Were the 12 disciples priests or bishops?

[Holly3278]

Hey everyone. Were the 12 disciples priests or bishops after Jesus’ Ascension and Pentecost?

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

The apostles are the foundation. They appointed the bishops who were their successors.

In a sense, they are bishops, but they are more than that because they are the founders and messengers sent out by Christ directly.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I would add that all Bishops are also priests.

 

[ConstantineTG]

They weren’t bishops in the sense of what bishops came to be. Though they have the fullness of revelation of Christ and was personally sent by Christ on this mission. Apostle merely means “one who is sent”, or simple “sent”. This is of course associated to the fact that Christ himself personally sent them.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

They would be more comparable to today’s bishops than priests. The simple reason is that bishops confer Holy Orders, thus continuing the lineage, not priests.

 

[Holly3278]

Thanks everyone. I thought they would be considered bishops since they ordained others. Also, Saint Peter was the first Pope and the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

 

[ConstantineTG]

They would be more comparable to today’s bishops than priests. The simple reason is that bishops confer Holy Orders, thus continuing the lineage, not priests.

In Acts 15, St. James was referred to as a presbyter in the Greek. We all know that today, presbyters are priests, not bishops (albeit a misnomer as the priestly ministry belongs to the bishop primarily, which he delegates to the presbyter).

 

[Evan]

In Acts 15, St. James was referred to as a presbyter in the Greek. We all know that today, presbyters are priests, not bishops (albeit a misnomer as the priestly ministry belongs to the bishop primarily, which he delegates to the presbyter).

And Richard Nixon used the phrase “My fellow Americans” so therefore he was not president, but simply and American.

Since every bishop is also a priest and a deacon (as St Paul refers to himself Rm 1:1), this is no impediment to being a bishop.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And Richard Nixon used the phrase “My fellow Americans” so therefore he was not president, but simply and American.

Isn’t the condition of one to be elected President is that he must be a naturally born American? I don’t see your point here.

Since every bishop is also a priest and a deacon (as St Paul refers to himself Rm 1:1), this is no impediment to being a bishop.

My point was that the bishop as a separate ministry hasn’t been fleshed out by the time of the First Council of Jerusalem. The same way that Jesus is the “Suffering Servant” mentioned in the Old Testament, but servant (ie. deacon) wasn’t a ministry until much later in Acts 6.

Thing here is we shouldn’t look at the First Century and expect the entire ecclesiology of the Church to be as we have them today. There certainly were developments especially during this period.

 

[Evan]

Isn’t the condition of one to be elected President is that he must be a naturally born American? I don’t see your point here.

My point is that one is if one is of a more specific rank (President or Bishop), one does not give up a more general rank (American or Presbyter )

My point was that the bishop as a separate ministry hasn’t been fleshed out by the time of the First Council of Jerusalem. The same way that Jesus is the “Suffering Servant” mentioned in the Old Testament, but servant (ie. deacon) wasn’t a ministry until much later in Acts 6.

Thing here is we shouldn’t look at the First Century and expect the entire ecclesiology of the Church to be as we have them today. There certainly were developments especially during this period.

I agree with you here. It’s just that if a person is identified by ‘presbyter’ in the NT, that does not exclude ‘eparch’. Just as ‘deacon’ does not exclude ‘presbyter’ or ‘eparch’ when we see these titles in the NT or OT.

All of these offices were refined over the course of time, but the new shoots can be found in the NT, and the roots in the OT. The fully mature offices eventually grew from these roots.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My point is that one is if one is of a more specific rank (President or Bishop), one does not give up a more general rank (American or Presbyter )

Being American isn’t a rank.

Also, if you have achieved a rank you are not referred to as a lower rank even if you can function as that rank. My manager at work can work as an analyst, but no one in their right minds will refer to them as an analyst. They are a manager. Or a General is never a Private.

This reasoning evades the fact that such ranks simply were not clearly defined at that point in time.

I agree with you here. It’s just that if a person is identified by ‘presbyter’ in the NT, that does not exclude ‘eparch’. Just as ‘deacon’ does not exclude ‘presbyter’ or ‘eparch’ when we see these titles in the NT or OT.

All of these offices were refined over the course of time, but the new shoots can be found in the NT, and the roots in the OT. The fully mature offices eventually grew from these roots.

The thing is the episkopos was simply the chief presbyter. Think of the Church as a Corporation where the presbyters (elders) are the board of governors, and the bishop is simply the chairman of the board. My point here is that at the time of the Apostles, such differentiation either didn’t exist, or were minimal and negligible. So to try to fit the Apostles into one of these ranks does not reflect the reality of their time. Bishops, for example, were attached to a location. Apostles weren’t.

 

[Evan]

Being American isn’t a rank.

Yes, being an American is a rank.
As an American I have certain rights that are lacking in those of lower rank (I can vote, serve on juries, etc)
As president, I have all those rights, plus I have furnished housing and a staff.

I see though that the term rank threw you. Rank as in an ordering from low to high.

I was using rank as in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank. As a human, I am an animal and a living thing. Just because I am human, I do not give up my animal nature.

This reasoning evades the fact that such ranks simply were not clearly defined at that point in time.

correct

The thing is the episkopos was simply the chief presbyter. Think of the Church as a Corporation where the presbyters (elders) are the board of governors, and the bishop is simply the chairman of the board. My point here is that at the time of the Apostles, such differentiation either didn’t exist, or were minimal and negligible. So to try to fit the Apostles into one of these ranks does not reflect the reality of their time. Bishops, for example, were attached to a location. Apostles weren’t.

