Succession of Bishops

[JDHallKY]

I am attempting, at the request of a non-Catholic family member, to prepare a list of scriptural passages which support the idea that Christ established a Church with a teaching authority, excersised by bishops, in succession from the apostles.

What I have so far:

In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus clearly endorses the idea that the scribes and Pharisees possessed an authority which even his disciples were to submit to because they sat on the chair of Moses. This idea of a teaching authority illuminates Jesus’ granting of the authority to “bind and loose” in Matthew 16 and 18 and John 20:22-23.

In writing to Timothy about the offices of bishops and deacons, Paul refers to the Church as “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (I Timothy 3:15). He then proceeds to tell Timothy that through his ordination, “the imposition of hands of the presbyterate,” Timothy received a gift of teaching which he should not neglect. (4:14). in 2 Timothy, Paul again reminds Timothy of the “gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands,” (1:6) and instructs him to “Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us.” (1:14)

Paul calls bishops God’s stewards in Titus 1:7, and entrusts Titus with the job of appointing prebyters in every town in Crete. and admonishing the Cretans for their failings. (1:5, 13) Titus is to “exhort and correct with all authority.” (2:15) Titus, as bishop, also has the authority to excommunicate heretics (3:10).

Furthermore, Paul commands the church at Thessalonica to "respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you, and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work. (I Thess. 5:12-13).

Are there any significant passages I am leaving out? Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Aaron_I]

You have some great passages already. Two other sources I would suggest are the Catholic Answers library and Scripture Catholic

Anyways, what really makes sense for me is to think about what the NT really is. The bulk of the text consists of letters written from a Church leader to advise/correct a diocese under its jurisdiction. The Bible is the first example of Ecclessial authority.

 

[miguel]

Aaron I.:

You have some great passages already. Two other sources I would suggest are the Catholic Answers library and Scripture Catholic

Anyways, what really makes sense for me is to think about what the NT really is. The bulk of the text consists of letters written from a Church leader to advise/correct a diocese under its jurisdiction. The Bible is the first example of Ecclessial authority.

Very true. Along similar lines, the word apostle itself is very significant. It means one who is sent out (i.e., with a message), very much like an ambassador. At the last supper, Jesus said “whoever receives anyone I send, receives me”. Before he ascended to His Father, he said to his apostles, “Go to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe everything I have commanded” (Mathew 28). Thinking along these lines has been fruitful for me. Can just anyone visiting a foreign country appoint himself to the office of ambassador? No. The head of state (the one with authority - Christ) makes that appointment. The person who holds the office has official status. After Paul’s conversion, hands were laid on him (rite of ordination), and he was sent out. At another time he said how can a man preach unless he is sent? He warned to Timothy to be careful who he lays hands on. This implies, that only a person who has received this laying on of hands has the authority to lay hands on others. The Catechism gives alot of the pertinent scriptural references on this. Oh yeah…in the beginning of Acts, Mathias was chosen to succeed Judas to the office of Apostle…very important.

 

[edward_george]

Very true. Along similar lines, the word apostle itself is very significant. It means one who is sent out (i.e., with a message), very much like an ambassador. At the last supper, Jesus said “whoever receives anyone I send, receives me”. Before he ascended to His Father, he said to his apostles, “Go to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe everything I have commanded” (Mathew 28). Thinking along these lines has been fruitful for me. Can just anyone visiting a foreign country appoint himself to the office of ambassador? No. The head of state (the one with authority - Christ) makes that appointment. The person who holds the office has official status. After Paul’s conversion, hands were laid on him (rite of ordination), and he was sent out. At another time he said how can a man preach unless he is sent? He warned to Timothy to be careful who he lays hands on. This implies, that only a person who has received this laying on of hands has the authority to lay hands on others. The Catechism gives alot of the pertinent scriptural references on this. Oh yeah…in the beginning of Acts, Mathias was chosen to succeed Judas to the office of Apostle…very important.

Miguel, this is awesome…may I quote this?

-ACEGC

 

[forthright]

There is also a purely logical argument for this. Ask why the apostles were necessary in the first place. It is, of course, that the early church needed leaders to help setup local churches and spread the Word. If the church needed leaders when it was very small, how much more do we need leaders when it is very large?

 

[JDHallKY]

Well, forthright, I understand what you are saying and I think it makes logical sense, but I’m not sure that argument would get you very far with sola scriptura types. They would just say that Apostolic Authority was needed until the Bible was completed. Then, the church had all she needed.

 

[AquinasXVI]

JD:

The listing of all 265 Popes would be a great tool too. There’s a poster that has their faces and a brief write up on them.

You have a great list. I think it’s in 2Peter where he says that arrangements have been made after his passing. Also the replacement of Judas Iscariot is significant for it meant that he had a position, a pillar if you will, that he failed to fulfill and was replaced with the accord of the other apostles.

God bless your apology to your family member.

in XT.

 

[miguel]

edward_george:

Miguel, this is awesome…may I quote this?

-ACEGC

Yes. Everything I said is in the public domain.

