Apostles

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Under this title it may be sufficient to supply brief and essential information,

I. on the name "Apostle";
II. on its various meanings;
III. on the origin of the Apostolate;
IV. on the office of the Apostles and the conditions required in them;
V. on the authority and the prerogatives of the Apostles;
VI. on the relation of the Apostolate to the office of bishop;
VII. on the origin of the feasts of the Apostles.

The reader will find at the end of this article various titles of other articles which contain supplementary information on subjects connected with the Apostles.

The name

The word "Apostle", from the Greekapostello "to send forth", "to dispatch", has etymologically a very general sense.Apostolos (Apostle) means one who is sent forth, dispatched--in other words, who is entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It has, however, a stronger sense than the wordmessenger, and means as much as adelegate. In the classical writers the word is not frequent. In the Greek version of theOld Testament it occurs once, in1 Kings 14:6 (cf.1 Kings 12:24). In theNew Testament, on the contrary, it occurs, according to Bruder's Concordance, about eighty times, and denotes often not all the disciples of the Lord, but some of them specially called. It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic dialect, gave to some of his disciples an Aramaic title, the Greek equivalent of which was "Apostle". It seems to us that there is no reasonabledoubt about the Aramaic word beingseliah, by which also the laterJews, and probably already theJews before Christ, denoted "those who were despatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission, especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute paid to the temple service" (Lightfoot, "Galatians", London, 1896, p. 93). The wordapostle would be an exact rendering of the root of the wordseliah,=apostello.

Various meanings

It is at once evident that in aChristian sense, everyone who had received a mission fromGod, or Christ, to man could be called "Apostle". In fact, however, it was reserved to those of the disciples who received this title from Christ. At the same time, like other honourable titles, it was occasionally applied to those who in some way realized the fundamentalidea of the name. The word also has various meanings.

The nameApostle denotes principally one of the twelve disciples who, on a solemn occasion, were called byChrist to a special mission. In the Gospels, however, those disciples are often designated by the expressions ofmathetai (the disciples) ordodeka (the Twelve) and, after the treason and death ofJudas, even ofhendeka (the Eleven). In theSynoptics the nameApostle occurs but seldom with this meaning; only once in Matthew and Mark. But in other books of theNew Testament, chiefly in theEpistles ofSt. Paul and in the Acts, this use of the word is current.Saul of Tarsus, beingmiraculously converted, and called to preach the Gospel to theheathens, claimed with much insistency this title and itsrights.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews (iii, 1) the name is applied even to Christ, in the original meaning of a delegate sent fromGod to preachrevealed truth to the world.
The wordApostle has also in theNew Testament a larger meaning, and denotes some inferior disciples who, under the direction of the Apostles, preached the Gospel, or contributed to its diffusion; thus Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), probably Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25), two unknownChristians who were delegated for the collection in Corinth (2 Corinthians 8:23). Weknow not why the honourable name of Apostle is not given to such illustrious missionaries as Timothy, Titus, and others who would equally merit it.

There are some passages in which the extension of the wordApostle isdoubtful, asLuke 11:49;John 13:16;2 Corinthians 13;1 Thessalonians 2:7;Ephesians 3:5;Jude 17, and perhaps the well-known expression "Apostles and Prophets". Even in an ironical meaning the word occurs (2 Corinthians 11:5;12:11) to denote pseudo-apostles. There is but little to add on the use of the word in the oldChristian literature. The first and third meanings are the only ones which occur frequently, and even in the oldest literature the larger meaning is seldom found.

Origin of the apostolate

The Gospels point out how, from the beginning of his ministry,Jesus called to him someJews, and by a very diligent instruction and formation made them his disciples. After some time, in the Galilean ministry, he selected twelve whom, asMark (3:14) and Luke (vi, 13) say, "he also named Apostles."The origin of the Apostolate lies therefore in a special vocation, a formal appointment of the Lord to a determined office, with connected authority andduties. The appointment of the twelve Apostles is given by the three Synoptic Gospels (Mark 3:13-19;Matthew 10:1-4;Luke 6:12-16) nearly in the same words, so that the three narratives are literally dependent. Only on the immediately connected events is there some difference between them. It seems almost needless to outline and disproverationalistic views on this topic. The holders of these views, at least some of them, contend that our Lord never appointed twelve Apostles, never thought of establishing disciples to help him in his ministry, and eventually to carry on his work. These opinions are only deductions from therationalistic principles on the credibility of the Gospels,Christ's doctrine on theKingdom of Heaven, and theeschatology of the Gospels. Here it may be sufficient to observe