But the church still has Bishops that are not associated with a particular location. milarch.org/site/c.dwJXKgOUJiIaG/b.6287817/k.290A/Archdiocese_for_the_Military_USA.htm

Apostles held the fullness of Orders, same as the Bishops of today. It is a tradition that Bishops are assocated with a location, but can be moved as needed from one location to another.

[Peter moving from Ephasus to Rome]

[Peter moving from Little Rock to Joliet, and later to Seattle]

Apostle is more of a title (like Cardinal or Pope) whereas Bishop is a Sacramental reality.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, being an American is a rank.
As an American I have certain rights that are lacking in those of lower rank (I can vote, serve on juries, etc)
As president, I have all those rights, plus I have furnished housing and a staff.

And who are lower in rank to Americans? Canadians? Mexicans?

And what does having furnished housing and a staff have to do with it? Ambassadors to other countries have that, Generals have that.

I see though that the term rank threw you. Rank as in an ordering from low to high.

Yes because it is completely inappropriate to this context.

I was using rank as in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank. As a human, I am an animal and a living thing. Just because I am human, I do not give up my animal nature.

American is citizenship. You must be thinking about your relationship to the president as being an ordinary citizen, not just being “American”. Because “American” is not a rank.

correct

But the church still has Bishops that are not associated with a particular location. milarch.org/site/c.dwJXKgOUJiIaG/b.6287817/k.290A/Archdiocese_for_the_Military_USA.htm

That is still a jurisdiction. Perhaps that is a better term, “jurisdiction” rather than “location”.

Apostles held the fullness of Orders, same as the Bishops of today. It is a tradition that Bishops are assocated with a location, but can be moved as needed from one location to another.

Apostles has the fullness of Revelation. There is a reason why we believe our faith to be “Apostolic”. There is something about the Apostles that a mere bishop does not have.

[Peter moving from Ephasus to Rome]

[Peter moving from Little Rock to Joliet, and later to Seattle]

Apostle is more of a title (like Cardinal or Pope) whereas Bishop is a Sacramental reality.

Both are functions. It’s in scripture when St. Paul says there are apostles, teachers, prophets, etc.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

My point was that the bishop as a separate ministry hasn’t been fleshed out by the time of the First Council of Jerusalem. The same way that Jesus is the “Suffering Servant” mentioned in the Old Testament, but servant (ie. deacon) wasn’t a ministry until much later in Acts 6.

Thing here is we shouldn’t look at the First Century and expect the entire ecclesiology of the Church to be as we have them today. There certainly were developments especially during this period.

This is why I specifically qualified my answer with “today’s;” I simply assumed that the OP was asking in the context of today’s hierarchy. I would compare the Apostles to Cardinals, except for Peter who would be Pope (all of whom are bishops). But, even that is not a truly accurate analogy because of what you stated later, which is that they have the fullness of Revelation direct from Jesus Christ, something no subsequent bishop had.

 

[Zekariya]

And who are lower in rank to Americans? Canadians? Mexicans?

Foreign Visitor > Permanent Resident > American Citizen

The Apostles were men that Christ chose to give His authority and power to. All of the Apostles were bishops but, not all bishops were Apostles.

The Apostles chose bishops to be their successors. All bishops are presbyters (priests) but, not all presbyters (priests) are bishops.

The Apostles and bishops delegated some of the properties of the priesthood to the presbyters (priests). All priests and bishops are deacons but, not all deacons are priests and bishops.

 

[Goya]

Worth noting: there were more than 12 disciples. There were originally 12 APOSTLES (then - Judas, then + Matthias, then + St. Paul…), who were also disciples.

The distinction between the Apostles, and the disciples, is very significant, as the Apostles represent the actual pillars of the Church which Chirst founded, while the disciples are simply those who followed Christ during his earthly ministry–in the Bible, anyway–post Bible, it also applies to those who follow Him to this day, and in between.

Not that this serves to dispose of the Bishop/priest question, but it serves to at least add some perspective to the question.

 

[Evan]

And who are lower in rank to Americans? Canadians? Mexicans?

And what does having furnished housing and a staff have to do with it? Ambassadors to other countries have that, Generals have that.

Did you not know, the president gets to live in a furnished house with staff. We call that house the “White House”. If I want a house, I have to buy it and pay taxes on it. If I want a staff, I have to hire them. So those are privileges that come with the Presidential Rank in this country.

A partial ordering of things in the USA would be
President > Citizen > Legal Immigrant > Tourist > Animal > Unborn Human Baby > Plant > Dirt.

Each has the privileges of the ones below, but as you move up the scale, you aquire more rights. You can only kill an animal in a humane way, you can only own property if you are a legal immigrant. etc.

Or an ordering of Rational Beings
God > BVM > Angels > Saints > Church Suffering > Fallen Man > Fallen Angels > Satan

These have been ranked by holiness. Living humanity cannot be fit in the ranking because we are still working out our salvation, but we will eventually fit into either Saints, Church Suffering, or Fallen Man and eventually Church Suffering will all be moved to Saints.

Apostles has the fullness of Revelation. There is a reason why we believe our faith to be “Apostolic”. There is something about the Apostles that a mere bishop does not have.

Correct, they hold a higher rank. An Apostle is a bishop with additional Charisms. But every Apostle also had the fullness of the Sacrament of Orders which is what makes one a bishop. For only a bishop and ordain deacons, priests and additional bishops.