St Paul's Apostleship

[Coder]

Was it necessary for St. Paul to be officially “ordained” (e.g. by St. Peter) for him to become an “official” Apostle? If so, did Peter or another Apostle do this?

 

[GNM1999]

He was ordained by Our Lord. So I wouldn’t think an ordination by another apostle would be necessary.

 

[jcrichton]

Was it necessary for St. Paul to be officially “ordained” (e.g. by St. Peter) for him to become an “official” Apostle? If so, did Peter or another Apostle do this?

Hi!
…here’s the origin of St. Paul’s ordination:

14 And when we were all fallen down on the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me in the Hebrew tongue: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. 15 And I said: Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord answered: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 16 But rise up, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared to thee, that I may make thee a minister, and a witness of those things which thou hast seen, and of those things wherein I will appear to thee, 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the nations, unto which now I send thee: 18 To open their eyes, that they may be converted from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and a lot among the saints, by the faith that is in me. (Acts 26:14-18)

14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. (Galatians 1:14-16)

…the connection you may be thinking about could bethis:

26 When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. (Acts 9:26-27)

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas** and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. ** (Galatians 1:18-19)
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Coder]

He was ordained by Our Lord. So I wouldn’t think an ordination by another apostle would be necessary.

I can see what you’re saying to some extent but as Catholics don’t we take the approach that once Jesus established an order, such as the authority of Peter and the Church, then all ordination would take place via the means of the Church? Aren’t there some Christian offshoot religions that are based on some claim of personal divine revelation?

I would think that St. Paul would have also been baptized, for example.

 

[Gorgias]

I can see what you’re saying to some extent but as Catholics don’t we take the approach that once Jesus established an order, such as the authority of Peter and the Church, then all ordination would take place via the means of the Church?

I see what you’re saying… but Paul was ‘ordained’ in the same manner in which the other apostles were ‘ordained’: directly, and by Jesus himself.

Clearly, the apostles accepted his ‘ordination’.

Aren’t there some Christian offshoot religions that are based on some claim of personal divine revelation?

If so, then these haven’t been accepted by the leadership of the Church… and that explicit acceptance would be the difference between the two cases.

I would think that St. Paul would have also been baptized, for example.

The other apostles weren’t baptized…

(It seems that you’re taking a somewhat anachronistic approach, and applying later Church rites to circumstances earlier in time. It would kinda be like asking why Christopher Columbus didn’t need a passport in order to enter America… )

 

[Coder]

Actually, St. Paul was apparently baptized so then I would wonder if indeed he would have been ordained apostolically. (Good question too, wouldn’t the Apostles have been baptized? Jesus was baptized [albeit in a different sense of course]).

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, St. Paul was apparently baptized

Right – but your assertion is that the apostles needed the sacraments in the way the Church later settled on them. We have no record of the apostles ever being baptized (in the way we see others being baptized) following the ‘Great Commission’.

so then I would wonder if indeed he would have been ordained apostolically.

Do you mean “ordained as an apostle” or “ordained by an apostle”?

(Good question too, wouldn’t the Apostles have been baptized? Jesus was baptized [albeit in a different sense of course]).

Jesus wasn’t ‘baptized’ (per se), in the way we mean it today. He experienced the “baptism of John”, not the sacramental baptism of the Church.

 

[Coder]

Right – but your assertion is that the apostles needed the sacraments in the way the Church later settled on them.

Do you mean “ordained as an apostle” or “ordained by an apostle”?

Was the road to Damascus event after the ascension?

Yes, I meant “by an Apostle.”

 

[porthos11]

Paul lived in what was still the apostolic era. Paul was not ordained by the laying of hands but by the Lord himself, just as the other apostles were. Hence, he does not carry the title of Bishop, but Apostle, unlike Sts. Timothy and Titus, who are commemorated as Bishops

Paul himself makes that claim that his apostleship is of divine imposition, not that of man, and since the Church has accepted Galatians as inspired Scripture, we take his claim at face value.

 

[Coder]

What is the teaching of Church Tradition regarding whether an Apostle ordained Paul. He certainly reported to the Church and accepted baptism, so this would seem to lean heavily in favor of the idea that he would have had hands laid on him for ordination - but I don’t know.

 

[porthos11]

What is the teaching of Church Tradition regarding whether an Apostle ordained Paul. He certainly reported to the Church and accepted baptism, so this would seem to lean heavily in favor of the idea that he would have had hands laid on him for ordination - but I don’t know.

Scripture proves that St. Paul’s ordination was directly by Christ.

 

[Coder]

So he was baptized after he was ordained? Are you sure there is no teaching of Church Tradition regarding his ordination by the Apostles? (I can certainly understand about him being called by God on the road to Damascus.)

 

[jcrichton]

I see what you’re saying… but Paul was ‘ordained’ in the same manner in which the other apostles were ‘ordained’: directly, and by Jesus himself.

Clearly, the apostles accepted his ‘ordination’.

