Author Topic: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.  (Read 1437 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,103
  • Queen Elizabeth I
  • Faith: Christian.
  • Jurisdiction: Anglican Church of Canada.
Hi  :D

In many Orthodox websites and also a book written by Orthodox priest, said that the Apostles never were Bishops whatsoever, they were only Apostles who preached the Gospels, then choose a successors and usually continued their missionary into other cities. So, even if St Peter was in Rome and established the church there, he would not be the first Bishop. That is the Orthodox perspective.

Is it true ?


And I wonder if Catholics agree on that ? Do you agree that the Apostles never were Bishops, but only Apostles who after founding a church, left their successors to take care of the church they founded.

Peace. 
I will continue to label myself Christian, and Anglican, in respect for my baptism. Even though I still struggle with doubts. I don't believe it is fair to dismiss it that easily because of some doubt.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Partisan Pro-Chalcedonian Fanatic
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,538
  • #FeelTheBern
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2014, 02:58:17 PM »
Quote
In many Orthodox websites and also a book written by Orthodox priest, said that the Apostles never were Bishops whatsoever, they were only Apostles who preached the Gospels, then choose a successors and usually continued their missionary into other cities. So, even if St Peter was in Rome and established the church there, he would not be the first Bishop. That is the Orthodox perspective.

I've heard otherwise.
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,363
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2014, 03:00:34 PM »
I may understand the idea that they were not "merely" bishops, but beyond this.  Nevertheless, they did cary a strong episcopal service.  When St. Mathias was chosen to replace Judas, it is written, "let his bishopric come forth."

At the same time, the bishop developed overtime in the Church, and seems distinct from the foundation of the order of Apostle.  St. Ignatius likens the bishop to the Father, the deacon to Christ, and the presbyters to the council of the Apostles.  The bishop carried such an important role, that wherever the bishop is, there the (fullness of the) Catholic Church is.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 03:03:32 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Skydive

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 656
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2014, 03:02:36 PM »
Personally I questions RCC and EOC's doctrine of Apostolic Succession. I disbelief such a charism exists and it is transmitted directly from Christ through the Apostles in some exclusive sects.
Don't use your signature to complain about moderation.  -PtA

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,363
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2014, 03:05:37 PM »
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 03:05:45 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Skydive

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 656
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2014, 03:14:19 PM »
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?
Don't use your signature to complain about moderation.  -PtA

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,363
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2014, 03:17:39 PM »
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

There is no magical act.  The choice of bishops and priests were mainly a working together between the congregants and the clergy.  The choice also had to do with the person's standing among the people, a person of good reputation and good household.  The scriptures do not hide these examples, and the historical record shows that the Apostles laid down the episcopal foundations for succession.  I mentioned St. Ignatius, and there was also St. Irenaeus as well who also talked about the Apostolic succession.  There was no lack of mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries.  You just haven't read enough.  You're too busy being self-absorbed in trauma, you make your own erroneous assertions about the Church.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Skydive

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 656
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2014, 03:23:26 PM »
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

There is no magical act.  The choice of bishops and priests were mainly a working together between the congregants and the clergy.  The choice also had to do with the person's standing among the people, a person of good reputation and good household.  The scriptures do not hide these examples, and the historical record shows that the Apostles laid down the episcopal foundations for succession.  I mentioned St. Ignatius, and there was also St. Irenaeus as well who also talked about the Apostolic succession.  There was no lack of mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries.  You just haven't read enough.  You're too busy being self-absorbed in trauma, you make your own erroneous assertions about the Church.

Episcopi / Bishop / ἐπίσκοπος simply means overseer. Why doesn't the NT ascribe the general greek word used for (liturgical) priest in the Bible ' ἱερέως'  to Christian overseers?

