Which moment is St. Paul's life corresponds to episcopal ordination?

[Hawkiz]

Then why do the earliest lists of popes not include St Peter?

Citation please. I have yet to see a list that does not list St. Peter as the first Pope. New advent.com, Wikipedia, catholic encyclopedia, and even atheism.com have lists that include St. Peter! If you have another source, it doesn’t appear on any of the first 15 sites that pop up from a quick Google search…and now would be the time to share it if you have it. As far as I can tell, the only readily available source that makes the claim that St. Peter wasn’t the first pope is got questions.org; a decidedly anti-Catholic web site that claims that there are no Popes at all…hardly a credible source when considering the questions at hand on this thread.

Peace in Christ

 

[ezeekl]

No Apostles were bishops. I’m trying to figure out where everybody got the idea that they were.

All apostles were bishops. They hold the office of bishop as Peter says in Acts one when he quotes the OT psalms saying, “…let another take his office.” The Greek word that is translated as ‘office’ is the word episkope which is translated elsewhere in the NT as bishop.

Name one bishop that’s not the bishop “of” somewhere?

Paul for one. he consecrated other bishops and therefore had to be a bishop himself to do so. But there are bishops in Rome who are in the curia and are givren honorary assignments at area churches. The one which comes to mind is the former archbishop of Boston who is an archpriest of a church in Rome

 

[phil19034]

No Apostles were bishops. I’m trying to figure out where everybody got the idea that they were.

Acts 1:20. This is where Judas was replaced with a new Bishop. Below are a number of different versions of the same passage:

(KJV) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his **bishoprick **let another take.

(NABRE) For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’

(Douary-Rheims) For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his **bishopric **let another take.

(NIV) “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: “ ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “ ‘May another take his place of leadership.’

(Good News Bible) “For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘May his house become empty; may no one live in it.’ It is also written: ‘May someone else take his place of service.’

(NASB) "For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’; and, 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’

(CPDV) For it has been written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let their dwelling place be desolate and may there be no one who dwells within it,’ and ‘Let another take his episcopate.’

Name one bishop that’s not the bishop “of” somewhere?

I would argue that St. Paul was the first Apostolic Nuncio. An archbishop who’s job is to be an ambassador. In many ways, St. Paul was the ambassador to the Gentiles.

Also, some sources claim that St. Paul had been Bishop of the following Sees (not all at once, but jumped around) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_see :

• Athens
• Philippi
• Thessaloniki
• Corinth
• Malta
• Cyprus

I would also argue that St. Paul could be considered the first member of the Roman Curia when he was in Rome.

I think it is possible that St. Paul would have become the 2nd Bishop of Rome, after St. Peter, if he wasn’t already imprisoned sentenced to death as well.

 

[Seraphim73]

Citation please. I have yet to see a list that does not list St. Peter as the first Pope. New advent.com, Wikipedia, catholic encyclopedia, and even atheism.com have lists that include St. Peter! If you have another source, it doesn’t appear on any of the first 15 sites that pop up from a quick Google search…and now would be the time to share it if you have it. As far as I can tell, the only readily available source that makes the claim that St. Peter wasn’t the first pope is got questions.org; a decidedly anti-Catholic web site that claims that there are no Popes at all…hardly a credible source when considering the questions at hand on this thread.

Peace in Christ

Of course they do. What would you expect from Catholic Encyclopedia.

I will also say it’s pretty difficult to track down an online citation because when you google it you get 5 million Catholic websites. Hegesippus listed Linus as the first Bishop of Rome and apparently St Irenaeus borrowed from his list.

A History of the Popes: From Peter to the Present

It wasn’t until later that St Peter began to be included in lists of Bishops of Rome.

 

[Seraphim73]

Apparently the idea that a bishop is also a priest and a priest is also a deacon in the literal sense is Catholic theology. Frankly I don’t understand it but it seems to me like we’re talking past each other. I’m not questioning the fact that St Peter was martyred in Rome or that he ordained the first bishop of Rome or any of that. In Orthodox theology the Apostles were not bishops. They of course were more than a bishop. A bishop is the overseer of a particular community and he is wedded to that community for life. The Apostles had authority over the bishops they ordained and each one had the unilateral authority to ordain bishops in the communities they evangelized. Either way this is a Catholic forum and I shouldn’t be arguing Catholic theology here. Yall have a nice day.

