Apostles

[Aloysius]

1

I 1 must boast; not that it is profitable, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.

2I know someone in Christ who, fourteen years ago (whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows), was caught up to the third heaven.

3And I know that this person (whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows)

4was caught up into Paradise and heard ineffable things, which no one may utter.

5About this person 2 I will boast, but about myself I will not boast, except about my weaknesses.

6Although if I should wish to boast, I would not be foolish, for I would be telling the truth. But I refrain, so that no one may think more of me than what he sees in me or hears from me

7because of the abundance of the revelations. Therefore, that I might not become too elated, 3 a thorn in the flesh was given to me, an angel of Satan, to beat me, to keep me from being too elated.

8Three times 4 I begged the Lord about this, that it might leave me,

9

but he said to me, 6 "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness." I will rather boast most gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me.

10 Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong. 7

11 I have been foolish. You compelled me, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I am in no way inferior to these "superapostles," even though I am nothing.

12 The signs of an apostle were performed among you with all endurance, signs and wonders, and mighty deeds.

13 For what is there that you have had less than the other churches but that I myself was not burthensome to you? Pardon me this injury.

14 Behold now the third time I am ready to come to you and I will not be burthensome unto you. For I seek not the things that are yours, but you. For neither ought the children to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.

15 But I most gladly will spend and be spent myself for your souls: although loving you more, I be loved less.

16 But be it so: I did not burthen you: but being crafty, I caught you by guile.

17 Did I overreach you by any of them whom I sent to you?

18 I desired Titus: and I sent with him a brother. Did Titus overreach you? Did we not walk with the same spirit? Did we not in the same steps?

19 Of old, think you that we excuse ourselves to you? We speak before God in Christ: but all things, my dearly beloved, for your edification.

20 For I fear lest perhaps, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found by you such as you would not. Lest perhaps contentions, envyings, animosities, dissensions, detractions, whisperings, swellings, seditions, be among you.

21 Lest again, when I come, God humble me among you: and I mourn many of them that sinned before and have not done penance for the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness that they have committed.

verse 12 is what Circle seems to have trouble with.

Paul is here convincing the Corinthians that he is just as much of an Apostle as the twelve Apostles, and calls for respect of his apostolic office. he sites the fact that the signs of an Apostle were performed there. in that time, miracles abounded in those who were truly sent by God because there was no other way for the Holy Spirit to let all the faithful know who was truly Apostled (sent out) by Jesus and who was a spy looking to put them to death. this is no longer such a threat, so these signs are no longer necessary for bishops, but there are certain signs of an apostle that still ring true today, baptizing people in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. They confirm people by the laying on of the hands ensuring that they receive the gifts of the Spirit, they perform the Holy Mass making Christ truly present among us.

ehhh.... i'm not quite sure where Circle's point is, really, re-reading it, that doesn't even make these signs look like an absolute requirement.

[phatcatholic]

this article is very helpful as well. (btw, to those who are against pasting articles, i do so b/c, since they are written by apologists much more profficient than i, this is the most effective way to get a point across. also, i usually paste it right into the post instead of "quoting" it and putting it in a box b/c it is not as long that way, and it doesn't appear as intimidating)

-------------------------------------------------

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ262.HTM

Apostles Can Become Bishops (Apostolic Succession)

I had the following exchange with an Orthodox member of my e-mail discussion list. His words are in red.

The office of Apostle was unique. Apostles did not become bishops

Wrong. I need only bring Eusebius to the stand to refute this assertion:

All that time most of the apostles and disciples, including James himself, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, known as the Lord's brother, were still alive . . .

(History of the Church, 7:19, tr. G.A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965, p. 118)

James is called an Apostle by St. Paul in Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 15:7. That James was the sole, "monarchical" bishop of Jerusalem is fairly apparent from Scripture also (Acts 12:17, 15:13,19, 21:18, Galatians 1:19, 2:12).

-- they appointed them to oversee the churches they had established. The episcopate is not an 'apostolic college'. 'Apostolic succession' is not a perpetuation of the Apostles. The Apostolic Age ended with the death of the Apostle and Evangelist Saint John the Theologian.

Of course we agree with this.