And I would like some quotes please.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 03:24:27 PM by Skydive »
Don't use your signature to complain about moderation.  -PtA

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Partisan Pro-Chalcedonian Fanatic
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,538
  • #FeelTheBern
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2014, 03:25:05 PM »
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

There is no magical act.  The choice of bishops and priests were mainly a working together between the congregants and the clergy.  The choice also had to do with the person's standing among the people, a person of good reputation and good household.  The scriptures do not hide these examples, and the historical record shows that the Apostles laid down the episcopal foundations for succession.  I mentioned St. Ignatius, and there was also St. Irenaeus as well who also talked about the Apostolic succession.  There was no lack of mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries.  You just haven't read enough.  You're too busy being self-absorbed in trauma, you make your own erroneous assertions about the Church.

Episcopi / Bishop / ἐπίσκοπος simply means overseer. Why doesn't the NT ascribe the general greek word used for (liturgical) priest in the Bible ' ἱερέως'  to Christian overseers?

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 03:26:15 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,363
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2014, 03:30:23 PM »
It is very probable that both a priest and a bishop overlapped while the Apostles were alive, but it immediately developed into distinct orders as is evidenced in the writings of St. Ignatius, who was appointed by St. Peter the Apostle for Antioch.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,103
  • Queen Elizabeth I
  • Faith: Christian.
  • Jurisdiction: Anglican Church of Canada.
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2014, 04:15:14 PM »
Alright, so clearly, there is no only one opinion on this matter in Orthodoxy. But, would believe what was said above as heretic or contradict to the Church teachings ?


Also, I still wonder what is the Catholic opinion on this.
I will continue to label myself Christian, and Anglican, in respect for my baptism. Even though I still struggle with doubts. I don't believe it is fair to dismiss it that easily because of some doubt.

Offline Skydive

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 656
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2014, 05:38:20 PM »
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

There is no magical act.  The choice of bishops and priests were mainly a working together between the congregants and the clergy.  The choice also had to do with the person's standing among the people, a person of good reputation and good household.  The scriptures do not hide these examples, and the historical record shows that the Apostles laid down the episcopal foundations for succession.  I mentioned St. Ignatius, and there was also St. Irenaeus as well who also talked about the Apostolic succession.  There was no lack of mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries.  You just haven't read enough.  You're too busy being self-absorbed in trauma, you make your own erroneous assertions about the Church.

Episcopi / Bishop / ἐπίσκοπος simply means overseer. Why doesn't the NT ascribe the general greek word used for (liturgical) priest in the Bible ' ἱερέως'  to Christian overseers?

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 05:39:43 PM by Skydive »
Don't use your signature to complain about moderation.  -PtA

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll

Offline Skydive

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 656
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2014, 05:42:58 PM »
It is very probable that both a priest and a bishop overlapped while the Apostles were alive, but it immediately developed into distinct orders as is evidenced in the writings of St. Ignatius, who was appointed by St. Peter the Apostle for Antioch.

Or distinct christianity.. or forge writings(the genuiniety of many epistles of Ignatius is questionable).. I'm waiting for the quotes concerning apostolic succession.
Don't use your signature to complain about moderation.  -PtA

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2014, 05:50:24 PM »
Hi  :D

In many Orthodox websites and also a book written by Orthodox priest, said that the Apostles never were Bishops whatsoever, they were only Apostles who preached the Gospels, then choose a successors and usually continued their missionary into other cities. So, even if St Peter was in Rome and established the church there, he would not be the first Bishop. That is the Orthodox perspective.

Is it true ?


And I wonder if Catholics agree on that ? Do you agree that the Apostles never were Bishops, but only Apostles who after founding a church, left their successors to take care of the church they founded.

Peace. 
I would say neither agree with the above information.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,919
  • "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2014, 05:50:36 PM »
Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.


You're both abysmally wrong, but why let that stop you?  
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

...Mor Ephrem has the infallible power of Christ over all doctrine taught on this board.

Offline nicodemus144

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
  • Always happy to chat.
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2014, 05:57:05 PM »
Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.


You're both abysmally wrong, but why let that stop you?  

Would you kindly elaborate as to why they're wrong? The question is compelling to me as an inquirer/possible-future-convert and I'd very much enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter.

It's also ok if you don't want to. :) Thanks!
“Does our law judge a man before it hears him and knows what he is doing?” -John 7:51 (NKJV)

I was investigating Orthodox Christianity.

