When were the Apostles ordained bishops?

[John_Columba]

Hi,

I’m aware that the Apostles were ordained priests at the Last Supper, whereat they were given by Christ the authority to consecrate the bread and wine into His Body and Blood.

Yet I’m not sure when exactly (if there is an exact occasion) the Apostles were ordained bishops.

The Catechism on this matter states:

the apostles were endowed by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them (CCC 1556).

This CCC quote is from Lumen Gentium (21), which when one goes to the document refers to three Scriptural passages in regards to this matter of the ordination of the Apostles to the Episcopate:

1. Acts 1:8 and 2:4: Speaking on the event of Pentecost
2. John 20:22-23: When the Resurrected Christ breathes on and imparts the Holy Spirit to the Apostles .

So when were the Apostles ordained bishops? At Pentecost or when Jesus appeared to them after rising from the dead and said “Receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn 20:22)? Or does the Church just state they were ordained between these events?

Please provide sources/references if you can. Thanks!

 

[Joe_5859]

Hi,

I’m aware that the Apostles were ordained priests at the Last Supper, whereat they were given by Christ the authority to consecrate the bread and wine into His Body and Blood.

Yet I’m not sure when exactly (if there is an exact occasion) the Apostles were ordained bishops.

The Catechism on this matter states:

This CCC quote is from Lumen Gentium (21), which when one goes to the document refers to three Scriptural passages in regards to this matter of the ordination of the Apostles to the Episcopate:

1. Acts 1:8 and 2:4: Speaking on the event of Pentecost
2. John 20:22-23: When the Resurrected Christ breathes on and imparts the Holy Spirit to the Apostles .

So when were the Apostles ordained bishops? At Pentecost or when Jesus appeared to them after rising from the dead and said “Receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn 20:22)? Or does the Church just state they were ordained between these events?

Please provide sources/references if you can. Thanks!

Interesting question. I’d have to dig deeper for sources. Off the top of my head, my hunch is that they received the fullness of Holy Orders (deacon, priest, and bishop) at the Last Supper. They didn’t necessarily receive each of the 3 orders on separate occasions.

 

[oliver927]

I always thought that the Apostles were not bishops, they were Apostles. Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. For the Apostles to have been bishops they would have had to been their own successors, which does not make much sense (at least to me). I do not have any sources to point at to back up my thinking.

 

[StBenedictLabre]

According to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, she received a vision that after the Last Supper and the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus told the Apostles how they were to preserve the Blessed Sacrament in memory of him and how to consecrate themselves after he should have sent them the Divine Comforter. He also, according to her spoke about the priesthood, sacred unction and the preparation of the Chrism and Holy Oils. She continued saying that in her vision, Jesus used sacred oils to anoint Peter and John, ordaining them bishops, with Peter receiving a special kind of anointing, for obvious reasons. After this she said he went on to ordain more of the Apostles.

In this circumstance, we’d do well to remember John 21:25. Whether or not you believe in Emmerich’s apparition, her revelation does seem at least to agree with the writings of Pope Fabian in the 3rd century, who wrote a letter to the bishops in the East about Christ delivering these instructions on the Charism after the Last Supper.

 

[Stephen_says]

Hi,

1. Acts 1:8 and 2:4: Speaking on the event of Pentecost
2. John 20:22-23: When the Resurrected Christ breathes on and imparts the Holy Spirit to the Apostles .

So when were the Apostles ordained bishops? At Pentecost or when Jesus appeared to them after rising from the dead and said “Receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn 20:22)? Or does the Church just state they were ordained between these events?

I always thought these two accounts were, though using different language and detail, expressing the same event.

 

[runningdude]

Bishops have what is called the “Fullness of the Priesthood”; I would image they were given this fullness at the Last Supper.

Scripture says that Jesus shared everything necessary with his Apostles, so he either ordained them fully, or explained explained to them exactly when their final ordination would occur. Since most of the events following Christ’s death seemed to come as a surprise to the Apostles, I would lean more closely to the ordination to the bishopric occurring at the Last Supper.

 

[runningdude]

I always thought that the Apostles were not bishops, they were Apostles. Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. For the Apostles to have been bishops they would have had to been their own successors, which does not make much sense (at least to me). I do not have any sources to point at to back up my thinking.

The Apostles had the unique authority to plant daughter churches of the Catholic Church. The bishops who succeed them were appointed by the Apostles to care for these churches.

These churches survive today, although lawful authorities have split them further into individual dioceses, archdioceses, and churches sui iuris. Some of the ancient apostolic churches survive as Orthodox Churches, though sadly they broke full communion with the Catholic Church centuries ago.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I always thought that the Apostles were not bishops, they were Apostles. Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. For the Apostles to have been bishops they would have had to been their own successors, which does not make much sense (at least to me). I do not have any sources to point at to back up my thinking.