'Apostolic succession' refers to the overseers -- episkopos -- the office established by the Apostles to be their successors (but not their equals!) thereby ensuring the preservation of the Holy Catholic and Orthodox Faith -- 'the faith which was once delivered unto the saints' [Jude 1:3].

Well, as shown, bishops since the Apostles are obviously not Apostles, but on the other hand, Apostles may become bishops, as James and Peter did.

Since there is no perpetuation of the Apostles, 'the role of Peter' is not 'a part of the succeeding "college"'.

It is Church government by analogy. Jesus set His Church up a certain way, and we have a clear record of that. St. Peter was at the very least foremost of the disciples, or held a primacy of honor. Do Orthodox not want to follow the biblical model (not to mention that of the historical early Church)? Many Orthodox accept Petrine primacy (not supremacy, of course). Assuming that, who, then, is the analogous "foremost among equals" amongst Orthodox today? Or is that a matter of competing opinion also?

The following is an excerpt from my Treatise on the Church:

In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), episkopos is used for overseer in various senses, for example: officers (Judges 9:28, Isaiah 60:17), supervisors of funds (2 Chronicles 34:12,17), overseers of priests and Levites (Nehemiah 11:9, 2 Kings 11:18), and of temple and tabernacle functions (Numbers 4:16). God is called episkopos at Job 20:29, referring to His role as Judge, and Christ is an episkopos in 1 Peter 2:25 (RSV: Shepherd and Guardian of your souls). The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29) bears witness to a definite hierarchical, episcopal structure of government in the early Church. St. Peter, the chief elder (the office of pope) of the entire Church (1 Peter 5:1; cf. John 21:15-17), presided and issued the authoritative pronouncement (15:7-11). Then James, bishop of Jerusalem (kind of like the host-mayor of a conference) gives a concurring (Acts 15:14), concluding statement (15:13-29) . . .

Much historical and patristic evidence also exists for the bishopric of St. Peter at Rome. No one disputes the fact that St. Clement (d.c.101) was the sole bishop of Rome a little later, or that St. Ignatius (d.c.110) was the bishop at Antioch, starting around 69 A.D. Thus, the "monarchical" bishop is both a biblical concept and an unarguable fact of the early Church. By the time we get to the mid-second century, virtually all historians hold that single bishops led each Christian community. This was to be the case in all Christendom, east and west, until Luther transferred this power to the secular princes in the 16th century, and the Anabaptist tradition eschewed ecclesiastical office either altogether or in large part. Today many denominations have no bishops whatsoever.

One may concede all the foregoing as true, yet deny apostolic succession, whereby these offices are passed down, or handed down, through the generations and centuries, much like Sacred Tradition. But this belief of the Catholic Church (along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism) is also grounded in Scripture: St. Paul teaches us (Ephesians 2:20) that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles, whom Christ Himself chose (John 6:70, Acts 1:2,13; cf. Matthew 16:18). In Mark 6:30 the twelve original disciples of Jesus are called apostles, and Matthew 10:1-5 and Revelation 21:14 speak of the twelve apostles. After Judas defected, the remaining eleven Apostles appointed his successor, Matthias (Acts 1:20-26). Since Judas is called a bishop (episkopos) in this passage (1:20), then by logical extension all the Apostles can be considered bishops (albeit of an extraordinary sort). If the Apostles are bishops, and one of them was replaced by another, after the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, then we have an explicit example of apostolic succession in the Bible, taking place before 35 A.D. In like fashion, St. Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:1-6), shortly before his death, around 65 A.D. This succession shows an authoritative equivalency between Apostles and bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles. As a corollary, we are also informed in Scripture that the Church itself is perpetual, infallible, and indefectible (Matthew 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18). Why should the early Church be set up in one form and the later Church in another? All of this biblical data is harmonious with the ecclesiological views of the Catholic Church. There has been some development over the centuries, but in all essentials, the biblical Church and clergy and the Catholic Church and clergy are one and the same.

----------------------------------

i hope everyone read this. does it clear up this matter at all? (i hope so)

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[Aloysius]

muchas gracias PhatCatholic!

now, over to the thing about Acts 15. let's set a definitive, "non-ridiculus" answer for this council in Acts ch. 15

anyone know about the greek used for the word judgement when James says it is his judgement? it seems to me it could be more of discernment of all the arguments brought forth in the council concluding that St. Peter's is the correct position. any more thoughts?