that the very clear testimony of the threesynoptic Gospels constitutes a strong historical argument, representing, as it does, a very old and widely spread tradition that cannot beerroneous;
that the universally acknowledged authority of the Apostles, even in the most heated controversies, and from the first years afterChrist's death (for instance in the Jewish controversies), as we read in the oldestEpistles ofSt. Paul and in the Acts, cannot be explained, or even be understood, unless we recognize some appointment of the Twelve byJesus.

Office and conditions of the apostolate

Two of thesynoptic Gospels add to their account of the appointment of the Twelve brief statements on their office:Mark 3:14-15, "He appointed twelve to be with him and to send them to herald, and to have power to heal the illnesses and to cast outdemons";Matthew 10:1, "He gave them power over unclean spirits so as to expel them, and to heal every disease and every illness". Luke where he relates the appointment of the Twelve, adds nothing on their office. Afterwards (Mark 6:7-13;Matthew 10:5-15;Luke 9:1-5).Jesus sends the Twelve to preach the kingdom and to heal, and gives them very definite instructions. From all this it results that the Apostles are to be withJesus and to aid Him by proclaiming the kingdom and by healing. However, this was not the whole extent of their office, and it is not difficult to understand thatJesus did not indicate toHis Apostles the whole extent of their mission, while as yet they had such imperfectideas of His ownperson and mission, and of theMessianic kingdom. The nature of the Apostolic mission is made still clearer by the sayings of Christ after HisResurrection. Here such passages asMatthew 28:19-20;Luke 24:46-49;Acts 1:8, 21-22 are fundamental. In the first of these texts we read, "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all I have commanded you". The texts of Luke point to the same office of preaching and testifying (cf.Mark 16:16). TheActs of the Apostles and the Epistles written by the Apostles exhibit them in the constant exercise of this office. Everywhere the Apostle governs the disciples, preaches the doctrines ofJesus as an authentic witness, and administers the sacred rites. In order to fill such an office, it seemsnecessary to have been instructed byJesus, to have seen the risen Lord. And these are, clearly, the conditions required by the Apostles in the candidate for the place ofJudas Iscariot. "Of the men, therefore, who have accompanied us all the time that theLord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from thebaptism of John unto the day He was received up from us, of these must one becomea witness with us ofHis Resurrection" (Acts 1:21-22). This narrative, which seems to come from an Aramaic Palestinian source like many other details given in the earlier chapter of Acts, was ancient and cannot be set aside. It is further strengthened by an objection made toSt. Paul: because he was called in an extraordinary way to the Apostolate, he wasobliged often to vindicate his Apostolic authority and proclaim that he had seen the Lord (1 Corinthians 9:1). Instruction and appointment byJesus were, therefore, the regular conditions for the Apostolate. By way of exception. an extraordinary vocation, as in the case of Paul, or a choice by the Apostolic College, as in the case of Matthias, could suffice. Such an extraordinarily called or elected Apostle could preachChrist's doctrine and theResurrection of the Lord as an authoritative witness.

Authority and prerogatives of the apostles

The authority of the Apostles proceeds from the office imposed upon them byOur Lord and is based on the very explicit sayings ofChrist Himself. He will be with them all days to the end of ages (Matthew 28:20), give a sanction to their preaching (Mark 16:16), send them the "promise of the Father", "virtue from above" (Luke 24:49). TheActs of the Apostles and the Epistles of theNew Testament show us the exercise of this authority. The Apostle makeslaws (Acts 15:29;1 Corinthians 7:12 sq.), teaches (Acts 2:37 and following), claims for his teaching that it should be received as the word ofGod (1 Thessalonians 2:13), punishes (Acts 5:1-11;1 Corinthians 5:1-5), administers the sacred rites (Acts 6:1 sq.;16:33;20:11), provides successors (2 Timothy 1:6;Acts 14:22). In the moderntheological terms the Apostle, besides thepower of order, has ageneralpower of jurisdiction and magisterium (teaching). The former embraces the power of makinglaws judging on religious matters, and enforcingobligations by means of suitable penalties. The latter includes the power of setting forth with authorityChrist's doctrine. It isnecessary to add here that an Apostle could receive newrevealed truths in order to propose them to theChurch. This, however, is something wholly personal to the Apostles. (SeeREVELATION;INSPIRATION.)

