were the apostles the first catholic bishops?

Question

did Jesus consecrate the apostles as the first catholic bishops with peter being the first bishop of rome?

Answer 1

Yes of course! History clearly records St. Peter being the first bishop of Antioch. The book of Acts records the ordaining of priests and bishops. We also know that the apostles had disciples just like Jesus. For example, we know that St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius were the disciples of St. John and St. Peter.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 2

Not all of the Apostles were bishops, but some of the first bishops were Apostles.

All of the Apostles were consecrated for ministry (Mk 3:3, Matt 28:18-20). Leadership of the early church had a differentiated structure based upon duties, with elder leaders conferring authority by laying of hands upon junior leaders (Acts 6:3-7). This junior leadership came to be called the helpers or diaconate, while the elder leadership was variously called overseers, presbyterate, or episcopate (see Phil 1, 1 Tim 3).

While not formalized, it is strongly suggested that the Apostles held senior positions prior to their martyrdom, and so could be considered bishops, though not titled as such. It is apparant that the teachings of the Apostles were looked to throughout the epistles (see Jude and Titus), suggesting an authority that would be considered more episcopal than diaconal.

The episcopate was definitely formalized and well-established by the end of the first century, as letters between Clement, Iraneaus, and others clearly indicate in their self-referential titles. While these are non-Scriptural writings, as historical documents they shed considerable light as to the mechanics of the early Church.

Answer 3

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

Answer 4

As you can see, there are varying points of view. Many have merit.

First, understand what a "bishop" is. A bishop (in the most basic sense) is someone who has authority over several individual congregations, each of which has its own elder or elders. Thus, we can clearly see in the bible that Paul was a bishop (by this definition). Scripture does *not* make this clear with regard to other apostles, though the authority of "the 12" in Jerusalem seems to override that of all other Christians at the time (both Paul and Peter had to go to them to receive a decision on the matters of Gentile prosetylization and mandatory circumcision). If it is assumed (with a great degree of credibility) that this "council of 12" in Jerusalem was made up of the 11 original apostles and Matthias
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%201;&version=49;
(read verses 12-26), then yes, "the"12 apostles were the 1st bishops, and had authority over all Christian congregations of the time.

However, this appears to be more of a council authority, whereas (traditionally) bishops have had individual authority over specific congregations (as Paul shows in his letters, confirming congregations in the faith, etc.). Thus, in this more traditional sense of bishops having "territory", it seems that the council of 12 in Jerusalem did not meet the definition of bishops.

However, Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in the first century C.E.

*Tradition* (I am tempted to use the term "historical tradition") teaches that Peter became the leader of the Roman congregations. There is *no* evidence contrary to this, and the tradition is *very* old (indeed, the report of some who might have been alive at the time).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#Death_of_Peter
It is quite possible that Peter, eventually, became bishop of Rome. Less certain, the traditions of Andrew in Romania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Andrew#The_Italian_tradition
and James in Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%2C_son_of_Zebedee#Saint_James_and_Hispania
John is traditionally believed to be the author of Revelation, and to have died on Patmos, but the only evidence of this is that the author of Revelation is named John
Philip in Northeastern Africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Apostle#Christian_Tradition
Bartholomew in south central Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_the_Apostle#Tradition
and Thomas likewise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle#Later_history
James the Less is probably the James described in scripture as the lead speaker of "the 12" in Jerusalem who was killed by the Romans there.
Simon the Zealot (or the Canaaanite) in the Middle East
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_the_Zealot#In_later_tradition
Jude/Thaddeus in North Africa and the Middle East
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_the_Apostle#Tradition_and_legend
Matthias work after the destruction of the temple is far less elaborate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Matthias
and Paul's is described fairly thoroughly in Acts, as well as in his letters.

Conclusion: it *does* seem likely that Peter was an early leader of the church in Rome (territory *and* authority), and thus "bishop of Rome". *Very* certain - the claim for Paul as bishop of the early congregations of Greece and Asia. The others are less well confirmed (or not at all) by accounts of their contemporaries.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis. com/wheel/

Answer 5

Catholic just means "universal". It was never meant to be a rich, powerful, earthly kingdom! Universal means just that- everyone. The communion table is just what Jesus did with the apostles- declaring by the cup and bread that they were all partakers in Christ's sacrifice for us. Which was offered ONCE and for all. Now we pass the cup IN REMEMBRANCE of what Christ did. It is NOT meant to be a daily re-sacrifice! It's just a remembrance. The daily sacrifice was done away with when Christ died and the temple curtain to the Holy of Holies was rent asunder... read it in the Bible. So, all believers in Christ are Catholics because it's universal believers. Tell me honestly- you really think the Pope is a good representative of Jesus? With his palace, own Army, jewels, and treasure and money untold?

Answer 6

In order to cite the right of apostolic succession, tradition does hold that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. Historical evidence, on the other hand does not support this assertion.

Answer 7

They were not the first Bishops. The (Orthodox) Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. The Apostles are in a class by themselves.

Answer 8

Close.
The bishops are the "successors" of the apostles, and the bishops of Rome, where Peter was killed, are the "successors" of the apostle Peter.

Answer 9

Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the Church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the Church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome, comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

Also, nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).

What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).

Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic no. Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere is his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the Gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy.

Answer 10

I wouldn't say they were the first Catholic Bishops, but rather the first Bishops of the church period. Which is Christ's church or rather the body of Christ. Over time we've separated and caused division. The result of that are the different denomination.