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

Dear Lance,

Yes, I often wondered why St Mark and St Luke are sometimes numbered among the 12 in the liturgical prayers. And that the 70 are also included among the number of the 12.

It's a good thing we're not as legalistic as the Latins, eh?

Alex

Lance / Alex,

Now that I got some work done today (I only work two hours a day )...

I want to be careful not to have this spill over into a discussion on "Judgement" (Lord have mercy)since this topic is very broad.

"Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28).

First you will note that Christ did not set up a special throne for Peter

But specifically in scripture and patristic tradition we see here only one way in which men will be judged - it is said that men will be judged by the saints.

The idea of Matt. 19:28 was extended to all people by Paul who understood these words of Jesus. Reproaching the Christians for turning to worldly tribunals to solve their various affairs, he says: "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?” (1 Cor. 6, 2). In other words, ALL saints will judge us and this is the way in which he understood Jesus.

St. Symeon says that every man, finding himself faced with eternal life and that unutterable light, will see "one who is like him and will be judged by him". All men who have lived on earth in different ways of life will be judged by other men who have lived with them in the same conditions of life.

Certainly the Twelve are special because it was through them that the Church on earth began. Hence the word "Apostle" - Greek for "The one I send", like Angelos, "The one who announces". But underneath the garments of this special role, they were bishops just as an Archbishop or Patriarch has a special role of honr, yet they are all bishops, equal in authority. Hence the repetative use of the term bishoporic in scripture.

I give you St. Jerome, Epistle 146

"It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles."

And a successor, is one that has the same character in charisma and position. There are no sacremental gifts that were given to the Apostles that were not passed on to all bishops.

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

OoD,

You state: "And a successor, is one that has the same character in charisma and position. There are no sacramental gifts that were given to the Apostles that were not passed on to all bishops."

I think that is an area where Catholics and Orthodox disagree in part. I would agree that bishops inherited all the sacramental powers the Apostles possessed. However, as I stated earlier as far as teaching power goes, the Catholic Church teaches the personal infallibility the Apostles possessed did not pass to their successors as individuals but as a college, except for the succesor of St. Peter in Rome. I know you disagree with that teaching but that is where Catholics are coming from.

In Christ,
Lance

If I could jump in here for just a second. It would help, I think, if we thought of the Apostles as a sort of "super bishop" in that they did go from place to place and establish local churches while those they consecrated (regular bishops) remained in place and cared for the church they were given. So, in a sense, it's fair to call the Apostles the "first bishops" but they were something that has been pretty much a no-no from then on "episcopii vagranti" -- vagrant bishops.

Edward, deacon and sinner

I would not necessarily disagree except you distinguish one apostle or bishop over the others.

And since the Latin answer to my original question was vaguely given, I would like to say this about infallibility.

Infallibility rests wherever there is union with God. Brilliant right? Bear with me...

Infallibility is spiritual knowledge of God. This very subject was the conflict between St. Gregory and Barlaam, and East and West.

Barlaam adopted the western teaching on the knowledge of God which was largely Augustinian. He claimed that the knowledge of God is a development of the reason; a fruit of rational concepts about God; the evolution of philosophy. For this reason he taught that it was the philosophers who obtained the knowledge of God more than anybody else.

The Church spoke then through, St.Gregory Palamas. St.Gregory had personal spiritual experience, and, therefore, he spoke with authenticity on these issues. He said that the uncreated Light is not inferior to the intellect, but incomparably superior.

If it were otherwise, then the philosophers would be able to find the truth about God and the salvation of man, and Christ would not have to incarnate. Yet, precisely the opposite happens.

St. Gregory teaches that the vision of God does not occur outwardly, but inwardly. Man reaches the point of seeing the uncreated Light through theosis, and not simply through an external vision. Man sees the uncreated Light through his inner sense, which has been already purified; he even sees it through his physical senses. Thus, man sees God through theosis. A person's theosis is in fact his union and communion with God.

When man reaches union and communion with God, he acquires the knowledge of God.

"Infallibility" is a Western philosophical concept describing Christ's promise to the Church whereas in Orthodoxy, it is the inner state of perfection. To the Orthodox knowledge of God is aquired whereas to the Latins, it is a disconnected expectation, IMHO.

