Some confusion in regards to apostles

[Paladin D]

I'll put this in a question format:


1) What does apostle mean?

2) Why do we not call Bishops, apostles today?

3) Someone I've talked to says that apostles start churches, so if apostles don't exist today, how can we start churches?


I hate Protestant terminology, and I wish it would burn in the depths of hell forever and ever, amen.


(Frusterated)

[aloha918]

but the bishops are in succession of the apostles

each bishop can trace back to the apostle that they stem too

[CarpeDiem88]

Little strong with the condemnation to the burning of terminology in hell are we? Well, to be frank I think the succession thing is the correct answer. I always believed that the Bishops were in direct succession of an apostle... somewhere down the line.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='aloha918' date='Mar 28 2005, 01:08 PM'] but the bishops are in succession of the apostles

each bishop can trace back to the apostle that they stem too [/quote]
I know, but the logic is that

Bishop succesor of apostle + with apostolic anointing = apostle

[Paladin D]

[quote name='CarpeDiem88' date='Mar 28 2005, 01:15 PM'] Little strong with the condemnation to the burning of terminology in hell are we? Well, to be frank I think the succession thing is the correct answer. I always believed that the Bishops were in direct succession of an apostle... somewhere down the line. [/quote]
I apologize, I was just very frusterated and angry at the time of the post.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Mar 28 2005, 12:01 PM'] 1) What does apostle mean? [/quote]
Apostle comes from the Greek, to be sent. It can refer to anyone, especially the baptised, that are sent for a mission or task. It may also mean delegate.

[quote]
2) Why do we not call Bishops, apostles today?[/quote]

Because they are successors of the twelve. We may call them apostles, I can call you an apostle, you received a calling at your baptism to be sent to do God's work. We call them the successors because their office comes especially from the twelve.

[quote]3) Someone I've talked to says that apostles start churches, so if apostles don't exist today, how can we start churches?[/quote]

Because they apostles did establish a Church. One Church. Their task in that regard was finished...

Go to New Advent and look under the Apostle section.

[LittleLes]

The term Apostle, with a capital letter, referes to one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus. But the term apostle itself, may not. Paul considered himself an Apostle but there's no mention of him being ordained. And, I'd have to look it up, but I believe Paul refered to some fellow and woman, Junia by name, as prominent among the apostles. So Paul used the term quite generally.

All bishops are suppose to be able to trace their ordianations back to the original Aposltes, but quite a number of historians question if this is true in all cases. In short, although succession lists were subsequently created, in reality there seems to have been some gaps.

I understand the Fr. Richard McBrien has a book out on this subject. Catholic folklaw has most of the Apostles and early popes dying as martyrs too, but this doesn't seem to have really happened.

The they founded "one Church" part is a little misleading too. You might enjoy the late Fr. Raymond Brown's "The Churches the Apostles Left Behind," Paulist Press. Nihil obstat and Imprimatur of course. There really was not a unified church in the beginning. This more or less came about with the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

LittleLes

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 28 2005, 02:30 PM'] The they founded "one Church" part is a little misleading too. You might enjoy the late Fr. Raymond Brown's "The Churches the Apostles Left Behind," Paulist Press. Nihil obstat and Imprimatur of course. There really was not a unified church in the beginning. This more or less came about with the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

LittleLes [/quote]
Just for future reference, I do not consider Fr. Brown an orthodox authority in the Church. He may have recieved an imprimature, but all that means is that there is nothing in conflict with dogma etc...It does not endorse nor condone that person's interpretation of things. I have read some of his works on biblical scholarship and really disagree with him, as do a number of Church scholars. Just so you know where I stand on that. True, perhaps I should of stated myself a little clearer and said the the twelve planted the seeds for the one Church.

[LittleLes]

And just for the record, Fr. Raymond Brown at one time or another held the presidency of the three largest biblical associations.

And he was twice appointed by the pope to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

So, unless you want to argue that all these folks misjudged him, including the pope, I might urge that his writings be seriously considered, especially if they have the imprimatur.

But I do notice that the Traditionalist and very conservative Catholics are unhappy that he doesn't always preach the older party line.

LittleLes

[cmotherofpirl]

Yes he held many different positions, but because of his love affair with the historical critical method he strayed from the fold with his conclusions.

Mr McBrien left the fold years ago.

[LittleLes]

McBrien is a professor of theology at Notra Dame University and a priest in good standing.