Offline Laird

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Lord have mercy
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2014, 06:09:04 PM »
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

This is the second time you called churches that believe in apostolic succession as "exclusivists." How so? Apostolic succession was actually mentioned in the 1st and 2nd centuries by St. Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian.
"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,919
  • "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2014, 06:28:04 PM »
Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.


You're both abysmally wrong, but why let that stop you?  

Would you kindly elaborate as to why they're wrong? The question is compelling to me as an inquirer/possible-future-convert and I'd very much enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter.

It's also ok if you don't want to. :) Thanks!

Well, let's look at it:

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

Very basically (I'm running short on time), "iereus" is priest, "presbyteros" is elder, and "episcopos" is bishop/overseer.  IIRC, the first is more a "cultic" term whereas the others are more pastoral and structural.  To put it another way, "iereus" is what they do, "presbyteros"/"episcopos" is what they are (though they are certainly intertwined).   

Why would "iereus" be equivalent to "presbyteros" but not to "episcopos"?  Is it because "iereus" means priest and what we call priests are canonically "presbyteroi"?  But that's not how it works.  "Episcopoi" are full ("high") priests; "presybteroi" share in that priesthood to their proper degree, but it is not as full a portion (e.g., they are ordained by "episcopoi" but do not themselves ordain).  Nevertheless, both are "iereis".  The Byzantine liturgy is particularly good for this because you can see both bishops and priests addressed as "iereis" in the context of priestly service (e.g., in the words and rubrics of the Eucharistic Liturgy), but you will see them ordained within such a Liturgy as "presbyteroi" or "episcopoi". 
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

...Mor Ephrem has the infallible power of Christ over all doctrine taught on this board.

Offline Laird

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Lord have mercy
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2014, 07:17:39 PM »
Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

Very basically (I'm running short on time), "iereus" is priest, "presbyteros" is elder, and "episcopos" is bishop/overseer.  IIRC, the first is more a "cultic" term whereas the others are more pastoral and structural.  To put it another way, "iereus" is what they do, "presbyteros"/"episcopos" is what they are (though they are certainly intertwined).   

Why would "iereus" be equivalent to "presbyteros" but not to "episcopos"?  Is it because "iereus" means priest and what we call priests are canonically "presbyteroi"?  But that's not how it works.  "Episcopoi" are full ("high") priests; "presybteroi" share in that priesthood to their proper degree, but it is not as full a portion (e.g., they are ordained by "episcopoi" but do not themselves ordain).  Nevertheless, both are "iereis".  The Byzantine liturgy is particularly good for this because you can see both bishops and priests addressed as "iereis" in the context of priestly service (e.g., in the words and rubrics of the Eucharistic Liturgy), but you will see them ordained within such a Liturgy as "presbyteroi" or "episcopoi". 

+1. Plus, weren't bishops actually originally the only ones called priests, because they performed the Eucharist? It was only later that presbyters too were called priests because they started performing the Eucharist with the consent of their bishop.
"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,059
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2014, 08:19:25 PM »
Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.


You're both abysmally wrong, but why let that stop you?  

Would you kindly elaborate as to why they're wrong? The question is compelling to me as an inquirer/possible-future-convert and I'd very much enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter.

It's also ok if you don't want to. :) Thanks!

Well, let's look at it:

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

Very basically (I'm running short on time), "iereus" is priest, "presbyteros" is elder, and "episcopos" is bishop/overseer.  IIRC, the first is more a "cultic" term whereas the others are more pastoral and structural.  To put it another way, "iereus" is what they do, "presbyteros"/"episcopos" is what they are (though they are certainly intertwined).   

Why would "iereus" be equivalent to "presbyteros" but not to "episcopos"?  Is it because "iereus" means priest and what we call priests are canonically "presbyteroi"?  But that's not how it works.  "Episcopoi" are full ("high") priests; "presybteroi" share in that priesthood to their proper degree, but it is not as full a portion (e.g., they are ordained by "episcopoi" but do not themselves ordain).  Nevertheless, both are "iereis".  The Byzantine liturgy is particularly good for this because you can see both bishops and priests addressed as "iereis" in the context of priestly service (e.g., in the words and rubrics of the Eucharistic Liturgy), but you will see them ordained within such a Liturgy as "presbyteroi" or "episcopoi". 