And this Theosis is the very basis in which Bishops were always selected. A bishop must have the ability to shepherd the flock through his own inner knowledge.

It is only in these days that "they" select bishops who are politically correct irregardless of the outward indications of their inner state. This my friend, is the cause of the downfall of the world - or is it the downfall of the world the cause of this?

[ 05-31-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

FrDeaconEd,

I would not disagree with that characterization.

I would consider the age old practice of bishops not traveling as a necessity of tending the flock -- not so much a rule, but a good measure.

Dear OOD,

You work only two hours a day? Good for you!

The Church certainly does take seriously the passing down of the Apostolic powers to the episcopate and celebrates this liturgically each Thursday especially with the commemoration of the Apostles and St Nicholas - who represents the episcopate, the successors of the Apostles.

As for equality between Apostles and bishops - I just don't know and my gut reaction is to reject this proposition. I don't see why it is necessary to try and affirm what we cannot know anyway.

The Apostles also received special charismata that included miraculous power, but this is not something necessary for bishops, even though such charismata are open to them, as they are to us.

Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit Who worked through the Apostles and continues to work through their successors, the bishops, Who guides and protects the Church from error etc.

And such protection has also involved the excommunication of bishops when they go astray and become heretics, as there were enough of those in history.

"Infallibility" is when the entire episcopate world-wide is united in affirming a truth of the Orthodox and Catholic, Apostolic faith.

Alex

When Judas had fallen away and the disciples were considering his successor, Peter said, "Let another take his office"

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"

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).

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

While the laying on of hands as a sign of the ordination may accompany any type of ordination, the physical act itself (ceremony and ritual) has no power nor means to impart anything. I am sure that you would agree that the physical performance of ceremony and ritual to produce some spiritual result is called magic.

That which is physical has no means to generate that which is spiritual. And so any physical act of ordination may be declared invalid (meaning that despite the physical signs no ordination has taken place). As St. John Chrysostom confirms, �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..." meaning that God does the ordination (the �work�) and the hands may accompany it but do not in themselves impart anything.


Regarding the two appointments you example. The appointment of a new office or offices where none had been before (this is the subject of �the seven�) and the appointment to fill an already existing but vacant office (the subject of replacing Judas).

In this manner, whoever Peter may have appointed to new office (or refill existing office left vacant) would not receive or share any chrism reserved to the office of Peter himself nor is Peter passing his own office on. Peter may appoint other bishops (himself being a bishop) but he may not appoint his own office to anyone else. Peter does not make �other Peters�. Only the person who is appointed to re-fill the office of Peter, upon vacancy, would receive the full authority of the office of Peter. As Peter said �Let another take HIS office.� (the office and authority belonging to Judas).

The role and office of apostle was not new. Jesus gave them something they were very familiar with. It followed Jewish custom existing since the exile of Babylon and the establishment of synagogues. The Jews at the time of the New Testament were very familiar with the office and authority of an apostle.

When the Temple was destroyed, and the exile in Babylon took place, synagogues were begun (satellite temples, if you will, that were modeled upon Temple worship). The Temple itself (seat of cult and government) being no more�. The central synagogues and its chief Rabbi had central authority. The chief Rabbi of the central synagogue appointed 12 apostles (using the Greek term) themselves having also to be Rabbis) to go out from the central synagogue to satellite synagogues, and these apostles, sent by him, had the authority to assure �right worship�. Any other synagogue was an authorized and approved synagogue only in as much as it was approved in ways and means of worship by the Chief Rabbi of the central synagogue. Joined to and had authority of - the central synagogue and Chief Rabbi. Of the 12 apostles (of the central synagogue) there was always one from among them appointed as a kind of Prime Apostle (think of one minister being appointed as a Prime Minister). This Prime Apostle had direct access to the Chief Rabbi and it was also his role and authority to represent to the other apostles the mind of the chief Rabbi and act in the authority of the Chief Rabbi in event of his absence.
The office of High Priest of the Temple was one High Priest appointed from all other High Priests. And there were tiers of High Priests. The Prime High Priest filled the Providential office of Aaron. You remember that there was also a revolt during the Exodus in which some priests said �are we not all priests? What special office does Aaron have from among us?� and tried to switch away the authority of Moses and Aaron to democratic and popular rule.

