Was the Apostle Paul a bishop?

[Quid est Veritas?]

If Peter is considered the first Bishop of Rome and sometimes of Antioch as well, is Paul considered the founding Bishop of any sees?

As far as I know he isn't thought of as a Bishop of Rome (although the beginning of the list sometimes has Clement after Peter and sometimes Linus etc. so seems a bit dubious).

Is Paul ever considered a bishop in his missionary travels or is this merely his role as an Apostle?

 

[Albion]

If Peter is considered the first Bishop of Rome and sometimes of Antioch as well, is Paul considered the founding Bishop of any sees?

As far as I know he isn't thought of as a Bishop of Rome (although the beginning of the list sometimes has Clement after Peter and sometimes Linus etc. so seems a bit dubious).

Is Paul ever considered a bishop in his missionary travels or is this merely his role as an Apostle?

To the extent that he is an Apostle (we all agree on that), he's a bishop. He wasn't the bishop of any diocese or 'see', etc. but the Apostles are where the lines of Apostolic Succession that later churches and clergy referred to begin; and we do see in the New Testament examples of some of them commissioning other men for church work..

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Do any Bishoprics trace their apostolic lineage back to Paul, though?

I mean Polycarp traced it through John, as it seems do most of the Anatolian sees.

What of Corinth or Athens for instance? I couldn't find clear claims of this nature for them, but I assume the Church would have rather stressed the claims of more politically important sees anyway, as the hierarchy formed.

 

[Albion]

Do any Bishoprics trace their apostolic lineage back to Paul, though?

To my knowledge, no. And that's also the case with others among the original twelve.

...I assume the Church would have rather stressed the claims of more politically important sees anyway, as the hierarchy formed.

Sure, and those are the ones for which there are records. By the way, most of the lines that any bishop today would present overlap with others, and most go back to Peter, either in Rome or Antioch.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Sure, and those are the ones for which there are records. By the way, most of the lines that any bishop today would present overlap with others, and most go back to Peter, either in Rome or Antioch.

Alexandria goes back to Peter as well via Mark, so basically the three most important historical Patriarchies all trace to Peter.

 

[Albion]

Alexandria goes back to Peter as well via Mark, so basically the three most important historical Patriarchies all trace to Peter.

Yes, but it may be worth keeping the record straight by saying that there are other lines.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

from orthodoxwiki.org

• Jerusalem - James
• Antioch - Peter
• Rome - Peter
• Alexandria - Mark
• Constantinople - Andrew

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

from orthodoxwiki.org

• Jerusalem - James
• Antioch - Peter
• Rome - Peter
• Alexandria - Mark
• Constantinople - Andrew

Yes, but Constantinople was elevated to a Patriarchy from a suffragan of the Exarch of Thrace after Byzantium was rebuilt as Constantinople in 330. The Exarch claimed descent from Andrew, so this patriarchy's claims are not as direct as the others you mention.

 

[Albion]

We're pretty far off from what was asked in the OP now, though, aren't we?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Agreed. I actually would like to know specifically if a Bishopric claims Paul as its founder.

 

[Albion]

Agreed. I actually would like to know specifically if a Bishopric claims Paul as its founder.

I'd be surprised if any do. And I don't know how it could be verified.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Agreed. I actually would like to know specifically if a Bishopric claims Paul as its founder.

I looked through Orthdoxwiki and other sites that showed various apostolic successions and I couldn't find any that claimed St. Paul as their first Bishop.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Where does the Bible give any Apostles the Bishop designation?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Where does the Bible give any Apostles the Bishop designation?

Nowhere. This is why many protestants reject Episcopacy.

It is implied from the oversight that Paul asks of Titus in 1 Titus 1:5 and 2:15 as well as 1Timothy 1:3.
The early church had Presbyters or Elders who were often oversaw the community. This is where the Episkopos or 'bishop' comes from as an overseer-elder, such as in Acts 20:17.
This then developed into bishops or they were ordained bishops from the get go, depending on your view of history.

My church is sans-bishop, so my query was actually just out of curiousity. The fact is that Bishops existed from at least the end of the first century, so whether you believe in Apostolic sucession and Episcopacy or not, they were present from very early on in Christianity. (Some argue that both Rome and Jerusalem might originally have been ruled through a council of Presbyters and not a single bishop, but that is a debatable and very political assertion).

 

[Albion]

My church is sans-bishop, so my query was actually just out of curiousity. The fact is that Bishops existed from at least the end of the first century, so whether you believe in Apostolic sucession and Episcopacy or not, they were present from very early on in Christianity.

Since bishops are mentioned in the NT, it's likely that they date from earlier, but the idea of Apostolic Succession does appear to have developed in the late first century. That was for a practical reason, and that's why my church has retained them--for historic reasons and because it has been an orderly system. That's a little different from the churches that have decided to believe that it confers some validity that other ministers do not have.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do any Bishoprics trace their apostolic lineage back to Paul, though?

