First bishop/partriarch of Rome

[Mary]

I heard today, that the Apostle Peter was never the first Bishop/Patriarch of Rome, but that he appointed the first Bishop, along with the Apostle Paul. Someone called St Linus. Is this true?

I also recall hearing that none of the Apostles remained in any one place long enough to become the Bishop of in that place, but that they appointed bishops & priests and so forth and moved on. Is that also true?

Since I don't remember where I heard these things, or if I read them somewhere, now I'm starting to wonder if they're true or if made them up in my mind from a tiny bit of information that I understood in my own way.

thanks.

In Christ,
Mary

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mary,

Thank you for the interesting post and topic.

The answer to the question really depends on whom one is reading. Various Fathers approach the listing of bishops in the earliest Church differently: some list the apostles as the first bishops (and so, for example, St Peter is the first bishop of Rome), while others, acknowledging the episcopal oversight they held over these cities, nonetheless wish to keep them in a distinct category from their successors, and so tend to list first the apostolic founder and overseer of a city, and then the 'first bishop' to succeed him (in which case, St Peter is the Apostle of Rome, and his successor the first bishop of that city).

Which format of listing is employed is largely to the preference and style of the Father who is writing: there is not one method that is either older or preferred to another. And indeed, sometimes the going back-and-forth between the two methods has caused some confusion over who was bishop when in the early listings.

Ultimately, the point of the matter is that, in the case of Rome, St Peter was certainly its first episkopos; but whether one calls him 'Rome's first bishop', or 'Rome's apostle who was followed by his first bishop successor' is a matter of emphasis.

I hope this is of some use.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

As an addendum: a good example of how these two usages could be used by a single writer is St Irenaeus of Lyons, who clearly views St Peter as bishop of Rome; yet in his 'succession listing' of Rome's bishop's from the city's Christianisation to his day, he does not list St Peter as bishop, but as apostle, with his successor as 'the first bishop....' (i.e. the first successor to the apostle's episcopacy). So here a single Father uses both types of identification.

[Mary]

Thank you Fr Matthew.

That was indeed helpful. Basically, call them Apostle or Bishop, or both, it's no big deal! Is that right? I love orthodox solutions. So stress free. =)

But I still have another question slightly related to this. I've also heard that the apostles divided up the known world amongst themselves, so they would get every place covered, and wouldn't overlap. But then, I heard that both St Peter and St Paul were founders of the church in Rome. Is that true?

I know that St Paul went mainly to the Gentiles. And St Peter to the Jews. There would've been both Jews and Gentiles in Rome. But then, whenever they were in a particular area, they did speak to everyone there, and didn't leave out any group. Like St Peter going to Cornelius...

And also, is there any place where I can find a list of where each of the Apostles went to?

in Christ,
Mary

[Peter S.]

Isnt st. Peters "chair" in Antioch and not Rome? (Chair is not the right english word i think. Peters stool maybe.)

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

As an addendum: a good example of how these two usages could be used by a single writer is St Irenaeus of Lyons, who clearly views St Peter as bishop of Rome; yet in his 'succession listing' of Rome's bishop's from the city's Christianisation to his day, he does not list St Peter as bishop, but as apostle, with his successor as 'the first bishop....' (i.e. the first successor to the apostle's episcopacy). So here a single Father uses both types of identification.

Father,

Regarding the difference between apostles and bishops, I'd be interested in your take on the following:

Christ called the Apostles first of all to be evangelists — to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. That remains the definitive vocation of the apostle. The Church has honored many people with the title “Equal to the Apostles” because they took the Gospel to new lands. Not all of these new apostles were priests or bishops. Some were in fact women.

Bishops and presbyters, however, were appointed by the Apostles to oversee local flocks, and the principal concern of their oversight was communal worship. Deacons and deaconesses were appointed to assist in that worship, so from the start the ministry of all of the Church’s orders (major and minor) was essentially sacramental, not administrative. The Church does not ordain people to perform purely administrative duties, neither does it ordain people just to carry on the work of evangelism.

