www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Apostles were the first bishops

My sidebar comments in the thread of good monastery books seems to have taken on a life of their own...

In His ministry Christ ordained or "set in place" the Twelve, assuring them, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain" (John 15:16).

Both the New Testament and the Church Fathers recognise the Twelve as the first bishops or "overseers" in the Church. When Judas had fallen away and the disciples were considering his successor, Peter said, "Let another take his office" (Gr. Episkopen, lit. "Bishopric"; Acts 1:20). This bishopric was given to Matthias (Acts 1:26).

In Acts 15 you will see that St. James was the first bishop of Jerusalem, something noted by all Orthodox.

And if there is any more doubt that the Apostles were the first bishops, read Acts 1:20 (in the original Greek or a bible with good notation).

My original point is that charisma is imparted to the person being ordained from bishop to bishop by the "laying of hands".

One such ordination is that of the deacons in the first Church of Jerusalem. After they chose the seven deacons, writes the Book of Acts, "they set them before the apostles, and when they had prayed they laid hands on them" (Acts 6,6). Here we have the laying on of hands and prayer. St. John Chrysostom, analysing this passage, writes: "He does not tell in what way it was done, but that they were ordained with prayer: for this is the meaning of the laying on of hands: the hand is laid upon the man, but the whole work is of God..."

Therefore, IF St. Peter was imparted with any special charismas as teh popes assert, they would have been imparted to the second bishop of Antioch as well as those in many other cities, not just Rome (if Rome at all).

Dear OOD,

Unfortunately, your post is nonsensical. But please don't take that personally.

That the Apostles clearly had all episcopal powers is clear from the New Testament, the Canons and the Teaching of the Church.

But for an Apostle to be a bishop would have meant that he had to have been installed immoveably in a diocese, such as Antioch, Rome and the many, many other places where Peter and the other Apostles consecrated and installed bishops after evangelizing.

They then moved on to preach elsewhere.

Again, they had episcopal powers, but the role of bishop as a shepherd to a particular flock was not the role of the Apostles who were sent to preach to the world.

And this is what I've culled from Orthodox theology texts, not Catholic ones.

Alex

Alex,

There are really two points here.

1) That the first bishops were the apostles.
2) Authority and charisma was passed down in both the OT and the NT by the "Laying of hands".

Even we cannot agree on 1 (even though I'm right and your wrong ), 2 will stand on it's own.

btw, you should let the Patriachate of Antioch know that they should take Peter off the list of their episcopacy...

http://www.antiochian.org/Patriarchate/patriarchs.htm

[ 05-30-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Dear OOD,

That episcopal grace rested in and was passed down from the Apostles is a fact, period.

That the office of Bishop was imparted by the Apostles is a fact, also.

The Apostles' role entailed much more than shepherding local flocks, as bishops are called on to do.

No Apostle was ever "Bishop of such and such a place."

They were Founders of Churches and consecrated the first bishops of those Churches.

As for Antioch, and where was Peter later on? What kind of bishop would leave his see and go on endless missions, preaching to Lord knows what kind of people, while leaving his flock unattended?

No, Peter was the Founder of the Church of Antioch and consecrated its first bishop before "gettin' back on the road agin." Pope St Gregory I actually understood the "Petrine See" as constituting Rome, Antioch and Alexandria (through Peter's secretary, St Mark). Don't tell me St Peter could be in all three places as their bishop.

Orthodoxy and I agree here .

You should agree with us too, and in a hurry.

Your screen-name makes me nervous and I absolutely don't want anything to happen to you

Alex

[ 05-30-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Alex,

Let's narrow this down a bit...

You are basically saying then that the Apostles consecrated the first bishops but were not bishops themselves...

I am saying that the Apostles were the first bishops who in turn consecrated other bishops...

Would that be a fair statement?

Dear OOD,

Don't you have a job to attend to?

The Apostles HAD all episcopal powers which they handed down to Bishops properly so called. Their role and function went quite beyond that of Bishop.

They never exercised the role of Bishop, in the sense of shepherding one single flock, since they were Apostles, called to preach the Gospel to the world, to be intrepid missionaries and move around.

This isn't, as I see it, a question of who has episcopal power and who doesn't - both Apostles and Bishops had it and have it.

It is a question of the role the two Ministries were called upon to exercise in the Body of Christ.

Alex

Well, if I'm not Orthodox, and Orthodoxy agrees with you, then could you please save me allot of work at tell it to these people among many...


"The first Bishop of Antioch was St. Peter the Apostle, and the third, St. Ignatius, who became Bishop in 67 AD. and whose letters..."
http://www.balamandmonastery.org.lb/ignatios.htm

"Peter was the founder of the Church of Antioch and its first bishop."
http://members.aol.com/IgnatiusU/history.html

"St. James the "Brother of the Lord" and first Bishop of Jerusalem."
http://www.sspeterpaul.org/priest.html

"Of those who said these things, one became first Bishop of Jerusalem, the blessed James, of whom Paul saith, "Other of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother" (Gal. i. 19)"
(St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, HOMILY XLVIII.)

"The Apostles themselves were the first bishops in the Church..."
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/church6.htm

Again, all I am asking is if St. Peter was the first pope (pope in the sense of modern popes), then exactly why is this "power" not imparted to Antioch?