I mean Polycarp traced it through John, as it seems do most of the Anatolian sees.

What of Corinth or Athens for instance? I couldn't find clear claims of this nature for them, but I assume the Church would have rather stressed the claims of more politically important sees anyway, as the hierarchy formed.

According to tradition Peter ordained Evodius of Antioch, Paul ordained Ignatius of Antioch. The See of Antioch therefore traces itself to Peter and Paul.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tz620q]

According to tradition Peter ordained Evodius of Antioch, Paul ordained Ignatius of Antioch. The See of Antioch therefore traces itself to Peter and Paul.

-CryptoLutheran

Cool. Too bad the Bishops in that Apostolic line succumbed to the Miaphysite break after the Council of Chalcedon.

 

[Albion]

According to tradition Peter ordained Evodius of Antioch, Paul ordained Ignatius of Antioch. The See of Antioch therefore traces itself to Peter and Paul.

-CryptoLutheran

None of the bishops claiming succession through Antioch seem to make mention of anyone but Peter, though. At least not so I recall now (and I can't say that I've checked on all of them, either. )

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

According to tradition Peter ordained Evodius of Antioch, Paul ordained Ignatius of Antioch. The See of Antioch therefore traces itself to Peter and Paul.

-CryptoLutheran

Didn't Theodoret of Cyrrhus say Peter appointed Ignatius?

From Dialogue 1 - The Immutable.
"You have no doubt heard of the illustrious Ignatius, who received episcopal grace by the hand of the great Peter, and after ruling the church of Antioch, wore the crown of martyrdom."

Did someone else say he was ordained by Paul?

 

[com7fy8]

@Quid est Veritas? First, Quid > Acts chapter one > we see how the disciples started in prayer after Jesus ascended. And Peter led them to select the replacement for Judas. They did things in prayer with one accord.

Then, when there was the issue about if Gentiles must keep the law of Moses, they met and eventually did what they did with unanimous consent > in Acts 15 < at first, it seems to me, various people had their say, but God used Peter to lead them all to what turned out to be with unanimous agreement.

So, this was basic to how the apostolic succession worked, then: there was prayer until they were of one accord; God's approved leader taking charge of the matter of business; and the result was with unanimous agreement of believers. Plus, it appears the leaders took care of things in meeting with the non-leader believers; there was not secret and isolated stuff and politics.

And there was that time, though, when Peter messed up big-time > Galatians 2:11-13 > and "even Barnabas" went along with the "hypocrisy". But Paul corrected the situation, I understand. So, God used an approved person to correct a wrong leader. Therefore, I understand we can expect efficient correction of leadership if a group is operating in the true apostolic succession.

Paul gave directives to Timothy and Titus, about whom to appoint to take care of God's people > 1 Timothy 3:1-10 > Titus 1:5-9. So, those appointed men would be higher than pastors, I consider, therefore what in hierarchy could be called bishops. And they answered to Paul; so I would think that would make Paul a cardinal or a co-pope with Peter . . . something like this. So, in any case, there was hierarchy and overall organization.

And Hebrews 13:17 does say we are commanded to obey those whom God has approved to take care of us, I understand.

But we need to be able to tell the difference between who meets the Biblical qualifications of a leader, versus others who are not approved example leaders > you might note 1 Peter 5:3. Just because ones say they have the apostolic succession, this does not mean it is do. Also, I have no way of knowing how people in past history could have influenced historical reports, in order to make themselves look like the true succession; I consider now how our true leaders may not have been involved in politics and power playing and publicity, because they were "examples" (1 Peter 5:3) living in real lives with us the sheep so we could know them personally and feed on their good example > they may have been too quiet and humble, to be getting major attention which got written down, not to mention how there was no media then for worldwide spreading of things.

And - - - God knows whom He approves; and since I am not God, there is no way I can know for sure about a religious leader or group, unless God personally communicates with me. Because I am not God to know the hearts of anyone who makes their claims.

What of Corinth or Athens for instance?

If there is something to the "First Epistle of Clement", this letter is to Corinthians, about how certain rogues put out the approved leaders in the church in Corinth. This letter includes description of who qualifies to be one of Jesus Christ's leaders, plus how there was universal consent of the believers, about who was qualified and approved. And, by the way, the letter itself does not name Clement, plus it is written with "we" and "our" and "us", never an "I".

And I think you can see for yourself who has kept to these standards of 1 Timothy 3:1-10 and the First Epistle of Clement. I understand it is our responsibility to make sure in prayer with God, about whom God Himself trusts to take care of us. And if God trusts a certain leader, surely He expects me to. But this does not mean to only go by people's say-so, but make sure with God who knows.