[phatcatholic]

aloy, this doesn't answer ur question, but i found another amazing article that i have to post.

btw, i know that alot of people don't like to read articles (especially long ones) but this info i found is extremely informative and effective in relaying the Catholic sentiment and proving it w/ clarity and efficiency. what i provide below is just a portion of the following article:

The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church

again, i urge everyone--and especially the non-catholics here--to please read this:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The New Testament refers basically to three types of permanent offices in the Church (Apostles and Prophets were to cease): bishops (episkopos), elders (presbyteros, from which are derived Presbyterian and priest), and deacons (diakonos). Bishops are mentioned in Acts 1:20, 20:28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:7, and 1 Peter 2:25. Presbyteros (usually elder) appears in passages such as Acts 15:2-6, 21:18, Hebrews 11:2, 1 Peter 5:1, and 1 Timothy 5:17. Protestants view these leaders as analogous to current-day pastors, while Catholics regard them as priests. Deacons (often, minister in English translations) are mentioned in the same fashion as Christian elders with similar frequency (for example, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Philippians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:8-13).

As is often the case in theology and practice among the earliest Christians, there is some fluidity and overlapping of these three vocations (for example, compare Acts 20:17 with 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:1-7 with Titus 1:5-9). But this doesn't prove that three offices of ministry did not exist. For instance, St. Paul often referred to himself as a deacon or minister (1 Corinthians 3:5, 4:1, 2 Corinthians 3:6, 6:4, 11:23, Ephesians 3:7, Colossians1:23-25), yet no one would assert that he was merely a deacon, and nothing else. Likewise, St. Peter calls himself a fellow elder (1 Peter 5:1), whereas Jesus calls him the rock upon which He would build His Church, and gave him alone the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:18-19). These examples are usually indicative of a healthy humility, according to Christ's injunctions of servanthood (Matthew 23:11-12, Mark 10:43-44).

Upon closer observation, clear distinctions of office appear, and the hierarchical nature of Church government in the New Testament emerges. Bishops are always referred to in the singular, while elders are usually mentioned plurally. The primary controversy among Christians has to do with the nature and functions of both bishops and elders (deacons have largely the same duties among both Protestants and Catholics).

Catholics contend that the elders/presbyters in Scripture carry out all the functions of the Catholic priest:

1) Sent and Commissioned by Jesus (the notion of being called): Mark 6:7, John 15:5, 20:21, Romans 10:15, 2 Corinthians 5:20.

2) Representatives of Jesus: Luke 10:16, John 13:20.

3) Authority to "Bind" and "Loose" (Penance and Absolution): Matthew 18:18 (compare Matthew 16:19).

4) Power to Forgive Sins in Jesus' Name: Luke 24:47, John 20:21-23, 2 Corinthians 2:5-11, James 5:15.

5) Authority to Administer Penance: Acts 5:2-11, 1 Corinthians 5:3-13, 2 Corinthians 5:18, 1 Timothy 1:18-20, Titus 3:10.

6) Power to Conduct the Eucharist: Luke 22:19, Acts 2:42 (compare Luke 24:35, Acts 2:46, 20:7, 1 Corinthians 10:16).

7) Dispense Sacraments: 1 Corinthians 4:1, James 5:13-15.

8) Perform Baptisms: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38,41.

9) Ordained: Acts 14:23, 1 Timothy 4:14, 5:23.

10) Pastors (Shepherds): Acts 20:17,28, Ephesians 4:11, 1 Peter 5:1-4.

11) Preach and Teach: 1 Timothy 3:1-2, 5:17.

12) Evangelize: Matthew 16:15, 28:19-20, Mark 3:14, Luke 9:2,6, 24:47, Acts 1:8.

13) Heal: Matthew 10:1, Luke 9:1-2,6.

14) Cast Out Demons: Matthew 10:1, Mark 3:15, Luke 9:1.

15) Hear Confessions: Acts 19:18 (compare Matthew 3:6, Mark 1:5, James 5:16, 1 John 1:8-9; presupposed in John 20:23).

16) Celibacy for Those Called to it: Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7:7-9,20,25-38 (especially 7:35).

