of replacing any members of the Twelve
when they died. The replacement of Judas is because he gave up his role among the Twelve, and there had to be twelve to begin the renewal of Israel, since there were twelve
patriarchs for the old Israel”.

I hope this helps. I depend on the experts who really know this bible information and history. Fr. Raymond Brown was a past president of the Catholic Bible Association and served twice under two popes as the only American on the Pontifical Biblical Commission. He knows what he is talking about.

Rob