Apostles would qualify as Bishops. How else would you explain Peter being the first Bishop of Rome?

 

[oliver927]

Apostles would qualify as Bishops. How else would you explain Peter being the first Bishop of Rome?

I think what I was trying to say is that Apostle is greater than Bishop. The Apostles were not merely Bishops, they were something greater, they were the Apostles.

 

[1ke]

I think what I was trying to say is that Apostle is greater than Bishop. The Apostles were not merely Bishops, they were something greater, they were the Apostles.

Here is a good article:

newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

 

[jlhargus]

Hi,

I’m aware that the Apostles were ordained priests at the Last Supper, whereat they were given by Christ the authority to consecrate the bread and wine into His Body and Blood.

Yet I’m not sure when exactly (if there is an exact occasion) the Apostles were ordained bishops.

The Catechism on this matter states:

This CCC quote is from Lumen Gentium (21), which when one goes to the document refers to three Scriptural passages in regards to this matter of the ordination of the Apostles to the Episcopate:

1. Acts 1:8 and 2:4: Speaking on the event of Pentecost
2. John 20:22-23: When the Resurrected Christ breathes on and imparts the Holy Spirit to the Apostles .

So when were the Apostles ordained bishops? At Pentecost or when Jesus appeared to them after rising from the dead and said “Receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn 20:22)? Or does the Church just state they were ordained between these events?

Please provide sources/references if you can. Thanks!

I don’t know if this will help, I haven’t ever gotten clear clarification from any solid source. My understanding only is below.

I would say they were appointed (ordained), by Christ, when they were sent. They received power of Holy Orders after the Holy Spirit came on them at Pentecost. My understanding those baptized, by apostles, before Pentecost did not receive the Sacramental power of Christian Baptism till the Holy Spirit came on then at Pentecost.

According to Ignatius Catholic Study Bible footnote on Jn20:22. Breathed on them: Anticipates the coming of the Spirit on Pentecost. Also the footnote on Acts1:8 power … Spirit … come upon: These terms also appear together in Lk 1:35, showing that the same Spirit who brought forth Christ in the womb of Mary is about to bring forth the Church in the world.

 

[Abu]

The First Epistle of Clement (1 Clem) confirms “The apostles are from Christ …they appointed their first fruits – after having tested them though the Spirit – to be the bishops and deacons of the future believers.” ‘Apostolic succession thereby is confirmed in New Testament times by a non-New Testament source.’ New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1982, p77-78]. [My emphasis].

The Apostles left bishops as their successors with “their own position of teaching authority.” [St Irenaeus, *Adv haeres. 3,3,1. See CCC # 77].

In the Acts of the Apostles (14:23) Saints Paul and Barnabas “appointed presbyters (=priests) for them in every church.” Paul and Barnabas were bishops who had received at ordination the power to ordain others. In Greek the words used were presbyteros for priest, elder, presbyter, and episcopos for bishop, overseer, supervisor, or guardian. By the time of St Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) he speaks of the bishop as one who has “acquired his ministry, not from himself, nor through men”, and that he is to be regarded “as the Lord Himself.” (Ep. *Ad Philad., *1; Ephes. 6).

St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch and was martyred in Rome in approximately 107 A.D. His letter comes from about 96 A.D. Even at this early date, the threefold hierarchy of bishops, priests (presbyters in Greek), and deacons is present and the practice of celebrating the Holy Eucharist is clearly a long-established practice.

“The substance of the record contained in the Ignatian epistles is this:
While the Christian communities of this period (c.100-110) have many presbyters and deacons, they have only one bishop….there are bishops and the faithful are to obey both the bishops and the presbyters.” The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 78].

Cardinal Lawrence Shehan says that the NT is not a book of neat linguistics. He cites the New American Bible, Hinds, Noble and Eldredge’s Greek English Dictionary, the English Jerusalem Bible, Goodspeed’s translation of the Chicago Bible, Kleist-Lilly, Joseph Fitzmer, SJ, and Fr Andre Feuillet’s *The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers as all acknowledging priests or priesthood in the NT under a variety of terms – presbuteroi, leitourgos, hierourgos, Leitourgon, Leitourgon hierougounta. *“The absence of the use of the one term *hierus *is evidence merely that this one term was not used, not that priest or priesthood are unacknowledged in the NT.” [See *The New Biblical Theorists, Servant Books, 1983, by Msgr George A Kelly, p 84].