 

[Abu]

Eusebius of Caesaria (A.D. 265-340) tells us in his “Church History” who succeeded Peter:
Ch. 2
“After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle”.
fisheaters.com/rock.html

St Irenaeus “noted that Linus was named as Peter’s successor – that is, the second Pope – and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus) and then Clement of Rome.” [Irenaeus, *Adversus haereses 3, 3,3.] [See *Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Peter The Papacy, Karl Keating, Ignatius, 1988, p 203].

 

[Seraphim73]

Eusebius of Caesaria (A.D. 265-340) tells us in his “Church History” who succeeded Peter:
Ch. 2
“After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle”.
fisheaters.com/rock.html

St Irenaeus “noted that Linus was named as Peter’s successor – that is, the second Pope – and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus) and then Clement of Rome.” [Irenaeus, *Adversus haereses

3, 3,3.] [See *Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Peter The Papacy, Karl Keating, Ignatius, 1988, p 203].

You can’t look at Catholic sources for this because of course they are all going to list St Peter as the first Bishop of Rome.

 

[phil19034]

Apparently the idea that a bishop is also a priest and a priest is also a deacon in the literal sense is Catholic theology. Frankly I don’t understand it but it seems to me like we’re talking past each other. I’m not questioning the fact that St Peter was martyred in Rome or that he ordained the first bishop of Rome or any of that. In Orthodox theology the Apostles were not bishops. They of course were more than a bishop. A bishop is the overseer of a particular community and he is wedded to that community for life. The Apostles had authority over the bishops they ordained and each one had the unilateral authority to ordain bishops in the communities they evangelized. Either way this is a Catholic forum and I shouldn’t be arguing Catholic theology here. Yall have a nice day.

The Apostles were also Patriarchs. But Patriarchs are Bishops.

I would suggest you speak to your Bishop. When an Orthodox priest is ordained, he is ordained a priest for life. When a priest is ordained a Bishop, his priesthood doesn’t disappear. He just performs the duties of his new ordination.

It’s like getting college degrees. If you earn a master’s degree after a BA degree, your BA is still there, though not focused on. Then if you earn a Ph.D. afterwards, the master’s is less important than the doctorate degree.

Deacons are like BAs
Priests like MAs
Bishops like Th.D.s

 

[Abu]

Seraphim73 #47
You can’t look at Catholic sources for this because of course they are all going to list St Peter as the first Bishop of Rome.

How disingenuous, as the truth is the reality of the fact that St Peter is the first Pope and Bishop of Rome. As Fr Stanley Jaki notes: “the emphatic recall of the bishop of Lyons of the fact that the holy apostles Peter and Paul ‘handed over to Linus the episcopal office’ and that when during Clement, who succeeded Linus’ successor Anacletus ‘no small dissension arose among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a powerful letter to the Corinthians, urging peace on them and rekindling their faith, and reminding them of the Apostolic tradition it had received.’ ”

Fr Jaki continues: “St Cyprian……acknowledged the force of an appeal, however unjust in his eyes, ‘to the chair of Peter’ (ad cathedram Petri).” The Keys of the Kingdom, The Franciscan Herald Press, 1985, p 55, 185,186].

 

[Seraphim73]

How disingenuous, as the truth is the reality of the fact that St Peter is the first Pope and Bishop of Rome. As Fr Stanley Jaki notes: “the emphatic recall of the bishop of Lyons of the fact that the holy apostles Peter and Paul ‘handed over to Linus the episcopal office’ and that when during Clement, who succeeded Linus’ successor Anacletus ‘no small dissension arose among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a powerful letter to the Corinthians, urging peace on them and rekindling their faith, and reminding them of the Apostolic tradition it had received.’ ”

Fr Jaki continues: “St Cyprian……acknowledged the force of an appeal, however unjust in his eyes, ‘to the chair of Peter’ (ad cathedram Petri).” The Keys of the Kingdom, The Franciscan Herald Press, 1985, p 55, 185,186].

It’s not disingenuous. Google a query about lists of popes and inevitably you find thousands of Catholic websites. Very few mention the fact that early lists did not include Peter as Bishop of Rome. I wouldn’t expect them to.

 

[Seraphim73]

The Apostles were also Patriarchs. But Patriarchs are Bishops.

I would suggest you speak to your Bishop. When an Orthodox priest is ordained, he is ordained a priest for life. When a priest is ordained a Bishop, his priesthood doesn’t disappear. He just performs the duties of his new ordination.