The distinction to be drawn is between vocation and ordination. Apostleship is a vocation, a calling, but not an ordination, not a rank within the sacramental order or hierarchy. We are all, as Christians, called to apostleship (of some sort), but we are not all called to fill the same ranks within the hierarchy, and between our calling and our rank, our calling is more important, more definitive of who we are.

Along these lines, one could argue that the recent revival of the order of deaconess is a departure from Church practice because it does not appear to have arisen out of any genuine sacramental need, but rather to invest some women with special dignity.

What do you think?

In Christ,

Dn. Patrick

[Olga]

Christ called the Apostles first of all to be evangelists — to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. That remains the definitive vocation of the apostle. The Church has honored many people with the title “Equal to the Apostles” because they took the Gospel to new lands. Not all of these new apostles were priests or bishops. Some were in fact women.



A short but very useful and pertinent analysis, Fr Patrick.

[Owen Jones]

btw, what is the proper way of addressing the Ecumenical Patriarch?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Father Patrick,

Thank you for the very interesting thoughts. In very large part I agree with you, and the very etymology of the two terms (apostolos and episkopos) suggest very much these aspects of mission and oversight.

However, I think that one must add into the mix the further witness of the liturgical tradition of the Church. This is not to contradict what you have offered, but to further expand on and refine. So, for example, you wrote (if I can 'snip' out three relevant comments):


Christ called the Apostles first of all to be evangelists — to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. [...] Not all of these new apostles were priests or bishops.

[...] Bishops and presbyters, however, were appointed by the Apostles to oversee local flocks, and the principal concern of their oversight was communal worship.

[...] The distinction to be drawn is between vocation and ordination. Apostleship is a vocation, a calling, but not an ordination, not a rank within the sacramental order or hierarchy.

I think the only thing missing from this otherwise fine analysis is a liturgical observation on the apostolic nature of the episcopacy, as well as just what is meant by 'equal to the apostles'.

It is true that not all recognised as 'equal-to-the-apostles' have been bishops, and many have been women (the saint most dear to me of all, St Mary Magdalene, is 'equal-to-the-apostles'); however, it is also true that all bishops are recognised liturgically as 'apostles', with apostolic office.

Further, there is the matter of 'equal to the apostles' (Iσαπόστολος) in fact being quite distinct from 'apostle' itself; and so for example St Mary Magdalen is 'equal to' the apostles, but is never called 'apostle' (except in the title absolutely unique to her, 'apostle to the apostles'); while at the same time we have the rarer cases of bishops who are given the title Iσαπόστολος - so for example we've St Nicholas of Japan, who as bishop is 'apostle', but is also 'equal to' the apostles.

What exists in the Church's liturgical life and commemoration is two-fold: there is the confession of the ongoing apostolic ministry of the Chief Shepherd's (Christ's) shepherds (the bishops) pastoring their flock -- these are the bishops who hold the apostolic office in the Church; because in the Gospels and the Acts it is clear that those called as apostles were not called solely to go out, but also to shepherd and establish their the Church in the true witness of Christ. But there is also recognition that the work of 'going out' that the original twelve apostles exemplified, can also be exemplified by many in the Church, whatever their rank or office. The title 'equal to the apostles' is a title equating a person's missionary work not to the general title of 'apostle', but to the missionary zeal specifically of the original twelve. This is a very unique, very wonderful title; but it does not simply mean a person who is 'apostolic' -- it identifies a person specifically associated with the same missionary fervour that characterised the original group of twelve who went out (save for James) from Jerusalem to the whole inhabited earth.

What this means, in response to your comments, is that the witness is these liturgical and pastoral distinctions needs perhaps to be taken a little more fully on board. You wrote, for example:


The distinction to be drawn is between vocation and ordination. Apostleship is a vocation, a calling, but not an ordination, not a rank within the sacramental order or hierarchy.