 

[John_Columba]

After further analysis it seems I was reading into the text of the Catechism (CCC 1556) and the source from which it quotes, Lumen Gentium (21) - for neither of these speak of the imparting of the Holy Spirit (i.e. in terms of the events of Jesus breathing onto the Apostles and Pentecost) as the actual cause of their ordination, simply that this outpouring enabled the Apostles to carry out their office as Bishops and their inseparable but unique role as Apostles.

The notion that the Apostles received the fullness of Holy Orders at the Last Supper resonates the most with me, and seems to be in accord with Tradition - even if so far I haven’t found any source (ancient especially) that specifically says “the Apostles received the fullness of Holy Orders at the Last Super” or “the Apostles were admitted to the episcopate at the Last Supper” - even though it is certain they were ordained priests at the Last Supper.

For those interested:

In Luke there is a passage which may serve to support the position that during the Last Supper the Apostles were admitted not just to the presbyterate but to the episcopate as well:

“I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Lk 22:29-30).

Here the Greek word used for “I assign” or “I appoint” is διατίθεμαι – a verb in the present tense, which means “I assign”, “I appoint”, or “make” but always in a covenantal sense (a word rarely used, found in the NT once, seemingly only once in the Septuagint, in Deut 29:14 – in relation to God’s ‘making’ the Mosaic Covenant with Israel ; and the Hebrew word it’s translated from כֹּרֵת֙ occurs thrice outside of the ‘Apocryphal’ texts: Ex 34:10, Deut 29:12,14). Hence this verse from Luke may be alluding to Jesus’ handing of (appointing/assigning of) the Kingdom of the New Israel (the Church) to the Apostles – which could imply His having ordained them as Bishops (princes of the Church) in this very period of the Last Supper (note: διατίθεμαι, present tense) that He is establishing the New Covenant of the Eucharist.

It’s not explicit, nor dogmatically implicit, and some might disagree, but I was glad to have seen this verse as a possible Scriptural attestation that the Apostles were ordained to the episcopate sometime during the Last Supper.

 

[Vico]

I don’t know if this will help, I haven’t ever gotten clear clarification from any solid source. My understanding only is below.

I would say they were appointed (ordained), by Christ, when they were sent. They received power of Holy Orders after the Holy Spirit came on them at Pentecost. My understanding those baptized, by apostles, before Pentecost did not receive the Sacramental power of Christian Baptism till the Holy Spirit came on then at Pentecost.

According to Ignatius Catholic Study Bible footnote on Jn20:22. Breathed on them: Anticipates the coming of the Spirit on Pentecost. Also the footnote on Acts1:8 power … Spirit … come upon: These terms also appear together in Lk 1:35, showing that the same Spirit who brought forth Christ in the womb of Mary is about to bring forth the Church in the world.

Pentecost is the institution of the sacrament of Confirmation, which follows baptism and the summit of Christian initiation is the Holy Eucharis, by which we are nurtured. Holy Orders today are not licitly given before Confirmation, however, they may validly be given without Confirmation. It does seem that the Apostles first received their baptism by desire, then Orders and Eucharist at the Last Supper, then Confirmation at Pentecost.

 

[Duane1966]

You might be interested in this by St. Robert Bellarmine. He held that Jesus only consecrated Peter a bishop, and the other Apostles priests. Then Peter ordained some of the others as bishops, who then with Peter ordained the others as bishops. From De Romano Pontifice:

The twenty second is, that Peter alone was ordained a Bishop by Christ: the rest, however, received episcopal consecration from Peter. That is what John Turrecremata [369] proves with many reasons, but particularly two. The first is that either the Lord did not ordain any of the Apostles a bishop, all of them, some of them, or one.* It cannot be said he ordained no one. For if that were so, we would have no Bishop now since no man can give to another what he does not have himself; so indeed, one who is not a bishop cannot ordain a bishop. ***Therefore if the Lord ordained nobody, and did not leave behind Peter ordained a bishop, who afterward ordained Peter and the others?
But that all the Apostles were not immediately ordained by the Lord is obvious. For at least Paul, whom he called from heaven, and made an Apostle, he did not ordain a Bishop; but bid to be ordained through the imposition of the hands of ministers of the Church, as is clear in Acts XIII, and from Leo’s epistle to Disocorus. [370] Moreover in the volumes of Councils, 79, Leo presents this example of Paul, and from Chrysostom, who says on this place of Acts, that there was a true ordination of Paul, in which place they changed his name for it is immediately added, Saul, who is also Paul. For that reason, that James the younger, one of the twelve, was ordained a Bishop at Jerusalem by the Apostles, and not immediately by Christ, is taught by Pope Anacletus in an epistle, [371] where he writes, that a Bishop ought to be ordained by three Bishops, just as James the younger was ordained a bishop by Peter, James the elder and John. Likewise, Clement of Alexandria hands down the same thing, that James was ordained a Bishop by Peter, James and John. [372] Jerome has: “James, immediately after the passion of the Lord, was ordained a Bishop by the Apostles at Jerusalem.”[373] Nor can it be said, this James was not the Apostle from the twelve, for Jerome opposes that in his book against Helvidius, and we showed the same thing in another place for the reason that it would follow, that no memory is made in the Church of one Apostle from the twelve.
And the Lord did not ordain some and not ordain others, for that is proven from the fact that the Apostles, with the exception of Peter, were equals among themselves, and had no right over another, and that all power which was handed to them was commonly handed to all, in as much as it can be gathered from the Gospels. Therefore, if the Lord did not ordain none of them, or all, a portion of some then it follows that he only ordained Peter alone.

