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

[Seraphim73]

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.”.

You prove my point. No one is disputing that St Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome but Irenaeus in your quote clearly lists Linus as the first bishop. Even Eusebius lists Linus as the first Bishop of Rome.

 

[Seraphim73]

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

I would say St Iranaeus is not that strange. In fact he lived not too long after St Peter way martyred.

 

[Abu]

The testimony is plentiful and the reality rock solid:
**St. Jerome **
“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

**Optatus **
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

**Cyprian of Carthage **
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church *4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

 

[PJM]

[QUOT]E=bmonk;12312114]Actually, Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, Section 3) says:

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):

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.

FYI:

Apostolic Succession was Commanded by Christ Himself:

Mt. 10: 1-8
“And having called his twelve disciples together,** he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities**. And the names of the twelve apostles are these:** The first, Simon who is called Peter,** and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. ** But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.** And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. **Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give…” **

**THEN JUST BEFORE HIS ASCENSION HE CHANGED THE MANDATE **

Mt. 28:16-20
"And the eleven disciples {Apostles} went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. {This MEANS Christ transfers His Godly Powers to the Apostles and their successors} Going therefore, teach ye all*** nations***; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.** Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you**:*** and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.***

Then in John 17:18-19
“As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19]*** And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth”***

V 18 is literal: With Christ OWN Godly Powers He sends them out

V19 Christ gives Himself as Personal warranty of the inability to TEACH anything but THE Truth on all matters of Faith-belief and Morals.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[jaeger1946]

So, here is my question on the debate here. Is a person who establishes a Church community and appoints its leaders to be thought of as a Bishop? I think so. Is a person who has been named to govern a Church community by the person who had already established a Church community to be thought of as a Bishop? Again, I think so.

Clearly the main task of the Apostles was to spread the good news. They went out into the world preaching and establishing communities. Scripture tells us that Paul established a number of communities. Peter had a primary role in the Jerusalem community but James governed. Peter may also have established the community in Antioch but we know he moved on there to Rome.

So, is an apostle who established a community, stayed awhile to get it going and then moved on any less a bishop than one who wound up overseeing the community? I don’t think so.

There is so much we don’t know about how these early communities developed their structure. We do know that larger communities made up of mainly Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and Antioch seemed to develop the structure first. We don’t know how long it took communities developed by Paul which were made up of smaller communities (house churches) of mostly Gentile Christians to get there though we are pretty sure that by 150 AD, almost all Christian communities got there. As for Rome, we don’t know when Peter or Paul arrived there though we do know that Paul did not establish the Church at Rome. It seems likely that, since there was a thriving Jewish community in Rome, that Peter did indeed establish the community there but did not necessarily govern it. Does that make Peter any less a Bishop? And while Paul was there, he may well have not had any intention of governing the community in Rome but did that make him any less a Bishop?

We also don’t know how Paul’s communities looked on bishops and priests. In his letter to Titus (Tit. 1:6-7) Paul uses the word episcopos (bishop) and presbyteros (priest) to describe the same group of people. And even as late as Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, we see the letter written not to the Bishop of Corinth but to the Church there (the letter dealt with a leadership dispute so we can’t read too much into the fact that the letter was not addressed to a Bishop). And the letter was not written from Clement, the Bishop of Rome but from the Church at Rome. In fact, the author of the letter we only know that Clement wrote it in a reference made to the letter by other Christians.

While there is a great deal of information about the early Church from the Bible and from other documents, there is just so much that we do not know. Fr. John P. Meier probably said it best when he said, "It is wise to admit the limits of our knowledge.”

 

[Abu]

The attitude and questionable scholarship of John Meier can be best gauged by his “Ray Brown still takes all kinds of vicious attacks….if they ever knew what some of the rest of us are doing, they’d have a heart attack.” National Catholic Reporter, February 22, 1980, p 20, cited in The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1982, p7-8].

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.’ [Op. cit. p77-78]. [My emphasis].