This is true, when we take 'apostleship' in a more abstract sense of general missionary fervour and zeal. And I would certainly not disagree (God forbid!) with your calling apostleship a vocation (save for the very word 'apostleship': what a queer term! where does it come from? I'd be curious to know, historically speaking). However, we must be more careful in saying that 'apostleship is ... not an ordination'. There is at least one sense in which it is definitively tied to ordination: the consecration of a bishop. It is from this ordination that the bishop bestows the apostolic blessing, etc. So while I quite agree with the thrust of your comments, I think the liturgical life of the Church says they must be pushed a bit further. Let us not diminish, in a (proper) zeal to see the missionary vocation of the apostles as a vocation to which we might each be called, the fact that there remains nonetheless (and thanks to God) a communion of Christ's apostles as chief shepherds still, in which apostolate and episcopacy are united for the good of the flock.

Many thanks for the thought-provoking comments.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Thank you, Father. Your points are well taken, and I can’t disagree with anything you say.

The reason I raise the issue is to test the difference between the Pauline metaphor of the body to describe the Church and the Dionysian concept of ecclesiastical hierarchy. The former suggests an organic whole with a special place for everyone; the latter suggests a simple pyramid with bishops at the top and masses of laymen at the bottom.

Now, in truth, the Church is both, but the latter is more apparent and sometimes all people see. And this has led people to think that ordination is the way to go if you want to do more for the Church. So some men seek to become priests or deacons who might be better suited for other service, and some women seek to become deaconesses because they can’t be priests or deacons, and their ordination as deaconesses is supposed to invest them with the dignity, authority, or grace with which to perform whatever ministry they undertake.

It strikes me that this is a wrong view of ordination, because ordination is not merely a blessing to do Church work, much less a grant of honor or authority. Ordination is the sacramental placement of a person within an order whose purpose is to conduct those corporate activities we recognize as sacramental. Accordingly, when the sacramental need for deaconesses disappeared, the Church stopped ordaining them, because it doesn’t “ordain” men or women to perform nonsacramental duties outside the sacramental order.

It also seems to me that by recognizing that the hierarchical order exists within the Church principally to oversee the Church’s sacramental life, we may also more easily recognize that quite a lot that the Church should be doing may be allotted to the laity, even if bishops are still called to apostolic witness.

In Christ,

Dn. Patrick

[Kosta]

The Church of Rome was originally an assembly of christians most likely organized by christians who would go to Rome on business and wanted fellpwship with each other. Paul's epistle makes it clear that at the time he wrote to the Romans there was no apostolic foundations nor any elder presiding over this assembly. From the book of Acts we can see that Paul arrived first into Rome and later Peter where they were martyred. They handpicked St Linus as first bishop.

In another example, the Church of Ephesus was found by Paul as well, but counts St John the Evangelist as its first bishop who made his residence in Ephesus sometime after the Theotokos passed away. James was the first bishop of Jerusalem and is not known to have traveled outside of Palestine.
Indeed a distinction can be made between a bishop who had the calling of an apostle (in the sense of evangelizing) and a bishop-apostle who remained as pastor over his flock; becoming the appointed elder of that Church. Apostle is literally greek meaning "to send out". Peter and Paul were classic examples, they were missionaries and were "sent out" to make disciples of all nations.
James on the other hand was appointed overseer over the Church of Jerusalem, James was a quintessential bishop. John the Evangelist may have done some missionary work early in his life, but eventually "retired" from missionary work and settled in Ephesus, becoming its bishop till death.

[Benjamin Amis]

Isnt st. Peters "chair" in Antioch and not Rome? (Chair is not the right english word i think. Peters stool maybe.)

I believe, and I leave this to the clergy to clear up if I say something wrong, that we hold Peter to have been the first bishop (or Apostle, depending on how you want to term it) of both Antioch and then Rome. A quick look at Wikipedia claims that Peter and Paul are both founders of the see, although their list of Patriarchs only includes St. Peter. I don't know how we're to understand that historically, so I'm just going to stop here and let a clergyman help us out. :)

[Cyprian (Humphrey)]

btw, what is the proper way of addressing the Ecumenical Patriarch?
"Your All Holiness..."