Good morning Friend,I am so sorry for getting back to you so very late regarding your questions about the apostles. Hopefully, I am not too late to be of genuine assistance.
To keep the discussion clear, I will offer a preliminary comment then attempt to tackle each of your questions (or clusters of questions) in turn. It is important that you recognize that I am not aware of any dogmatic statements that specifically address your questions. I have, therefore, offered these answers within the context of a persistent desire to adhere to Christ and the Church with ever increasing fidelity.
Preliminary Comment: The first thing to note is that the during the decades in which the NT was being written, the word "apostle" has not yet acquired the character of a technical term. The same is true for many other words as well. Several other examples of terms that acquired a more-or-less technical character as the first century progressed are bishop, church, elder and deacon.
QUESTION: Ok, the 12 were apostles, and then there were 11, and then Matthias was added. And then if Paul, Barnabas, Andronicus and Junias and James were all "apostles"... When did the term "apostle" go out of style, and why? (Clement only speaks of "bishops.")
RESPONSE: The term "Apostle" never went out of style. As noted in my preliminary comment above, within the NT era, the term "apostle" had still not been reserved to the twelve disciples that Christ called to walk more closely with him during his earthly ministry and in whom he would establish the foundation of the Church (Matt 10; Mark 3; Luke 6). Within the NT both "the Twelve" and others who have been commissioned (that is, sent out or "apostled") by local churches (e.g. Antioch) are referred to as "apostles". As the second century dawned, and probably for the sake of clarity, the term was increasingly reserved as a reference to "the Twelve".
QUESTION: If it was so important in Acts 1 to maintain the number 12, when and why did the Church begin appointing more than 12 to the top echelon?
RESPONSE: First, it is important to recognize that your comment about the importance of "the number 12" is unrelated to your question concerning the Church's expansion of the number of men to "the top echelon". As with the emergence of the need for deacons, the need for collaborators in the work of the apostolic ministry occurred as the Christian Church expanded geographically and numerically. Initially, it appears that the apostles appointed leaders in the young churches. However, as disciples of the Way multiplied the apostles established delegates to perform this work of establishment and confirmation (See 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus).
QUESTION: When Rev 21:14 refers to the "12 apostles of the Lamb," who's the twelfth?
RESPONSE: Three possibilities exist regarding the identity of the twelfth: (1) Judas; (2) Matthias; and (3) Paul. The NT is ambiguous on the matter, and I do not believe that anything of substance hinges on resolving this exegetical question. However, given the realism that characterizes the way the Scriptures portray the history of the People of God (see especially the narratives that include the Twelve Tribes of Israel), I am inclined to the first option.
Note: Israel and the Catholic Church after her would seem to have little difficulty in this regard. The fact that Israel's tribal heads were not universally good men did not detract from Israel's (and the Sacred Scriptures') recognition of their foundational place in the People of God. In the same way, there exists no inherent conflict between the Catholic Church's self-understanding and the notion that one of the "12 apostles of the Lamb" was tragically flawed and - in the end - appears to have been cut off from God's people. However, I believe that this situation creates an almost unbearable tension for those Protestant communities that adhere to the "believers' church" doctrine. It is noteworthy that this tension does not exist for Protestant communities that do not accept the "believers' church" teaching (e.g. Anglicanism and Presbyterianism).
QUESTION: If the apostles had "perfect foreknowledge" (Clement to Corinthians, 44:2), is that a characteristic also possessed by RC Pope/bishops today?
RESPONSE: Clement's reference the "perfect foreknowledge" of the Apostles ought not to be read in an overly literalistic manner. Two things compel this exegetical restraint: (1) If Clement's statement is accepted at face value it would mean that Clement intended to attribute divinity to the Apostles because God alone possesses "perfect foreknowledge. Given his sound theological framework, it would be implausible in the extreme to make this proposal; (2) Furthermore, Clement's comments are limited - by their context - to the Apostles' insight into this specific ecclesiastical need. Given the above, it seems more prudent to suggest that Clement is not articulating a doctrine concerning apostolic capacities/faculties. Rather, he is offering high praise for the remarkable coherence between the apostolic wisdom and the Church's need.
Since I do not believe that Clement intended to assert that the Apostles possessed the faculty of "perfect foreknowledge," I do not believe that he intended to assert that such a faculty would be bequeathed to the heirs of the papal throne or the apostolic honors.
QUESTION: Vaughn said apostolic succession comes from following Christ in every way. Christ appointed apostles, the apostles appointed successors, successors appointed successors, and so on. But Christ also performed miracles on a regular basis, and the original apostles also performed miracles on a regular basis. Why don't we see their successors regularly performing miracles today?
RESPONSE: In its more general form, this question can be legitimately asked of all Christian communities: Why did the miraculous aspect of the Church's witness diminish significantly with the passing of the Apostolic Age? The standard answer suffices here: The miraculous aspects of the Apostolic Age diminished because the primary goal for the presence of this element had been effected: The establishment of the authenticity of the divine authority of Jesus Christ and the Twelve after him.
The simplest answer to the specifically Catholic form in which this question has been cast is the Church's teaching that the bishops are successors of the apostles with regard to the authority to govern, form and instruct the faithful and to ordain and establish others to assist and to succeed them in this office and its associated ministries, but that they are not - by virtue of their office - recipients of all of the powers that Christ gave to the Twelve.
Finally, I can't say that the above answers are complete in themselves. Even so, I do hope that they serve well as pointers to the truth that you seek.
May God always bless you with a heart that longs for him.... and may nothing less than Christ himself ever satisfy!
Always in Christ,
Vaughn
No comments:
Post a Comment