It’s like getting college degrees. If you earn a master’s degree after a BA degree, your BA is still there, though not focused on. Then if you earn a Ph.D. afterwards, the master’s is less important than the doctorate degree.

Deacons are like BAs
Priests like MAs
Bishops like Th.D.s

Like I said I shouldn’t have argued this point on this forum to begin with. I suppose if we want to continue I could start a thread in Non-Catholic religions or apologetics but frankly I don’t see it doing any good.

 

[bmonk]

Where is it required for a bishop to be over a certain city?

The tradition of the Church–I’m not sure where it might be recorded–is that all the clergy are ordained to some specific pastoral ministry. So, just as deacons and priests are always incardinated into a diocese or equivalent, or a religious order, bishops always have a title of a diocese, even if auxiliary bishops (or those, say, in the Vatican) are given a titular diocese, a diocese that is no longer functioning or where the people are no longer Christian. Thus there are many such titular dioceses in North Africa, or in Turkey and other lands. There are also a few in other places, such as Lead, SD, or Walla Walla, WA, where the diocese was transferred to a new city (Rapid City replaced Lead).

It’s similar in some ways to the granting of titles to the various Cardinals: each has his own former Diocese near Rome (Cardinal-Bishops) or a Church in the Diocese of Rome (Cardinal-Priests and -Deacons). Pastoral office is always linked to pastoral responsibility.

 

[chevalier]

Is there a specific reason why you are asking?

An interest in when exactly it took place and in what form. As in the encouter on the road to Damascus (even though it was only after St. Paul’s formal baptism, which he still needed after the event), was it from Ananias (though I’m not sure Ananias was a bishop or the laying on of hands was meant to cause anything beyond healing anyway), was it from Peter or one of the other Apostles (and never mentioned as a big event in Paul’s life for some reason?) or was it from Barnabas? (around the time something mysterious happened to an already converted Paul and he became Barnabas’s leader as opposed to how it was before), or is it just simply not addressed anywhere, not speculated on by theologians.

 

[ezeekl]

Apparently the idea that a bishop is also a priest and a priest is also a deacon in the literal sense is Catholic theology. Frankly I don’t understand it but it seems to me like we’re talking past each other. I’m not questioning the fact that St Peter was martyred in Rome or that he ordained the first bishop of Rome or any of that. In Orthodox theology the Apostles were not bishops. They of course were more than a bishop. A bishop is the overseer of a particular community and he is wedded to that community for life. The Apostles had authority over the bishops they ordained and each one had the unilateral authority to ordain bishops in the communities they evangelized. Either way this is a Catholic forum and I shouldn’t be arguing Catholic theology here. Yall have a nice day.

In the Western Rite. Our bishops are selected from the ranks of priests. This is different than in the Eastern Orthodox wherein your bishops are selected from celibate monks. On the road to the priesthood the candidate is firsct ordained as adeacon and spends some time in the diaconite. So in the Western Rite a bishop is a priest and a priest is also a deacon. I hope that explains it.

But I can’t understand how you can say that the Apostles were not bishops. All the authority in the church lies in the college of bishops. The bishopric is an office to which one is appointed. There is no office in the church of Apostle. The offices are three in number, deacon, priest, bishop. Within those three offices we will find various titles such as the pope (the universal bishop), archbishops, cardinals, monsigniors, arch priests, abbots, arch abbots, patriarchs, metropolitans and probably some more titles that I cannot think of. In Acts chapter one Peter speaks of Judas as having an office and the Greek word that is used is episkope so Judas was to occupy an office of bishop.

 

[jaeger1946]

My answer is a rousing yes and no. (Catholics always favored and instead of or)

Apostles were Bishops in that they established Churches and ordained the first leaders of those Churches. They didn’t seem to be the ongoing overseers of Churches once established. James seemed to act as a governing Bishop in Jerusalem. It also seems clear that Antioch had a governing Bishop not long after Jerusalem. The Churches established by Paul are an interesting question. There is clear evidence that Paul appointed the leaders of the Churches that he established but there seems to be little evidence that he governed them for any length of time. Paul also uses the terms overseer and elder almost synonymously. I think the Church at Rome is extremely interesting in that it seems very likely that there was an existing Christian community there before the arrival of Paul (that is certain) and likely before the arrival of Peter (that is less clear).