Corresponding to this, in the Davidic government was the one Minister (one minister from among all the others ministers) who was further appointed by the King as a Prime Minister and was given the �keys of the kingdom� (a sash with a golden key on it: see Isaiah) which was sign that he may lock or unlock any door of the government and alone had unannounced access to the kings chambers. This Prime Minister had direct access to the King and represented the King to all other Ministers, especially in the event of the King�s absence. Not to be confused with the Son of David, the Son of David being the one son or prince appointed from all other sons by the King (directly or through his mother) as the next successor to the throne. The Prime Minister often served the current King, and upon the that King�s death, continued to serve the son (now raised to the throne).

Neither in government nor Temple, was it ever a democracy but always a Divinely appointed theocracy or, better said to our understanding, a monarchy by will of Providence and not by popular consent.

To the Jew, Providence itself was the King of Jews (real but invisible presence seated atop the Ark) only known occasionally to the senses by a dark cloud shot with lightening, and the later human King was a concession by Providence �to be like other nations�. So God said to Samuel �They have not rejected you - they have rejected me.� when the people demanded a human king in place of the cloud of �Presence�.

The office of Jesus Christ, is a Kingship and a continuation of the David government (the human face of the government of the presence of Providence). A human King without a government of appointed ministers is not a monarchy (rule by King). And so we find the disciples at one time, arguing amongst themselves what Ministerial offices they expected to hold in the restored government of David when the Romans were run out.

There were a limited number of Ministers, and these upper management often met with the King, but among these was further appointed a Prime Minister. During official functions the Prime Minister was seated at the right hand of the King, and the Queen Mother (mother of the current King having been one of the wives or even daughters of the late King) seated on a throne to the left of the King. Walking the hall toward the throne, all other Ministers lined the hall leading to the King and throne.

The title �King of the Jews� is not empty, nor simply poetic and romantic but has real meaning and has not ceased being the government of the Church. The current Church with its seat in seat in Rome but having no part in Roman government being recognized as a sovereign nation exercising it own legitimate and real government over its members. A universal government and sovereign nation (with legal status even to the UN) with its nationals spread among all other nations.

In a monarchy, there is a certain life of democratic rule, which rule has no authority by its own democratic nature (not assigned by consent of the majority of its members) but may be confirmed (given authority by confirming seal) or denied the consent of the King.

In the event of every minister of a King being unanimous in opinion differing from the King, it is the King�s will, alone, which has authority. In the even of every apostolic Rabbi being unanimous in opinion differing from the Chief Rabbi, it is the authority of the Chief Rabbi alone which matters. In the event of every bishop in unanimous consent of some item but the Pope of Rome not confirming it - it is the authority of the Pope of Rome alone that matters. This �infallibility� is not as simple as it appears of course and has its limits according to the operations of the office. Just as the Prime Minister does not replace the King�s mind and has prescribed limits of office.

In any event, all this�

the chrisms are not imparted by the physical act of laying on of hands (physical ceremony and ritual) and at no time is the Church governed by democracy or majority rule (although both cases may seem like it to the senses). Democracy in the form we are familiar with today (majority rule by popular spirit) only came into existence with the advent of capitalism and the over throw of monarchy (or limitations of monarchy to a ritual position) and it definitely is not the way Christ governed his disciple and apostle while he walked with them. I believe that an overwhelming majority of disciple left him when he announced that we must eat his body and drink his blood - and he did not change that under majority rule - nor would he have changed it had they all left him.

Of course this is my take on the subject.

[ 05-31-2002: Message edited by: -ray ]

I must have missed this post...

Ray, finally the point is addressed, thank you; not that the other posts were not worthwhile.

I only referenced the act of "laying of hands" as a physical description of the ceremony. Of course, as I indicated with the quote of St. John Chrysostom, deacons, priests, and high-priests were installed into office by ordination ("Χειροτονια"), through PRAYER and the laying of hands.

This was the topic of discussion I had sometime ago with Brendan who seemed to think Latin baptisms were real (as an Orthodox Christian this is an impossibility); but let's not get off the subject…

I am not trying to reinterpret the Eastern Latin faith, I am simply trying to illustrate the Orthodox faith knowing there are many here who would like to hold that faith dear.