Thank you for bringing sanity here.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,363
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2014, 08:33:15 PM »
It is very probable that both a priest and a bishop overlapped while the Apostles were alive, but it immediately developed into distinct orders as is evidenced in the writings of St. Ignatius, who was appointed by St. Peter the Apostle for Antioch.

Or distinct christianity.. or forge writings(the genuiniety of many epistles of Ignatius is questionable).. I'm waiting for the quotes concerning apostolic succession.

The genuineness of the portions of St. Ignatius that describe the ecclesiological structure of the Church is not questionable.  If you feel the need to grudge it upon the church to search for "problems" to prove that it's wrong, then I'm sorry you'll be wasting your time here.  But if you're looking for honest answers and not prejudge the Church and her history, then you've come to the right place, and we'll gladly share with you some of those honest answers.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,198
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2014, 08:54:34 PM »
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?
The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, the Epistle of Clement, the Epistles of St. Ignatius...

You're not disturbed in the least by your lack of knowledge of the mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries?
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 08:55:29 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,198
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2014, 09:13:36 PM »
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

There is no magical act.  The choice of bishops and priests were mainly a working together between the congregants and the clergy.  The choice also had to do with the person's standing among the people, a person of good reputation and good household.  The scriptures do not hide these examples, and the historical record shows that the Apostles laid down the episcopal foundations for succession.  I mentioned St. Ignatius, and there was also St. Irenaeus as well who also talked about the Apostolic succession.  There was no lack of mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries.  You just haven't read enough.  You're too busy being self-absorbed in trauma, you make your own erroneous assertions about the Church.

Episcopi / Bishop / ἐπίσκοπος simply means overseer. Why doesn't the NT ascribe the general greek word used for (liturgical) priest in the Bible ' ἱερέως'  to Christian overseers?

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.

"Do not be neglectful of the gift (lit. "charisma") given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the presbytery."  I Timothy 4:14.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,198
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2014, 09:17:28 PM »
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

This is the second time you called churches that believe in apostolic succession as "exclusivists." How so?
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me...Enter through the narrow gate, for...small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Laird

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Lord have mercy
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2014, 09:41:38 PM »
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

This is the second time you called churches that believe in apostolic succession as "exclusivists." How so?
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me...Enter through the narrow gate, for...small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Sorry I haven't made myself clear. From his post, it seems to me he views the "exclusivism" of some parts of Christianity with criticism (i.e. these "exclusivists" are prideful in being exclusive). Hence my question.
"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,198
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2014, 10:28:02 PM »
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

This is the second time you called churches that believe in apostolic succession as "exclusivists." How so?
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me...Enter through the narrow gate, for...small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Sorry I haven't made myself clear. From his post, it seems to me he views the "exclusivism" of some parts of Christianity with criticism (i.e. these "exclusivists" are prideful in being exclusive). Hence my question.
I know: my response wasn't directed to you, you post just provided a convenient place to make the point you just enunciated.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 10:29:31 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,919
  • "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #26 on: March 23, 2014, 10:28:23 PM »
Plus, weren't bishops actually originally the only ones called priests, because they performed the Eucharist? It was only later that presbyters too were called priests because they started performing the Eucharist with the consent of their bishop.

To be honest, I'm not sure about this aspect of the history.  Yes, I think we can say that it was the "original" practice for a bishop to celebrate the Liturgy surrounded by his presbyters, deacons, and laity, but I'm not sure this proves that presbyters couldn't celebrate it as well: whether they celebrate it independently (e.g., in another building) or in the presence of the bishop himself, they require his blessing, so "permission" is a moot point.  