If so, then these haven’t been accepted by the leadership of the Church… and that explicit acceptance would be the difference between the two cases.

The other apostles weren’t baptized… (It seems that you’re taking a somewhat anachronistic approach, and applying later Church rites to circumstances earlier in time. It would kinda be like asking why Christopher Columbus didn’t need a passport in order to enter America… )

…so you subscribe to “if it’s not in Scriptures?”

Granted, there is no passage that speaks on the Baptism of the Twelve, but do you really believe that Jesus was only making a symbolic gesture and drumming out a lot of noise when speaking on the import of Baptism?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[susanlo]

Acts 9 - 17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Acts 13 - 1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 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.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

If there was another time when a potential ordination took place with an Apostle, it wasn’t recorded in Scripture. I don’t believe there are any records of whether it did or didn’t happen.

 

[Coder]

Those are very relative references from Scripture which even make it seem more plausible that he was ordained officially. Maybe Acts 13:1-3 refers to it. Has Church Tradition has spoken on the topic? Still, I’m satisfied with Acts 13:1-3 that he was sent officially by the Church. Not that I would doubt that Jesus could make him “official” but as I mentioned, it seems Catholic to accept that once Jesus established an order, He Himself would uphold it.

 

[po18guy]

Acts 9 - 17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Acts 13 - 1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 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.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

If there was another time when a potential ordination took place with an Apostle, it wasn’t recorded in Scripture. I don’t believe there are any records of whether it did or didn’t happen.

Perfect!

 

[Gorgias]

…so you subscribe to “if it’s not in Scriptures?”

Absolutely! There’s no mention of presidential elections, or football, or hot dogs and apple pie in the Scriptures, so we’re all godless heathens for participating in them!

Of course not.

Yet, there’s no indication in the writings of the ECFs (that I know of) that suggests a baptism for the apostles.

Granted, there is no passage that speaks on the Baptism of the Twelve, but do you really believe that Jesus was only making a symbolic gesture and drumming out a lot of noise when speaking on the import of Baptism?

Given that they were ordained to priestly ministry directly by Jesus – and this event is recorded in the Gospels! – you’d sure think that, if they were baptized by Him, that event would be recorded there… wouldn’t ya?

 

[porthos11]

So he was baptized after he was ordained? Are you sure there is no teaching of Church Tradition regarding his ordination by the Apostles? (I can certainly understand about him being called by God on the road to Damascus.)

The Damascus experience is not his ordination.

We don’t know precisely when Christ conferred the apostolic office on him, only that he did. at some point. Galatians 1:1.

 

[Reuben_J]

Given that they were ordained to priestly ministry directly by Jesus – and this event is recorded in the Gospels! – you’d sure think that, if they were baptized by Him, that event would be recorded there… wouldn’t ya?

Not necessarily. It was just not mentioned. We don’t know whether Jesus baptized them or not. It is possible that Jesus baptized them (in the Holy Spirit or water Baptism). If Baptism is necessary, then why not the apostles. It was not mentioned probably either because it was taken for granted as a given or indeed they were not baptized at all. However, each possibility was there.

 

[jcrichton]

Absolutely! There’s no mention of presidential elections, or football, or hot dogs and apple pie in the Scriptures, so we’re all godless heathens for participating in them!

Of course not.

Yet, there’s no indication in the writings of the ECFs (that I know of) that suggests a baptism for the apostles.

Given that they were ordained to priestly ministry directly by Jesus – and this event is recorded in the Gospels! – you’d sure think that, if they were baptized by Him, that event would be recorded there… wouldn’t ya?

Hi, Gorgias!
I understand your argument (exposition); yet, Scriptures do not tell us everything as “blow by blow” account. At times we only get “windows” or “hints” of what is actually developing in real time (the Word Incarnate); we have the telling of Jesus’ Baptism Ministry:

1 When Jesus therefore understood that** the Pharisees had heard that Jesus maketh more disciples**, and baptizeth more than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples,) 3 He left Judea, and went again into Galilee. (St. John 4:1-3)

…this passage gives us the update of Jesus’ Ministry–however, the reason why we are given such info is not to demonstrate Jesus’ superiority to John but to accent that the religious were taken notice of Jesus and He sought to remove Himself from the attention being generated (St. John 7:6: 6 Then Jesus said to them: My time is not yet come; & St. John 7:30: 30 They sought therefore to apprehend him: and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.) since it was not yet His Time!

Further, it would be kind of difficult for Jesus to Call out the Sadducees and Pharisees and the rest of Israel’s religious about John’s Baptism (St. Luke 7:30: 30 But the Pharisees and the experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.)) when all they would have to do is point out that His Disciples (the Twelve) are not Baptized–‘Lord, why do you insist on our Baptism when Cephas and Andrew, and John, James…?’
…and not to mention the continuous division within the Body when those who reject Baptism would just point to “the spiritual ones don’t need it!” :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

Maran atha!

Angel