**The Second reason is, that the Fathers teach everywhere that the Roman Church is the mother of all Churches, and by her all Bishops had consecrations and their dignity. But it would not seem to be the case, unless in the sense that Peter, who was bishop of Rome, ordained all the Apostles by himself, and all other Bishops, either by himself or by others. Otherwise, when all the Apostles constituted many Bishops in different places, if the Apostles were not made Bishops by Peter, certainly a great part of the Episcopate would not deduce their origin from Peter.Why is it therefore that Anacletus says: “In the New Covenant after Christ the Sacerdotal order began from Peter”? **Moreover he cannot be speaking on a lesser order of Priests, that is of Presbyters. For it is certain that the Apostles were all ordained priests together at the Last Supper, therefore he speaks on the order of greater priests, that is, of Bishops, who he would not rightly say began from Peter, if all the Apostles were immediately ordained Bishops by Christ.**Why is it that Cyprian also says, that the Roman Church is the mother and root of the whole Catholic Church? [374] **Why is it that Innocent I says, in his epistle to the Council of Carthage: “By whom (Peter) the Episcopate and the whole authority of this name emerges?”*[375] Likewise what he writes in his epistle to the Council of Miletus:[376] “As many times as the reasoning of faith is brandished, I reckon all our brothers and co-bishops ought to bring no authority except for that which pertains to Peter.” What of the fact that Pope Julius I wrote to the Orientals: “How could you not incur blame, if the place from where you receive the honors of consecration, and from there you take up the law of the whole observance, is also the seat of blessed Peter, which is for us the mother of sacerdotal dignity, were the Ecclesiastical teacher of reason?” [377]

Lastly, what of what St. Leo says: “If something with him (Peter) he wished to be common with the remaining princes, he never gave except through himself, anything he did not refuse to the others.” [378] And again: “The Sacrament of whose office the Lord so wished to pertain to the duty of all the Apostles, that*he principally placed it in blessed Peter, greatest of all the Apostles, that by him just as a certain head, he would diffuse his gifts through the whole body?”

[379]366 Epistola ad Augustinum, 89.367 In cap. 3 Joannis.368 Hist., bk 2, ch. 3.369 Summae de Ecclesia, bk 2, ch. 32.370 Epistolae, 81.371 Epist. 2.372 Quoted in Euseibius, Histor. Bk 2, ch. 1.373 De viris illustribus, in Jacobo.374 Bk 4, epist. 8.375 Which is 91 among the epistles of Augustine.376 93 among the Epistles of Augustine.377 Julius I, in Epist. 1 ad Orientales. [The context of this letter that St. Athanasius appealedto this Pope after being unjustly condemned by Eastern Bishops, and Pope Julius I reversedtheir judgment. -Translator’s note].378 Serm. 3.379 Epist. 89.

 

[John_Columba]

Duane1966 I am very grateful that you posted this. This is exactly the sort of information I have been looking for, so thank you very much! I shall happily adopt this opinion of St. Robert - it makes a lot of sense, draws from the early Fathers, and he is a doctor of the Church after all!

God bless you

 

[Kenny_Kamel]

The way I have always understood it according to the context of this thread is that Apostles do not become Bishops but rather (or perhaps inasmuch as the) Bishops become Apostles in that they carry on the Apostolic mission of the original Apostles. IMO holding the ecclesial office of Bishop is secondary to the Apostolic mission we are all called to carry out.

 

[Duane1966]

Duane1966 I am very grateful that you posted this. This is exactly the sort of information I have been looking for, so thank you very much! I shall happily adopt this opinion of St. Robert - it makes a lot of sense, draws from the early Fathers, and he is a doctor of the Church after all!

God bless you

And may the Lord bless you and yours. St. Robert Bellarmine is a favorite of mine.