 

[jaeger1946]

I am not at all denying Apostolic succession. If an Apostle founded a Church, appointed its first overseer (bishop) and perhaps presbyters to assist and then moved on to repeat the process in obedience to Jesus’ commands, how does any of that refute apostolic succession? I am simply saying two things;

1. an Apostle does not have to be the governing bishop to be considered a bishop. I cite the Book of Acts and the manner in which it depicts James as the governing Bishop in Jerusalem even while Peter and John are still there.
2. the distinction between bishop and elder seems to have been more in line with how we understand those distinctions today in Churches established in Jewish Christian communities (Jerusalem, Antioch and perhaps Smyrna) than in Gentile Christian communities established by Paul (Corinth, Thessalonica, etc.). I cite Titus to show that the distinction between bishop and presbyter seemed less clear in Paul’s letter than it does today. I also stated that by 150 AD, all Christian communities seemed to organize themselves as we understand things today.

I need to stress that I am not in any way trying to deny apostolic succession. I am stressing that early Christian communities, especially among the gentiles, were probably small in size (house churches) and scattered. There were no diocese or parishes back then. Those came after Christianity became legal and then mandatory in the 4th century AD. In the first centuries of Christianity, Christians were trying to avoid persecution by the Romans. Communities often had to meet and worship in scattered, often hidden locations. I fully believe in apostolic succession. I just don’t believe that it happened in all communities the same way and in the same time frame.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Speculate: Did any of the people who were from Rome who were in Jerusalem at Pentecost and converted after hearing Peter’s preaching–is it possible that they went back to Rome before any of the apostles ever got there?

I believe that Peter was the first bishop of Rome–but I also believe that there were christians in Rome before Peter ever got there.

Rome was a big city. While Peter was the bishop of Rome–Paul and other bishops were also there at various times.

I can’t prove it but I’ve always thought that Peter and Paul told other christians that if Peter died that Linus should be bishop of Rome since most likely Paul would either be in prison or most likely quickly to be martyred.

Is there any chance that this might have been possible–that Linus was elected as bishop of Rome because of Peter’s and Paul’s recommendation?

 

[jaeger1946]

I agree with much that you say. I am wondering if Peter governed in Rome as its Bishop or if he appointed Linus to be a Bishop. In any case, Linus would still have succeeded Peter. I guess we will never know for certain the details of that transition.

We do know for sure that there was a Church established in Rome before Paul’s arrival. We do know for sure that Peter was in Rome (from 1 Peter) and that he was accompanied by John Mark, the author of the gospel of Mark who, as Papias wrote in the early 100s AD, took down what Peter had told him and created a gospel. We know also for sure that about 20 years later, Justin Martyr quoted from “the memoirs of Peter” (his name for the gospel of Mark) and used a word "Boanerges (sons of thunder, used to describe the brothers James and John) that is only found in Mark’s gospel.

To your point, Acts 2:10 makes it clear that there were travelers from Rome who heard Peter and the Apostles when they preached on Pentecost Sunday so it is highly likely some who returned to Rome (they were in Jerusalem for the Passover and for Shavu’ot, i.e. Pentecost) were among those who were converted that day. No proof positive but a high degree of likelihood.

 

[guanophore]

I can’t put my hands on anything, but I’m pretty sure theologians must have speculated on the subject.

It is very possible that it is not contained in the NT. It is possible that, like the other Apostles, Paul was ordained by Christ Himself.

“I did not confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.”
(Ga 1:16–17).

“Paul, an Apostle, (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead " Gal.1;1

Paul opens most of his letters with this greeting.

Paul had some intense mystical encounters with the risen Christ, and we have no way of knowing how much of what he taught was received from the Church, and how much was communicated to him directly by Christ, including his election as an Apostle.

2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. 5 On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. (2 Co 12:2–5).

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes. The office of the apostle was considered a bishopric, but the Apostles were in a category all their own.

 

[guanophore]

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?

People get confused, because Apostles have the authority of a bishop (and then some), but bishops are more properly the successors of apostles.

 

[phil19034]

People get confused, because Apostles have the authority of a bishop (and then some), but bishops are more properly the successors of apostles.

To clarify, The Apostles were ordinated Bishops. But their job was different than those Bishops who are resident heads of Dioceses.

“Apostle” isn’t a Holy Order, Bishop was their Holy Order. But yes, their mission was different than Bishops of a Diocese.