So, the Apostles were surelt Bishops in that they appointed the first leaders of new Church communities but they were likely not Bishops who governed as Bishops traditionally do today.

 

[pablope]

It’s not disingenuous. Google a query about lists of popes and inevitably you find thousands of Catholic websites. Very few mention the fact that early lists did not include Peter as Bishop of Rome. I wouldn’t expect them to.

Why would you doubt that?

Would you doubt St. Optatus?calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25
To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calixtus, to Calixtus Urban, to Urban Pontianus, to Pontianus Anterus, to Anterus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus; to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Marcellinus, to Marcellinus Eusebius, to Eusebius Miltiades, to Miltiades Silvester, to Silvester Marcus, to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius, who today is our colleague, with whom the whole world, through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion.

Now do you show the origins of your Cathedra, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves.26*

And can you explain the fact that Constaninople did not firs claim succession from Andrew…it was later that this lineage was claimed?

 

[PJM]

=jaeger1946;12293214]My answer is a rousing yes and no. (Catholics always favored and instead of or)

Apostles were Bishops in that they established Churches and ordained the first leaders of those Churches. They didn’t seem to be the ongoing overseers of Churches once established. James seemed to act as a governing Bishop in Jerusalem. It also seems clear that Antioch had a governing Bishop not long after Jerusalem. The Churches established by Paul are an interesting question. There is clear evidence that Paul appointed the leaders of the Churches that he established but there seems to be little evidence that he governed them for any length of time. Paul also uses the terms overseer and elder almost synonymously. I think the Church at Rome is extremely interesting in that it seems very likely that there was an existing Christian community there before the arrival of Paul (that is certain) and likely before the arrival of Peter (that is less clear).

So, the Apostles were surelt Bishops in that they appointed the first leaders of new Church communities but they were likely not Bishops who governed as Bishops traditionally do today.

A couple of thoughts on this post position:

1st We cannot in fairness compare the infant Church to the far wider World wide 1.2 BILLION Catholics Church of today

2nd. Study of the Early Fathers show that they DID lead in Teaching the Faith and INSURING that it was taught and practiced as instructed.

3td. Today’s Bishops have largely become administrators almost out of necessity. But the CORE responsibilities of their position has NOT changed. TEACH the Faith and Protect it.

God Bless
Patrick

 

[Seraphim73]

Why would you doubt that?

Would you doubt St. Optatus?calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25
To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calixtus, to Calixtus Urban, to Urban Pontianus, to Pontianus Anterus, to Anterus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus; to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Marcellinus, to Marcellinus Eusebius, to Eusebius Miltiades, to Miltiades Silvester, to Silvester Marcus, to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius, who today is our colleague, with whom the whole world, through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion.

Now do you show the origins of your Cathedra, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves.26*

Why would I doubt what? St Irenaeus did not include St Peter in his list of Bishops of Rome. A fact is a fact.

And can you explain the fact that Constaninople did not firs claim succession from Andrew…it was later that this lineage was claimed?

What does that have to do with anything? What’s tea going for in China again?

 

[bmonk]

Why would I doubt what? St Irenaeus did not include St Peter in his list of Bishops of Rome. A fact is a fact.

Actually, Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, Section 3) says:

The blessed apostles =Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus. . . . So, having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.

So he does mention that Peter and Paul founded and organized the church, and were apostles–and that the bishops succeeded the apostles in the “apostolic tradition.”

In the next section (III.3.4), he deals with Asia (Ephesus and the surrounding region of the Roman province):

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify

Again, the first bishops were instructed and appointed by apostles. He measures the succession of bishops from the apostles. And the tradition of the Church from very early on is that the bishops were successors to the apostles. Why call the person who is, say, a Governor of a state and a member of the state’s Cabinet a Cabinet Member? No–you use just the higher title, but that does not negate the lower title.

 

[Abu]

Seraphim73’s presumption that because “Catholic sources” all list St Peter as the first bishop of Rome, and “early lists” do not include St Peter “as Bishop of Rome”, should not be trusted – what would those mysterious others know, anyway?

As Dr Warren H Carroll in* A History of Christendom*, *The Foundation of Christendom *Vol 1, testifies, in The Pontificate of St Peter, 30-67:
30-37 head of the Church in Jerusalem
42-49 first sojourn in Rome
49-50 in Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council
62-67 third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome
67 martyrdom in Rome and burial at the Vatican