In at least some traditions, it was the practice for the bishop to preside over the Liturgy of the Catechumens (because this was where the word was preached, and preaching/teaching is the charism of the episcopal office) and then to delegate the Liturgy of the Eucharist to a presbyter of his choosing.  This was the case in Syriac practice, and to this day the rubrics for a priest's Liturgy in the presence of a bishop bear witness to this practice.  So too do the rubrics for ordinations in Byzantine practice, in which deacons, priests, and bishops are ordained precisely at the moment each would be needed in the Liturgy, and not at the same point in the service no matter what the rank.

It's possible that "iereus" was limited to bishops at first, but I don't know that for sure.  If so, I would think it had more to do with the fact that they are "full" priests than with an ability to celebrate the Eucharist which may not have been so exclusive.    
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

...Mor Ephrem has the infallible power of Christ over all doctrine taught on this board.

Offline Nephi

  • Monster Tamer
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,763
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2014, 10:42:52 PM »
I love this, since I recently learned iereus, arxiereus, etc. in my NT Greek course. :)

Would arxiereus (high priest) also be associated with the bishop, or would it be restricted in association to Christ?

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,919
  • "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2014, 10:46:01 PM »
I love this, since I recently learned iereus, arxiereus, etc. in my NT Greek course. :)

Would arxiereus (high priest) also be associated with the bishop, or would it be restricted in association to Christ?

Ultimately, all of these words are proper to Christ and are used in a secondary sense of the various ranks of clerics.  But yes, that term is also associated with bishops.  If you attend a hierarchical Liturgy (Byzantine rite), you should hear it a few times. 
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

...Mor Ephrem has the infallible power of Christ over all doctrine taught on this board.

Offline Nephi

  • Monster Tamer
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,763
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2014, 10:49:38 PM »
I love this, since I recently learned iereus, arxiereus, etc. in my NT Greek course. :)

Would arxiereus (high priest) also be associated with the bishop, or would it be restricted in association to Christ?

Ultimately, all of these words are proper to Christ and are used in a secondary sense of the various ranks of clerics.  But yes, that term is also associated with bishops.  If you attend a hierarchical Liturgy (Byzantine rite), you should hear it a few times. 

Cool, thanks. 8)

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,573
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2014, 12:03:22 AM »
I love this, since I recently learned iereus, arxiereus, etc. in my NT Greek course. :)

Would arxiereus (high priest) also be associated with the bishop, or would it be restricted in association to Christ?

Ultimately, all of these words are proper to Christ and are used in a secondary sense of the various ranks of clerics.  But yes, that term is also associated with bishops.  If you attend a hierarchical Liturgy (Byzantine rite), you should hear it a few times. 

Cool, thanks. 8)

The polychronion (Eis Polla Eti) sung in honor of a bishop during such a liturgy indeed refers to him as Arkhierea (high priest).
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Skydive

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 656
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2014, 03:03:54 AM »
Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

My point exactly.. no (liturgical/sacramental call it whatever) priesthood in Christianity.


You're both abysmally wrong, but why let that stop you?  

Would you kindly elaborate as to why they're wrong? The question is compelling to me as an inquirer/possible-future-convert and I'd very much enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter.

It's also ok if you don't want to. :) Thanks!

Well, let's look at it:

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

Very basically (I'm running short on time), "iereus" is priest, "presbyteros" is elder, and "episcopos" is bishop/overseer.  IIRC, the first is more a "cultic" term whereas the others are more pastoral and structural.  To put it another way, "iereus" is what they do, "presbyteros"/"episcopos" is what they are (though they are certainly intertwined).   

Why would "iereus" be equivalent to "presbyteros" but not to "episcopos"?  Is it because "iereus" means priest and what we call priests are canonically "presbyteroi"?  But that's not how it works.  "Episcopoi" are full ("high") priests; "presybteroi" share in that priesthood to their proper degree, but it is not as full a portion (e.g., they are ordained by "episcopoi" but do not themselves ordain).  Nevertheless, both are "iereis".  The Byzantine liturgy is particularly good for this because you can see both bishops and priests addressed as "iereis" in the context of priestly service (e.g., in the words and rubrics of the Eucharistic Liturgy), but you will see them ordained within such a Liturgy as "presbyteroi" or "episcopoi". 