Catholic theologians rightly speak in their treatises of some personal prerogatives of the Apostles; a brief account of them may not be superfluous.

A first prerogative, not clearly inferred from the texts of theNew Testament nor demonstrated by solid reasons, is their confirmation in grace. Most moderntheologians admit that the Apostles received so abundant an infusion of grace that they could avoid every mortal fault and every fully deliberate venialsin.
Another personal prerogative is the universality of theirjurisdiction. The words of the Gospel on Apostolic office are very general; for the most part, the Apostles preached and travelled as if they were not bound by territorial limits, as we read in the Acts and the Epistles. This did not hinder the Apostles from taking practical measures to properly organize the preaching of the Gospel in the various countries they visited.
Among these prerogatives is reckoned personalinfallibility, of course in matters offaith andmorals, and only when they taught and imposed somedoctrine asobligatory. In other matters they coulderr, as Peter, in the question of practical intercourse with the convertedheathens; they might also accept certain current opinions, as Paul seems to have done with regard to the time of the Parousia, or Second Coming of the Lord. (SeeJESUS CHRIST.) It is not easy to find a stringent scripturistic demonstration for this prerogative, but reasonable arguments suggest it, e.g. the impossibility for all his hearers to verify and try thedoctrine preached to them by an Apostle.
It is a more disputed question whether an Apostle writing on religious matters would have, merely by his Apostolic office, the prerogatives of an inspired author. This was asserted by theCatholic theologian, Dr. Paul Schanz of Tübingen (Apologie des Christenthums, II) and by some others, e.g. Joüon in "Etudes religieuses" (1904).Catholic theologians almost unanimously deny it, e.g. Father Pesch (De Inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae, 1906, pp. 611-634). (SeeINSPIRATION;NEW TESTAMENT.)

Apostolate and episcopate

Since the authority with which the Lord endowed the Apostles was given them for the entireChurch it is natural that this authority should endure after their death, in other words, pass to successors established by the Apostles. In the oldestChristian documents concerning the primitive Churches we findministers established, some of them, at least, by the usual rite of theimposition of hands. They bear various names:priests (presbyteroi,Acts 11:30;14:22;15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23;16:4;20:17;21:18;1 Timothy 5:17, 19;Titus 1:5);bishops (episkopoi,Acts 20:28;Philippians 1:1;1 Timothy 3:2;Titus 1:7); presidents (proistamenoi,1 Thessalonians 5:12,Romans 12, etc.); heads (hegoumenoi,Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24, etc.); shepherds (poimenes,Ephesians 4:11); teachers (didaskaloi,Acts 13:1;1 Corinthians 12:28 sq. etc.);prophets (prophetai,Acts 13:1;15:32;1 Corinthians 12:28-29, etc.), and some others. Besides them, there are Apostolic delegates, such as Timothy and Titus. The most frequent terms arepriests andbishops; they were destined to become the technical names for the "authorities" of theChristian community. All other names are less important; thedeacons are out of the question, being of an inferior order. It seems clear that amid so great a variety of terms forecclesiastical authorities in Apostolic times several must have expressed only transitory functions. From the beginning of the second century inAsia Minor, and somewhat later elsewhere, we find only three titles:bishops,priests, anddeacons; the last charged with inferiorduties. The authority of thebishop is different from the authority ofpriests, as is evident on every page of the letters of themartyr Ignatius of Antioch. Thebishop--and there is but one in each town--governs his church, appointspriests who have a subordinate rank to him, and are, as it were, his counsellors, presides over the Eucharistic assemblies, teaches his people, etc. He has, therefore, a general power of governing and teaching, quite the same as the modernCatholic bishop; this power is substantially identical with the general authority of the Apostles, without, however, the personal prerogatives ascribed to the latter.St. Ignatius of Antioch declares that this ministry holds legitimately its authority fromGod through Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians, i).Clement of Rome, in his Letter; to theChurch ofCorinth (about 96), defends with energy the legitimacy of the ministry ofbishops and,priests, and proclaims that the Apostles established successors to govern the churches (xlii-xliv). We may conclude with confidence that, about the end of the second century, theministers of the churches were everywhere regarded as legitimate successors of the Apostles; this common persuasion is of primary importance.