 

[neophyte]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=82842

 

[corrgc]

Aaron I.:

You have some great passages already. Two other sources I would suggest are the Catholic Answers library and Scripture Catholic

Anyways, what really makes sense for me is to think about what the NT really is. The bulk of the text consists of letters written from a Church leader to advise/correct a diocese under its jurisdiction. The Bible is the first example of Ecclessial authority.

By the way - get a hold of John Salza’s book “The Biblical Bais for the Catholic Faith”. Salza is the creator of the Scripture Catholic website. This book is soaking wet with biblical, & ONLY biblical support of THE CHURCH.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Aaron_I]

\They would just say that Apostolic Authority was needed until the Bible was completed. Then, the church had all she needed.

A question for them: when was the Bible completed? When every book had been written? Or perhaps once the canon had been established? The can hardly accept the second option because that would give the Catholic Church credit for the Bible. It is just as illogical for them to accept the first option because there were many books written besides those we accept. Unless they read the Gospel of Thomas and all the rest of those books and determine the authenticity of each (now THAT would be arrogance), they still have to attribute the canon to the Church. The Bible wasn’t set until the late 4th Century. Did God grant power to the Church until then and then leave? No way. He has always been and will continue to be working for the sake of his bride the Church.

 

[JDHallKY]

Actually, the family member I’ve been talking with argues exactly that. He argues that the early bishops in the Apostolic Sees, close in time to the apostles, had a certain authority that wasn’t meant to last beyond the completion of the New Testament. Once the Church hierarchy went “apostate,” the Bible had been disseminated enough to allow people to follow Christ without Church authority.

In my opinion, this opinion is quite typical of evangelical Protestants, though many would likely have different ways of expressing it. What I don’t understand, and never really considered during my days as an evangelical Protestant, is how the Church could possibly have existed prior to the invention of the printing press, enabling everyone to have their own copy of the Scriptures. But, I guess they would say God requires less of those who don’t have access to the Scriptures. It’s just an unworkable theory, and makes your brain hurt if you think about it too long.

 

[bibleapologist]

Miguel stated in his post…

Oh yeah…in the beginning of Acts, Mathias was chosen to succeed Judas to the office of Apostle…very important.

Since the election of Mathias is very important to Apostolic Succession, and I oppose the idea of Apostolic succession. I would like to introduce my argument against the Bishoprick of Mathias by referencing an article I published.

The Twelfth Apostle - the truth about who took the Apostolic office of Judas.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[John_Henry]

Miguel stated in his post…

Since the election of Mathias is very important to Apostolic Succession, and I oppose the idea of Apostolic succession. I would like to introduce my argument against the Bishoprick of Mathias by referencing an article I published.

The Twelfth Apostle - the truth about who took the Apostolic office of Judas.

John
www.gideonsword.net

I read this.

Your thesis rests on an understanding of the word apostle that is not supported by Scripture. Apostles, biblically speaking, are not necessarily “sent by Jesus Christ Himself… personally”. In Acts 14:14, we read in the KJV:

the apostles, Barnabas and Paul

Barnabas is considered an apostle also, and he was not sent by Jesus Christ, personally, so far as we know. Same goes for Matthias. As far as we know, he was not sent, personally, by Jesus Christ, but that does not preclude him being an apostle, like Barnabas.

Furthermore, the book we are quoting is called, in full, the Acts of the Apostles. You are asking us to believe that the first “act of the apostles”, in the book of the same name, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was an act to “circumvent God’s will”. That’s asking too much from me to believe.

Lastly:

Proverbs 16:33 “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.” This verse means that you can cast lots all you want, but God is still going to do what He wants to do.

That verse doesn’t mean that at all. The verse means that we cast lots, but God determines the outcome of the lot casting. Thus the verse contradicts your argument. It means that the apostles cast lots, and God determined the outcome of the lots, choosing St. Matthias to be an apostle. He is the new “12th apostle”. St. Paul is also an apostle. As is St. Barnabas.

I will also add that my objection to your piece has nothing to do with a defense of the apostolic succession, which is far from standing or falling with this “act of the apostles.”

 

[John_Henry]

I am attempting, at the request of a non-Catholic family member, to prepare a list of scriptural passages which support the idea that Christ established a Church with a teaching authority, excersised by bishops, in succession from the apostles.

What I have so far:

In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus clearly endorses the idea that the scribes and Pharisees possessed an authority which even his disciples were to submit to because they sat on the chair of Moses. This idea of a teaching authority illuminates Jesus’ granting of the authority to “bind and loose” in Matthew 16 and 18 and John 20:22-23.

In writing to Timothy about the offices of bishops and deacons, Paul refers to the Church as “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (I Timothy 3:15). He then proceeds to tell Timothy that through his ordination, “the imposition of hands of the presbyterate,” Timothy received a gift of teaching which he should not neglect. (4:14). in 2 Timothy, Paul again reminds Timothy of the “gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands,” (1:6) and instructs him to “Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us.” (1:14)

Paul calls bishops God’s stewards in Titus 1:7, and entrusts Titus with the job of appointing prebyters in every town in Crete. and admonishing the Cretans for their failings. (1:5, 13) Titus is to “exhort and correct with all authority.” (2:15) Titus, as bishop, also has the authority to excommunicate heretics (3:10).