But not in the Bible :)
Don't use your signature to complain about moderation.  -PtA

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll

Offline Skydive

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 656
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2014, 03:21:32 AM »
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?

This is the second time you called churches that believe in apostolic succession as "exclusivists." How so? Apostolic succession was actually mentioned in the 1st and 2nd centuries by St. Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian.

Apostolic succession as it is understood by the EOC,RCC and OOC(?) ?

The Bible has explicit writings on the appointing of the office of the levitic/aaronic priesthood and his liturgical duties. Why doesn't the Bible(NT) say anything about a "christian office of priesthood" . And more why isn't it mentioned even in the Apostolic fathers why don't they speak of any given ritual for appointing priests/bishops etc and of an actual office of a Christian priest with his liturgical duties and so and so on even if most if not all of this writings(of the so called Apostolic fathers) are dubious and under a question mark? Then why does the Christian organisation in the church develops and changes among time, it seems to show same terms different terminology, changing roles and so and so on.. Why is everything so blurry?

Exclusivist? Yeah. Because this doctrine gives this sects exclusivist prerogatives.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 03:27:16 AM by Skydive »
Don't use your signature to complain about moderation.  -PtA

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll

Offline Skydive

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 656
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #33 on: March 24, 2014, 03:22:47 AM »
^Read the above post
One can also question whether the present President of the United States is really a successor of George Washington too.  But facts are facts, whether you want to believe in the historical record or not.

President Obama was not appointed by a magical act. Fact? The only fact is that this teaching exists in some exclusivist parts of Christianity but I would say that the lack of mentioning of this teaching for the first centuries is at least disturbing. Also from what I know the ritual and the liturgics of it were developed in time. Where is the proof that the Apostles gave any given ritual for this with this meaning?
The Epistles to Timothy and Titus, the Epistle of Clement, the Epistles of St. Ignatius...

You're not disturbed in the least by your lack of knowledge of the mentioning of this teaching in the first centuries?

Don't use your signature to complain about moderation.  -PtA

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

Robert Green Ingersoll

Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,103
  • Queen Elizabeth I
  • Faith: Christian.
  • Jurisdiction: Anglican Church of Canada.
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #34 on: March 24, 2014, 07:14:31 AM »
Could you please go back to the main point of the thread.

In the book that written by Orthodox priest is said that no Apostle of the 12 was a Bishop ever, they established a church and choose the leaders of that church. And also in another Orthodox website it said the same thing.

Here is a quote.

Quote
Was Saint Peter the Bishop of Rome?

ANSWER:

Technically, the first bishop of Rome would have been Linus since the apostles where universal teachers, not bishops of local churches. Chrysostom often calls St Peter (and indeed St John as well) "who was entrusted with the whole world."

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.” (Irenaeus, book III, chapter 3)

The so-called Apostolic Constitutions concur:

“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul” [Book 7, Section 4]

St Peter then ministered in many places, notably Antioch and Rome, and established bishops in many places.


Apparent that there is not one opinion on this matter in Orthodoxy, Some say that the Apostles were Bishops, and some say they weren't. So, could I just believe what I think more true ?


I will continue to label myself Christian, and Anglican, in respect for my baptism. Even though I still struggle with doubts. I don't believe it is fair to dismiss it that easily because of some doubt.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,919
  • "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2014, 10:15:28 AM »
Well, let's look at it:

Iereos would be the equivalent of Presbyteros not of Episkopos. Iereos is a priest. Bishops are not priests.

Very basically (I'm running short on time), "iereus" is priest, "presbyteros" is elder, and "episcopos" is bishop/overseer.  IIRC, the first is more a "cultic" term whereas the others are more pastoral and structural.  To put it another way, "iereus" is what they do, "presbyteros"/"episcopos" is what they are (though they are certainly intertwined).   

