8/3/2019 Distinction Between Bishops and Apostles in
Christianity
2/3
AnonymousChallenged Christians:
Paul talked of this constantly about the teaching and Traditions
to be passed on by the Apostles. Let me pose a
question to all that think that the Catholic Church does not
have the full teaching of the Apostles and early Church
Fathers. The CC has the writings and teaching of the Apostles
and Church Fathers, and have [sic] followed them to
this day.
Present me with any manuscript you have in YOUR, YOUR Pastors,
or YOUR Churchs possession, that is from
any of the Church Fathers. From Peter to say 500 AD would be
good enough.
Anonymous
Ronnie Bray Answered:
An interesting question, and one that is worth asking, and well
worth answering. However, youhave opened the hornets nest if for no
other reason than the simple fact the those called Hearers,
Sub-apostolic Fathers, Early Fathers, and Late Fathers did not
speak with a single voice on all
matters, and most of them changed their perspective from time to
time.
The collections of their writings whether recorded in the
Patrologi Grec or Latin show what
a remarkable group of men they were, but they also show the
development of their thoughts and
how some went from orthodoxy to heresiodoxy and sometimes back
again during the courses oftheir lives and work.
Moreover, this being so, I ask you, when are we to believe that
they were sincere? Do we acceptthe early writings of Tertullian
only to have to reject them when he became a Montanist?
Likewise, the later Fathers departed from many of the traditions
of the earlier Fathers, andmost from the doctrines of the Church of
Jesus Christ and his apostles as taught in the documents
of the New Testament.
Let us take one Catholic teaching to begin with: the
Infallibility of the bishop of Rome, whocame to be called the Pope,
father or supreme pontiff of all Christendom.
On this point, Dollinger, a Roman Catholic writer of "unrivalled
knowledge" and great ability(excommunicated for his refusal to
accept the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope), is quoted
as
declaring:
"Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels
(Matt. 16:18; John 21:17), not a
single one applies them to the Roman Bishops ... not one of them
whose commentaries we
possessOrigen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret,
and those whose
interpretations are collected in catenashas dropped the faintest
hint that the primacy of Romeis the consequence of the commission
and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the
rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the
office given to Peter to be
transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either
Christ Himself, or Peter'sconfession of faith in Christ; often both
together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation
equally with all the other Apostles, the Twelve being together
the foundation-stones of the
Church."
8/3/2019 Distinction Between Bishops and Apostles in
Christianity
3/3
The scriptures unequivocally prove that Peter was not a bishop;
he was an apostle. As an apostle
he could perform, if he chose to do so, the functions of a
bishop, because the greater Churchwideapostolic authority embraced
the lesser locale-specific authority of the bishop.
There is no word in the canonical scriptures justifying a claim
that the supreme apostolicauthority can be possessed or exercised
by any lesser authority in the Church other than by the
full Apostleship.
There is no record in these scriptures of the conferring upon
anyone of only a part or particulardivision of the apostolic
authority. The only scriptural record showing that the apostles
conferred
their authority upon any one was upon Matthias, and this was the
full authority for he was made
a member of the Twelve.
The indisputably canonical Acts and Epistles clearly show that
in the Primitive Church, bishops
were local officers with the function of caring for the needs of
their local flocks, and henceexercised a lesser authority than that
held by members of the apostolate. Further, the scriptures
show that bishops were under the direction and jurisdiction of
the Apostles who were in general
charge of the whole Church, being so ordained, set apart, and
commissioned by Jesus Christhimself.
It is a basic ecclesiastical principle that a lesser
ecclesiastical officer does not possess the
authority and cannot exercise the functions of a higher
ecclesiastical officer. This principle isfully recognised by the
Roman Church.
This situation presents the Western Church with this dilemma:
Since the Roman Pope claims asBishop of Rome the apostolic
authority they allege is derived from Peter 1and if not already
a
bishop, the Pope must, before coronation, receive "the orders
which are still owing to him
inclusive of the priestly consecration" there must be found
further scripture, further revelationfrom God, in addition to the
accepted canonical scriptures authorising a bishop in perpetuity
to
act lawfully as an apostle. However, this approval or direction
not appearing anywhere in
canonical scripture, such authorisation could come only, as has
all other scripture, by distinctDivine revelation from God.
Since the Primitive Christian Church was built on the direct
revelation and exercise of the Divine
will of Jesus Christ it is self-evident that there must be
further Divine revelation to change, toadd to, or to take from, the
Divine revelations already received by the Lords Church.
Therefore, the Roman Church, which the challenger seeks to
defend, must either produce therevelation from God authorising a
bishop to exercise the apostolic calling (and it is understood
the Roman Catholic Church does not admit the principle of
continuous revelation from God, nor
claim it), or it must surrender the claim of the alleged divine
apostolic authority of the Pope, for
which it has no such authorising revelation. In addition, in
this relation we may observe thatargument is not revelation, and
neither is tradition, however old, either accepted orex part.
1 Prior to the time of Gregory VII, 1073 to 1085, the title
pope"continued to be bestowed on
bishops in general"in countries of the West. In Eastern usage
the title "was commonly restrictedto the bishops of Rome and
Alexandria"