The late Fr. Raymond Brown was, of course a priest in good standing and twice papally appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission. I know of no writings of his that do not bear the imprimatur attesting that it contains nothing conflicting with Catholic dogma or doctrine.

But I'd argee that they " left the fold" of the "True Believers" as have many Catholic theologians recognizing the many errors of the Traditionalists and ultra conservatives.

Littleles

Edited March 29, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]McBrien is a professor of theology at Notra Dame University and a priest in good standing.[/quote]

So what? Just because he is a priest doesn't give him some sort of mantle of protection from being flat out wrong on certain issues.

McBrien's theology is not orthodox and some of his viewpoints are contrary to those of Rome. Enough of them, I would assert, that there is a dubium that can be placed upon his theological exegete. Most notably is his "work" called Catholicism.

This quote from McBrien sums up how we should view him:
[quote]"To have made the moral argument against abortion, for example, is not necessarily to have made the legal argument as well. St. Thomas Aquinas himself had insisted that if civil laws laid too heavy a burden on the “multitude of imperfect people,” it would be impossible for such laws to be obeyed and this, in turn, could lead eventually to a disregard for all law.
        Moreover, unenforceable laws are worse than no laws at all. And without a sufficient consensus within a society, no law is enforceable. Civil laws, therefore, can demand no more than a pluralistic society can agree upon." (NCR, April 2004)[/quote]

'Nuf said.

It is not suprising that you'd bring up McBrien though. Some who agree with his viewpoints:

Sr. Joan Chittister, OSB -- Call to Action
Bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia -- Liberation Theology
Mary Hunt -- WomenChurch
Hans Küng -- Condemned theologian
Edward Schillebeeckx -- Condemned theologian

How many more do we need?

Cam

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 28 2005, 03:01 PM'] And just for the record, Fr. Raymond Brown at one time or another held the presidency of the three largest biblical associations.

And he was twice appointed by the pope to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
[/quote]
And....? President Bush has been elected to office for two terms and I doubt that many people would recongize that as proof enough to accept him hands down.

[quote]So, unless you want to argue that all these folks misjudged him, including the pope, I might urge that his writings be seriously considered, especially if they have the imprimatur.[/quote]

Yes they may have misjudged him. That happens you know, people don't know everything that a person has done, or will do. Did I not say that they do have the imprimatur, but all that means is that it is not contrary to dogma or doctrine. His interpretations are a different story. Simply because something recieves an imprimatur or a nihil obstat does not mean that Rome agrees with everything the book says. Do not blur those lines.

[quote]But I do notice that the Traditionalist  and very conservative Catholics are unhappy that he doesn't always preach the older party line.
[/quote]

Who say the party line jab coming? Me, me!

[quote]But I'd argee that they " left the fold" of the "True Believers" as have many Catholic theologians recognizing the many errors of the Traditionalists and ultra conservatives.
[/quote]

Or just left plain orthodoxy.

[LittleLes]

Hi CAM and Paphnatius,

How can a "condemned theologian" still be a priest in good standing?

But I agree. We certainly can't have these "Modernist" theologians running around questioning the party line. Do you know that some of them even go so far to say that Matthew was wrong about Jesus riding two animals when entering Jerusalem, and Matthew's and Luke's nativity narratives aren't completely historical?

Shame! Shame! Hang in there tried and true!

LittleLes

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 29 2005, 11:46 AM'] How can a "condemned theologian" still be a priest in good standing?
[/quote]
I never said either were condemned. I dont think that is what Cam was doing either. I will let him speak for himself though.

[quote]Do you know that some of them even go so far to say that Matthew was wrong about Jesus riding two animals when entering Jerusalem, and Matthew's and Luke's nativity narratives aren't completely historical? [/quote]

First, you may cease with the sarcasm, that is no way to prove your point. Secondly, I never said that either of the Gospel account were historically accurate. I believe that the Gospels are erroneous on matters of faith (Virginal birth, ressurection, etc...) not on detailed facts. As far as I know, that is in line with Church teaching. These people push that so far as to question such things as the Virginal Birth and so forth, which comes awfully close to denying matters of faith. Speaking of which do you believe in the Immaculate Conception? What about the Ressurection? Just curious, because you know those aren't party lines. Those are articles of faith. Just recite the Niecene Creed to yourself and you will see they are not party lines. These people question the faith itself by taking huge liberties with their methods. THat is why we don't accept them as an authority. It has nothing to do with party lines so much as orthodoxy (right belief).