Why would "iereus" be equivalent to "presbyteros" but not to "episcopos"?  Is it because "iereus" means priest and what we call priests are canonically "presbyteroi"?  But that's not how it works.  "Episcopoi" are full ("high") priests; "presybteroi" share in that priesthood to their proper degree, but it is not as full a portion (e.g., they are ordained by "episcopoi" but do not themselves ordain).  Nevertheless, both are "iereis".  The Byzantine liturgy is particularly good for this because you can see both bishops and priests addressed as "iereis" in the context of priestly service (e.g., in the words and rubrics of the Eucharistic Liturgy), but you will see them ordained within such a Liturgy as "presbyteroi" or "episcopoi". 

But not in the Bible :)

I gave an admittedly extra-biblical instance of the usages I was describing because of its broad familiarity to most internet Orthodox people.  If your point is that the usages I described cannot be justified from within the Scriptures, make your case and let's see.   
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

...Mor Ephrem has the infallible power of Christ over all doctrine taught on this board.

Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,103
  • Queen Elizabeth I
  • Faith: Christian.
  • Jurisdiction: Anglican Church of Canada.
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2014, 10:59:06 AM »
So, you still want to ignore the main point of the thread and go into a whole different discussion?!?!

Please, focus on the main point of this thread.
I will continue to label myself Christian, and Anglican, in respect for my baptism. Even though I still struggle with doubts. I don't believe it is fair to dismiss it that easily because of some doubt.

Offline Laird

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Lord have mercy
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #37 on: March 24, 2014, 11:24:04 AM »
Could you please go back to the main point of the thread.

Yeah, sorry for derailing the thread. I have to go now, but I'll respond to the topic later.
"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,138
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #38 on: March 24, 2014, 12:19:24 PM »
Could you please go back to the main point of the thread.

In the book that written by Orthodox priest is said that no Apostle of the 12 was a Bishop ever, they established a church and choose the leaders of that church. And also in another Orthodox website it said the same thing.

Here is a quote.

Quote
Was Saint Peter the Bishop of Rome?

ANSWER:

Technically, the first bishop of Rome would have been Linus since the apostles where universal teachers, not bishops of local churches. Chrysostom often calls St Peter (and indeed St John as well) "who was entrusted with the whole world."

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.” (Irenaeus, book III, chapter 3)

The so-called Apostolic Constitutions concur:

“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul” [Book 7, Section 4]

St Peter then ministered in many places, notably Antioch and Rome, and established bishops in many places.


Apparent that there is not one opinion on this matter in Orthodoxy, Some say that the Apostles were Bishops, and some say they weren't. So, could I just believe what I think more true ?



I believe Fr. Thomas Hopko's position is that no Apostle was a bishop, nor could they have been. I could be mistaken however.

PP
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 12:19:58 PM by primuspilus »
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,410
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: The first Bishop of Rome, from Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
« Reply #39 on: March 25, 2014, 04:38:03 PM »
Could you please go back to the main point of the thread.

In the book that written by Orthodox priest is said that no Apostle of the 12 was a Bishop ever, they established a church and choose the leaders of that church. And also in another Orthodox website it said the same thing.

Here is a quote.

Quote
Was Saint Peter the Bishop of Rome?

ANSWER:

Technically, the first bishop of Rome would have been Linus since the apostles where universal teachers, not bishops of local churches. Chrysostom often calls St Peter (and indeed St John as well) "who was entrusted with the whole world."

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.” (Irenaeus, book III, chapter 3)

The so-called Apostolic Constitutions concur:

“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul” [Book 7, Section 4]

St Peter then ministered in many places, notably Antioch and Rome, and established bishops in many places.


Apparent that there is not one opinion on this matter in Orthodoxy, Some say that the Apostles were Bishops, and some say they weren't. So, could I just believe what I think more true ?



I believe Fr. Thomas Hopko's position is that no Apostle was a bishop, nor could they have been. I could be mistaken however.

PP

I have come to believe that the position, if one can term it so, of Apostle is way above even a Pope let alone a Bishop..... I cant think of a better title than 'Apostle' to describe those who knew Christ and were His inner circle....
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 04:38:38 PM by JoeS2 »