Furthermore, Paul commands the church at Thessalonica to "respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you, and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work. (I Thess. 5:12-13).

Are there any significant passages I am leaving out? Any help would be appreciated.

Acts 13:3: Paul receives his share in the line,

Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off

which he then passes on (Acts 14:23):

And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.

When Paul goes to Jerusalem to meet what he thinks is certain death, he meets only with the presbyters to impart to them his last words (Acts 20:17):

And from Mile’tus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church.

There are also a few other references in the Timothies. The one where Paul says to pass on what Timothy has heard from him to worthy people, that they may also pass it on. And not to lay hands on unworthy people. Can’t find the references off the top of my head.

And don’t forget the passages in the Letter of St. Clement, where he, a disciple of Paul, makes the claim that the apostles set up successors for themselves for the time after they had died.

 

[NotWorthy]

Before you do anything, go to BibleChristianSociety.com and download John Martignoni’s 1 hour talk on “One Church”. He will go strictly by the Bible and outline where even I can understand Jesus methods of establishing one Church.

 

[bibleapologist]

John_Henry, Thank you for reading the article. It is much less burdensome on the readers of the forum to read that much information in an opening argument.

You stated…

Barnabas is considered an apostle also, and he was not sent by Jesus Christ, personally, so far as we know. Same goes for Matthias. As far as we know, he was not sent, personally, by Jesus Christ, but that does not preclude him being an apostle, like Barnabas.

Barnabas was named an Apostle in Acts 14:14 for a couple of reasons; first because he was one with Paul in thier ministry…

Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Acts 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid [their] hands on them, they sent [them] away.
Acts 13:4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

Secondly because he was gifted with consolation and exhortation.

Act 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, [and] of the country of Cyprus,

Barnabas was one of the disciples, but grew very respectable to the Apostles because of his particularly appreciated gift of “consolation”. He was very much appreciated by the Apostles for his exhortation…

they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
Act 11:23 Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.

Again, as I stated in the article, one of the prerequisites of the office of Apostle, is to have seen Jesus Christ. Paul validates this in 1 Corinthians 9:1, and contrasts his positioin among the brethren with Barnabas’ position in that same chapter.

In the context Acts 14, the greeks had considered Paul and Barnabas to be Gods and named them as such.

Act 14:12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.

Since Barnabas name was listed first with Paul’s, and this was not the custom during that time period since Paul was the “cheif speaker” and the apparent leader of the two, it seems that Acts 14:14 was written as considering the context of the current circumstances of Barnabas and Paul, which was that Paul was viewed to be the “chief speaker”, and Barnabas to be the “likeness” of God (by his obvious gift of consolation), hence the surname by the Greeks “Jupiter”.

Act 14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
Act 14:12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.

It also seems that Acts 14:14 was written considering other aspects of the circumstances of Acts 14. Once the priest of Jupiter decided to offer sacrifices in honor of the supposed God’s that were before them Paul and Baranabas then reacted in like manner presenting themelves as they were percieved to be… messengers of God, by running into the people and reproving the sacrifices they were about to do. Acts 14:14 was written considering the mindset of the Greeks, and the intentions of Paul and Barnabas… acting together as messengers from God.

Although I appreciate the verse you presented, proof verses cannot be taken out of their immediate text, nor out of the text of the complete Bible as a whole. 1 Corinthians 9:1 is not negated by Acts 14:14. They agree harmoniously (as all scripture does).

It is up to us, when confronted with an apparent contradiction in scripture, to figure out where our understanding is lacking. The only way to do that is to study… which is a practice I believe you are given to.

1 Corinthians 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Church_Militant]

1st Corinthians 12:27: Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
28: And God has appointed in the church first apostles

, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.
29: Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
30: Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?There is nothing in the New Testament that states that any of these will no longer be available to the church. It’s simply not there…not even by implication.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[djrakowski]

Again, as I stated in the article, one of the prerequisites of the office of Apostle, is to have seen Jesus Christ. Paul validates this in 1 Corinthians 9:1, and contrasts his positioin among the brethren with Barnabas’ position in that same chapter.

Hogwash. There is nothing in this verse that states that seeing Jesus is a prerequisite to being an apostle. You’re forcing your ordered interpretation on a verse that contains simply a list of characteristics.

Quoting this verse from the KJV:

“Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?”

Seems pretty easy, unless you try to force-read your agenda back into the scriptures.

 

[bibleapologist]

Look back through the Gospels, all the apostles were called by Jesus Himself. Acts chapter 1 gives us the account of Jesus “sending” them personally. Acts 9 tells us that Saul was called personally by Christ, and sent, and saw Christ personally.

1 Cor. 9:1 substantiates this, and verifies that Paul is an Apostle becuase of this substantiation, and verse 2 of that same passage verifies that Paul was appealing to substantiate his Apostolic position.

In verses 5 and 6 of that same passage Paul distinguishes himself as holding a different office than that of Barnabas who have…

…power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

John
www.gideonsword.net