Another and more difficult question arises as to the Acts and in the Epistles, the various above mentioned names, chiefly thepresbyteroi and theepiskopoi (priests andbishops).

Some authors (and this is the traditional view) contend that theepiskopoi of Apostolic times have the same dignity as thebishops of later times, and that theepiskopoi of the apostolic writings are the same as thepriests of the second century. This opinion, however, must give way before the evident identity ofbishop andpriest inActs 20:17 and 28, Titus, i, 5-7, Clement ofRome to theChurch ofCorinth, xliv.
Another view recognizing this synonymous character estimates that these officers whom we shall callbishops--priests had never the supreme direction of the churches in Apostolic times; this power, it is maintained, was exercised by the Apostles, the Prophets who travelled from one church to another, and by certain Apostolic delegates like Timothy. These alone were the real predecessors of thebishops of the second century; thebishop priests were the same as our modernpriests, and had not the plenitude of thepriesthood. This opinion is fully discussed and proposed with much learning by A. Michiels (L'origine de l'épiscopat, Louvain, 1900).
Mgr. Batiffol (Rev. bibl., 1895, and Etudes d'hist. et de théol. positive, I, Paris, 1903) expresses the following opinion: In the primitive churches there were (1) some preparatory functions, as the dignity of Apostles and Prophets; (2) somepresbyteroi had noliturgical function, but only an honourable title; (3) theepiskopoi, several in each community, had aliturgical function with the office to preach; (4) when the Apostles disappeared, thebishopric was divided: one of thebishops became sovereignbishop, while the others were subordinated to him: these were the laterpriests. This secondarypriesthood is a diminished participation of the one and sole primitivepriesthood; there is, therefore, no strict difference of order between thebishop and thepriest.

Whatever may be the solution of this difficult question (seeBISHOP,PRIEST), it remains certain that in the second century the general Apostolic authority belonged, by a succession universally acknowledged as legitimate, to thebishops of theChristian churches. (SeeAPOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.) Thebishops have, therefore, a general power of order,jurisdiction, andmagisterium, but not the personal prerogatives of the Apostles.

The feasts of the apostles

The memorable words ofHebrews 13:7: "Remember your presidents who preached to you the word of God", have always echoed in theChristian heart. The primitive churches had a profound veneration for their deceased Apostles (Clement of Rome, Ep. ad Corinth. v); its first expression was doubtless the devotional reading of the Apostolic writings, the following of their orders and counsels, and the imitation of their virtues. It may, however, be reasonably supposed that some devotion began at thetombs of the Apostles as early as the time of their death ormartyrdom; the ancient documents are silent on this matter. Feasts of the Apostles do not appear as early as we might expect. Though the anniversaries of somemartyrs were celebrated even in the second century, as for instance the anniversary of themartyrdom ofPolycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (d. 154-156), the Apostles had at this time no such commemoration; the day of their death was unknown. It is only from the fourth century that we meet with feasts of the Apostles. In theEastern Church the feast ofSaint James the Less and Saint John was celebrated on the 27th of December, and on the next day the feast of Saints Peter and Paul (according toSt. Gregory of Nyssa and a Syriacmenology). These commemorations were arbitrarily fixed. In theWestern Church the feast ofSaint John alone remained on the same day as in theEastern Church. The commemoration of themartyrdom of Saint Peter andSaint Paul was celebrated 29 June; originally, however, it was the commemoration of the translation theirrelics (Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 277). From the sixth century the feast of Saint Andrew was celebrated on the 30th day of November. Weknow but little of the feasts of the other Apostles and of the secondary feasts of the great Apostles. In theEastern Churches all these feasts were observed at the beginning of the ninth century. For additional details see Duchesne, "Christian Worship" (London, 1903), pp. 277-283, and B. Zimmerman in Cabrol and Leclercq's Dict. d'archéol. et de lit. chret. I, 2631-35. (See alsoAPOSTOLICITY,APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION,APOCRYPHA.)

About this page

APA citation.Coppieters, H.(1907).Apostles. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

MLA citation.Coppieters, Honoré."Apostles."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 1.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1907.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm>.

Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Donald J. Boon.Dedicated to Mrs. Rose Duran, a follower with heart.

Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

Movatterモバイル変換