During the lifetime of the Apostles, the bishops they ordained were called "Prophets" because they were held to the Apostolic office by the Holy Spirit. Immediately after the death of the apostles the title "Prophet" alternated freely with the title "Apostle" because there was no distinction between the Twelve and the Apostles they ordained in authority or rank.

It is no accident that Scripture and the Didache after the death of the Apostles, also use the term "Αρχιερευς" (High-Priest) interchangeably with "Prophet", and "Apostle".

All bishops received all of the charismatic Grace of the Apostles. If this in not true, then there are more than 7 sacraments in the Church.

This is the Orthodox understanding of God's will and if you don't believe me, then I can direct you to several Orthodox theological documents as well as some writings of the Holy Fathers. Anyone can disagree with it, but please then they should not call themselves Orthodox.

The idea that you are forwarding, that the apostles were "above" bishops in charismatic grace is a higher level twist on the Protestant notion. Protestants insist that the Apostles avoided the issue of succession to the extent that there existed a gap after their death by promoting one of the "supervising" presbyters to the office of the "bishop". For a Protestant, a “bishop” lacked all grace since grace doesn't exist. For you, they just lack some.

But if what you say is true or if what the Protestants say is true (and especially), then there is no apostolic succession whatsoever in the history of the Church's life.

Now there are those on this board who will say: "both understandings are fine, let's not split hairs, we should all love each other."

A statement such as this takes root because people love simplicity and peace of mind.

The difference between the Latin understanding and the Orthodox, even if not just by itself but from what has developed from it, is the difference of being in the Church and not.

And why? Because one is an outright LIE, and we know who the father of lies is. So either the Latins or the Orthodox were founded on a lie while the other was born of God, have been guided in Hid Truth in this, and all other things. One is a shipwreck while the other is the Ark.

[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Dear OOD,

Unfortunately, your argument not only pits Latins against Orthodox on either side of a hard and fast "truth or lie" paradigm, it also pits most of world Orthodoxy against your own branch that is in schism from it.

Apart from quoting the Fathers, how can you be sure of the proper interpretation of their collective meaning, once one is broken off from the Orthodox and Catholic Church?

To say that to be perfectly Orthodox is to condemn much of the Church that has "missed the point" of Scripture and the Fathers is something that every historical heretic and schismatic ever anathematised by the Church has maintained as well.

You seem to be basing your assertion about "truth or lie" on your own interpretation of the Fathers or that of your jurisdiction.

How can we ascertain truth at all once we are outside the communion of the Church that is the Body of Christ?

If this is what you are seriously maintaining, what is the difference between this and classical Protestantism?

Alex

That's not very useful Alex. "Most everybody agrees with us so therefore we are right"

Having trouble finding a document from "world orthodoxy" that agrees with you are we? I understand.

But no matter, since the theological documents I mentioned come from "world Orthodox theological centers", your point is moot. If you would like to discuss who is a schismatic then start a new thread or you are only exerting effort to degenerate the topic.


Again, a waist of cyber-ink.


Are you saying the Orthodox recognize the Primacy of Authority of Peter by implying what I said was just my opinion? Maybe I don't understand you point.


Indeed, how can "we"?


I'm rubber and your glue.

Dear OOD,

Yes, and I'm having increased difficulty understanding the terms of discourse here. I understand where you are coming from, but my confusion remains.

May God bless you and keep you and your family - always.

Alex

[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Alex,

Your last argument was entirley based on the premise that I am someone outside the Church, the Holy Fathers don't agree with me, in fact nobody agrees with me.

That is a fairly broad statement that at the very least deserves a discussion before it could be assumed to be fact.

I feel it is fair to say that the Orthodox, in general, believe something when, without regard to jurisdictional issues, I can show documents like one from a Professor at the University of Athens that says exactly what I am saying.

Now with regard to "the Lie" I mentioned, it is fairly cut and dry. The Orthodox do in fact believe one thing, and the Latins do in fact believe something completley different with regard to authority in the Church. I am not trying to pit Orthodoxy against the Latins, I am merely discussing the different faiths.

I cannot see how a discussion which is sincere and honest, as I have always tried to be, could cause people to leave.

If you would like, I will leave.

Dear OOD,

I have withdrawn my earlier point and apologise.

Alex

I'm glad you have realized I am wright [sic] in eveything.

...and am glad you are not leaving!

[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]