17) Enjoy Christ's Perpetual Presence and Assistance in a Special Way: Matthew 28:20.

Protestants - following Luther - cite 1 Peter 2:5,9 (see also Revelation 1:6) in order to prove that all Christians are priests. But this doesn't exclude a specially-ordained, sacramental priesthood, since St. Peter was reflecting the language of Exodus 19:6, where the Jews were described in this fashion. Since the Jews had a separate Levitical priesthood, by analogy 1 Peter 2:9 cannot logically exclude a New Testament ordained priesthood. These texts are concerned with priestly holiness, as opposed to priestly function. The universal sense, for instance, never refers to the Eucharist or sacraments. Every Christian is a priest in terms of offering the sacrifices of prayer (Hebrews 13:15), almsgiving (Hebrews 13:16), and faith in Jesus (Philippians 2:17).

Bishops (episkopos) possess all the powers, duties, and jurisdiction of priests, with the following important additional responsibilities:

1) Jurisdiction over Priests and Local Churches, and the Power to Ordain Priests: Acts 14:22, 1 Timothy 5:22, 2 Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5.

2) Special Responsibility to Defend the Faith: Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 4:1-5, Titus 1:9-10, 2 Peter 3:15-16.

3) Power to Rebuke False Doctrine and Excommunicate: Acts 8:14-24, 1 Corinthians 16:22, 1 Timothy 5:20, 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:10-11.

4) Power to Bestow Confirmation (the Receiving of the Indwelling Holy Spirit): Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6.

5) Management of Church Finances: 1 Timothy 3:3-4, 1 Peter 5:2.

In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), episkopos is used for overseer in various senses, for example: officers (Judges 9:28, Isaiah 60:17), supervisors of funds (2 Chronicles 34:12,17), overseers of priests and Levites (Nehemiah 11:9, 2 Kings 11:18), and of temple and tabernacle functions (Numbers 4:16). God is called episkopos at Job 20:29, referring to His role as Judge, and Christ is an episkopos in 1 Peter 2:25 (RSV: Shepherd and Guardian of your souls).

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29) bears witness to a definite hierarchical, episcopal structure of government in the early Church. St. Peter, the chief elder (the office of pope) of the entire Church (1 Peter 5:1; cf. John 21:15-17), presided and issued the authoritative pronouncement (15:7-11). Then James, bishop of Jerusalem (kind of like the host-mayor of a conference) gives a concurring (Acts 15:14), concluding statement (15:13-29). That James was the sole, "monarchical" bishop of Jerusalem is fairly apparent from Scripture (Acts 12:17, 15:13,19, 21:18, Galatians 1:19, 2:12). This fact is also attested by the first Christian historian, Eusebius (History of the Church, 7:19).

Much historical and patristic evidence also exists for the bishopric of St. Peter at Rome. No one disputes the fact that St. Clement (d.c.101) was the sole bishop of Rome a little later, or that St. Ignatius (d.c.110) was the bishop at Antioch, starting around 69 A.D. Thus, the "monarchical" bishop is both a biblical concept and an unarguable fact of the early Church. By the time we get to the mid-second century, virtually all historians hold that single bishops led each Christian community. This was to be the case in all Christendom, east and west, until Luther transferred this power to the secular princes in the 16th century, and the Anabaptist tradition eschewed ecclesiastical office either altogether or in large part. Today many denominations have no bishops whatsoever.

One may concede all the foregoing as true, yet deny apostolic succession, whereby these offices are passed down, or handed down, through the generations and centuries, much like Sacred Tradition. But this belief of the Catholic Church (along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism) is also grounded in Scripture:

St. Paul teaches us (Ephesians 2:20) that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles, whom Christ Himself chose (John 6:70, Acts 1:2,13; cf. Matthew 16:18). In Mark 6:30 the twelve original disciples of Jesus are called apostles, and Matthew 10:1-5 and Revelation 21:14 speak of the twelve apostles. After Judas defected, the remaining eleven Apostles appointed his successor, Matthias (Acts 1:20-26). Since Judas is called a bishop (episkopos) in this passage (1:20), then by logical extension all the Apostles can be considered bishops (albeit of an extraordinary sort).