[ 05-30-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Dear OOD,

I never said you weren't Orthodox.

If anything, I think you are "too Orthodox" .

And are those the only quotes you can produce? Are we getting tired or what?

St James as Bishop of Jerusalem was not of the number of the Apostles. He was truly a Bishop in the sense of being a stationary Hierarch and Shepherd of his flock.

And, again, this is what we are quibbling about, or rather what you are . (Have I gotten you really mad yet? It's something that I really have to work on as I sometimes love getting under people's skin, like a mosquito).

We are talking about the distinction between "Roles" in the Church, that of the Apostles and that of the Bishops.

Both had the same episcopal powers. It could not be otherwise, for how could the Apostles consecrate Bishops themselves?

There are other sources that refer to the number of Popes "from the time of the Apostles Peter and Paul" where they are not included in the list.

And again, as Founders of Churches, the Apostles were associated with the cities, towns and even villages where they consecrated bishops.

But theirs was not the role of bishops, theirs was the role of Apostles to go and preach to the world, not shepherd a particular local flock, as is the role of bishops.

Have a nice day.

Alex

OoD,

I agree with Alex, although I think you two are talking past one another. I think Alex is correct in saying they were not residential bishops. They were sent to the preach the Gospel to the Ends of the Earth and they certainly went to as far as they thought possible. I would think it not incorrect, however, to say the Apostles were bishops, but I think it incorrect to say they were simply bishops. The role of Apostle goes beyond that and not all the Apostle's perogatives were passed to their succesors. The Apostle's role is both historical, they walked with Christ during His earthly ministry and were witnesses to His Resurrection, and eschatological, their thrones will be set on either side of Christ's throne and they will help judge the nations at the end of the ages.

Also, from a Catholic viewpoint, the Twelve possessed the same personal infallibility we believe the pope has. But the infallibility was passed only personally from St. Peter to his succesor in Rome. It was passed collectively to the entire episcopal college through the Twelve.

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Lance,

Habemus Diakonam!

Truth has been expressed and confirmed through Lance!!

You have a nice day, too, y'hear?

Alex

Alex,

You could not get under my skin because it is as thick as leather, but not nearly as thick as my head.

Of course there can be no doubt the apostles had a special mission, but I feel it is wrong to say that placed them above any other true bishop
or made them significantly different.

One could argue that they were "above" the bishops they consecrated in the sense they were taught directly by Christ for three years but this still would'nt explain St. Paul, who did not know Jesus during His lifetime.

Also, what does this say of the Saints who were declared "equal to the Apostles"? Equal to what? Equal in honor in the answer because the only thing the apostles had above any otehr bishop is that they were honored.

To say an Apostle was not a bishop because he was not stationary is somewhat legalistic, and there have certainly been cases of missionary bishops in Orthodoxy.

This disscussion has no bearing on my original point.

Lance,

You said: "The role of Apostle goes beyond that and not all the Apostle's perogatives were passed to their succesors."

What exactly does that mean? We are not talking about a cellphone package here.

This would imply there is an office higher than bishop and that the apostles were therefore not bishops.

[ 05-30-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Well, I will have to pick this up some other time as I actually have things to do today.

I think this thread is very interesting and productive, and getting close to even more interesting discussion. I hope it continues.

I should really put more smileys in my posts but since I don't, I'm sorry if I upset you in any way Alex.

Dear OOD,

You never upset me, Big Guy!

It's always a pleasure to converse with one so committed and knowledgeable in all things Orthodox and otherwise!

I think we agree and are just emphasizing different aspects we think are important to emphasize.

And rightly so.

Again, I'm seeing a "Bishop" in the entirety of his role.

The Orthodox East originally picked a bone with Rome over the issue of jurisdiction using this very same argument.

For how could the "Bishop of Rome" or even the "Patriarch of the West" claim jurisdiction over other Churches that are outside his proper jurisdiction(s)?

The Apostles had episcopal power and they could certainly remain in a See or cathedra as bishops and do exactly what bishops do - absolutely.

Were they bishops? Yes they were. But they were more than that, which "more" does not mean greater necessarily, but that they had quite a different role.

The title "Equal to the Apostles" is a venerable one and it has been given not only to men, but to women also!

St Olha of Kyiv and St Nina of Georgia are "Equals to the Apostles" as is St Mary Magdalene.

These were not only gifted with the apostolic zeal to spread the Gospel and Christ's Church, but they were also miracle-workers, like the Apostles as well.

The Church therefore declared them "Equal" to the Apostles insofar as they imitated the Apostles in their apostolic missionary role.

It goes without saying, however, that these great women saints had no episcopal powers, as the Apostles did, and could not consecrate bishops etc.

So, clearly, the Church sees a distinction between "Apostle" and "Bishop."

Alex

OoD,

I am refering primarily to the Apostles' eschatological role. They alone will sit in judgement with Christ. This role is not passed on to bishops and it is what seperates the role of bishop from that of Apostle. So yes, at least the Catholic Church teaches that the office of Apostle is seperate from that of bishop but the two offices were also uniquely related in the persons of the Twelve.

The fact that the East has been rather lose with the term applying it to the 70(72) Disciples as well as those saints who converted nations does not change the unique eschatological role of the Twelve.

In Christ,
Lance