C
chevalier
Guest
I can’t put my hands on anything, but I’m pretty sure theologians must have speculated on the subject.
Which moment is St. Paul's life corresponds to episcopal ordination?
- Status
S
Seraphim73
Guest
St Paul was not a bishop.
P
phil19034
Guest
C
Cor_ad_Cor
Guest
Some will argue that the Apostles (of which, Paul certainly was one) were not bishops, technically, but that they appointed the first bishops. Others tend to think of the Apostles as the first bishops and refer to them as such.
My opinion (as a non-theologian) on Paul’s ordination: IF it was necessary, my thought is that it took place here:
My opinion (as a non-theologian) on Paul’s ordination: IF it was necessary, my thought is that it took place here:
This, of course, is only problematic if we think that this is an anointing OR we get wrapped up in the fact that Paul was baptized after this event. It’s not immediately clear when his name changed from Saul to Paul, but that could also be an argument in favor of this moment being the ordination.
U
Usige
Guest
I might be wrong, but I’d say he was ordained by Christ Himself on the road to Damascus. I don’t know of any place where we see one of the original apostles laying on of hands and making him an apostle like they did when they elected St Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot. The opening passage of the letter to the Galatians seems to support that.
“Paul an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead”
“Paul an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead”
T
twf
Guest
The Apostles, both the 12 and St. Paul, received their apostolic authority directly from the Lord Himself, and thus did not need to be ordained by men. At least that is my understanding. The 12 and St. Paul both had the authority to ordain other men to share in their apostolic mission, the first generation of bishops, by the laying on of hands. St. Timothy and St. Titus are examples of bishops ordained directly by St. Paul.
A
Abu
Guest
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].
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].
Z
zz912
Guest
I’d guess when he went to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles and Peter.
H
Hawkiz
Guest
I think that Abu and others have answered this quite well for you…
Is there a specific reason why you are asking? Clearly, from both Scriptures and Tradition, St. Paul was a critical figure in the formation of the early Church. He demonstrated authority time and again. And his authority was clearly elevated above ‘congregational member’. Are you being challenged by someone to ‘prove’ St. Paul was a ‘bishop’ as a means of somehow diminishing Church authority? Or is this a hypothetical question? Or is it just something you were curious about? If you could provide us with some additional information as to the ‘why’ you are asking, it would be useful for us to properly frame our responses.
Peace in Christ
P
pablope
Guest
It occurred in Acts 13:
at 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.
B
bmonk
Guest
You could also argue for Acts 11:22-26: [BIBLEDRB]The news about them reached the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas [to go] to Antioch. When he arrived and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced and encouraged them all to remain faithful to the Lord in firmness of heart, for he was a good man, filled with the holy Spirit and faith. And a large number of people was added to the Lord. Then he went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.[/BIBLEDRB]
That is, Barnabas is appointed by the Twelve, the authorities in Jerusalem, and he in turn recruits Saul/Paul and “ordains” him to the ministry. But between this point and Acts 13 Paul would have been recognized, likely by some sort of ordination.
The “modern” details of ordination may not have been worked out quite this early, but they soon would have been–Paul ordaining Timothy and Titus by laying on of hands, and certainly by about 120 Ignatius of Antioch knows the modern form of the clergy.
That is, Barnabas is appointed by the Twelve, the authorities in Jerusalem, and he in turn recruits Saul/Paul and “ordains” him to the ministry. But between this point and Acts 13 Paul would have been recognized, likely by some sort of ordination.
The “modern” details of ordination may not have been worked out quite this early, but they soon would have been–Paul ordaining Timothy and Titus by laying on of hands, and certainly by about 120 Ignatius of Antioch knows the modern form of the clergy.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
If St Paul was a bishop why don’t today’s bishops have the same abilities the Apostles had? I haven’t heard any reports of someone being healed by the shadow of a passing bishop. Also, which city was St Paul bishop of?
B
bmonk
Guest
Here’s the text of Acts 11:22-26, which seems to have vanished along the way to posting:
Z
zz912
Guest
All Apostles are bishops. All bishops are not apostles.
Where is it required for a bishop to be over a certain city?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
No Apostles were bishops. I’m trying to figure out where everybody got the idea that they were.
Name one bishop that’s not the bishop “of” somewhere?
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
I’ve always been partial to the idea that the Apostles did not need baptism, confirmation, or ordination. Who is it that acts in those sacraments? Jesus Christ. Who is it that the Apostles interacted with? Jesus Christ. On the note of confirmation, obviously the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was the direct experience rather than anointing or laying on of hands as we experience.
The Apostles all directly experienced Jesus Christ and thus didn’t have need of a sacrament (outside of the Eucharist, some form of confession, & last rites).
The Apostles all directly experienced Jesus Christ and thus didn’t have need of a sacrament (outside of the Eucharist, some form of confession, & last rites).
E
Elizium23
Guest
The Apostles were ordained at the Last Supper, quite clearly as Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders. They surely enjoyed the fullness of sacerdotal ministry through his appointment. While in the time of the apostles, the three ranks of Holy Orders were not clearly defined as they were later, the Apostles may not have been exclusively called episkopoi in their lifetimes, but it is doctrine that they were the first true bishops. This can be seen as bishops today are referred to as “Apostles” who share in the same ministry as the first ones ordained by Christ.No Apostles were bishops. I’m trying to figure out where everybody got the idea that they were.
If they Apostles were not bishops, then what do you suppose that they were, and where did Apostolic Succession arise from if the line was broken immediately between Christ and the first true bishops?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Well they were Apostles of course! Who says anything was broken? The Apostles were Apostles. They ordained bishops where they traveled. A bishop is a overseer of a particular community. The Apostles were sent to plant the Church.
E
Elizium23
Guest
It is pointless to speculate whether the Apostles needed the sacraments. Nobody really needs sacraments, because God is not bound by them. But for our good and our salvation, Jesus instituted sacraments by very clear and unambiguous actions documented in Scripture. It is undisputed that He ordained the Twelve Apostles at the Last Supper and thereby instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Yes, it was a direct encounter by Jesus Christ, who followed matter, form and intent to institute a sacramental reality for the rest of human history. We evoke the memory of Jesus every time we perform a sacrament as instituted by Him. This is part of the definition of sacrament. It would not be a sacrament without His institution.
- Status