If the Apostles are bishops, and one of them was replaced by another, after the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, then we have an explicit example of apostolic succession in the Bible, taking place before 35 A.D. In like fashion, St. Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:1-6), shortly before his death, around 65 A.D. This succession shows an authoritative equivalency between Apostles and bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles. As a corollary, we are also informed in Scripture that the Church itself is perpetual, infallible, and indefectible (Matthew 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18). Why should the early Church be set up in one form and the later Church in another?

All of this biblical data is harmonious with the ecclesiological views of the Catholic Church. There has been some development over the centuries, but in all essentials, the biblical Church and clergy and the Catholic Church and clergy are one and the same.

The historical evidence of the earliest Christians after the Apostles and the Church Fathers is quite compelling as well: there exists virtually unanimous consent as to the episcopal, hierarchical, visible nature of the Church, which proceeds authoritatively down through history by virtue of Apostolic Succession.

St. Clement, bishop of Rome (d.c.101), teaches apostolic succession, around 80 A.D. (Epistle to Corinthians, 42:4-5, 44:1-3), and St. Irenaeus is a very strong witness to, and advocate of this tradition in the last two decades of the 2nd century (Against Heresies, 3:3:1,4, 4:26:2, 5:20:1, 33:8). Eusebius, the first historian of the Church, in his History of the Church, c.325, begins by saying that one of the "chief matters" to be dealt with in his work is "the lines of succession from the holy apostles . . ." {tr. G.A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965, p.31}

With regard to the threefold ministry of bishop, priest (elder/presbyteros), and deacon, St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, offers remarkable testimony, around 110 (Letter to the Magnesians, 2, 6:1, 13:1-2, Letter to the Trallians, 2:1-3, 3:1-2, 7:2, Letter to the Philadelphians, 7:1-2, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2 - the last also being the first reference to the "Catholic Church"). St. Clement of Rome refers to the "high priest" and "priests" of Christians around 96 (1 Clement, 40). Other prominent early witnesses include St. Hippolytus (Apostolic Tradition, 9) and St. Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis, 6:13:107:2), both in the early third century.

Even John Calvin, contrary to many of his later followers, taught that the Church was visible and a "Mother" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV,1,1; IV,1,4; IV,1,13-14), the wrongness of sectarianism and schism (IV,1,5; IV,1,10-15), and that the Church includes sinners and "hypocrites" (IV,1,7; IV,1,13-15 - he cites Matthew 13:24-30,47-58). His difference with Catholics here is that he defines the visible Church as his own Reformed Church.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

personally, i'm not sure how the info Aloy and I have provided can be refuted.

i hope this helps..........pax christi,

phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

anyone care to refute what we have posted here?

better still............has anyone even read what we have posted here?

(phatcatholic gets on the intercom: "TRUTH"........."calling Truth"........."please report to the Apostles thread immediately")

[Anna]

Hey, I began reading it...

Realized I agreed with it.

Nothing to debate against, so...I didn't read it all. -_- ^_^

But, *taunting and tempting*

I bet Truth won't read it!!! Tunnel vision!

Pax Christi. <><

[PatrickRitaMichael]

I'm Catholic, but ignorant, so I'm asking a question, not arguing

Are the priests or at least the Pope considered an apostle? Or are they simply 'apostolic successors' and what is the difference? I think I read on a different thread Circle say that apostles were the ones who saw Jesus and so there weren't any apostles today and someone said that the bishops today were cardinals.... I can't remember exactly. But I just read on someone else's thread an article about how the CC is not the whore of babylon and it said: " Apostles existed only in the first century, since one of the requirements for being an apostle was seeing the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1)"

So my questions are: do apostles exist today and if so, who are they? Thanks.

[Aloysius]

the office of Apostle is still in existence. what was termed "Apostle" back then is not the same sense we use that word. in that day they would havta have physically seen the Risen Christ and be sent out specifically by word of His mouth. today's apostle is different in the sense only that tehy are sent out by call of the Lord just not physically, but they definitely have seen the risen Christ as all Catholics have, in the Holy Eucharist.

[God Conquers]

Let's not forget that some bishops DO exhibit these signs, ever heard of Bishop Sam Jacobs? My friend, a seminarian, travelled with him and Renewal Ministries in Africa. Wow, you should hear the stories.... the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit was truly present.