apostolic succession revisited

[JMM1957]

I am well aware that this subject has been debated over and over on this forum, but for all Protestant’s who disagree with apostolic succession, which I assume is all of you, getting to the real root of your disagreement with Catholic teaching on this is what needs to be addressed. My question to you is, how was apostolic succession accepted as biblical for 1500 years, and then suddenly it wasn’t? Did God allow the church founded on Jesus Christ in the first century to go astray for the next 1500 years, only to cause it to get back in line with a “proper” understanding of scripture by the Reformists? Do you really believe that?

 

[7_Sorrows]

That is a good question. I will be interested to see what kind of answers you get.

 

[spedteacherita]

I am well aware that this subject has been debated over and over on this forum, but for all Protestant’s who disagree with apostolic succession, which I assume is all of you, getting to the real root of your disagreement with Catholic teaching on this is what needs to be addressed. My question to you is, how was apostolic succession accepted as biblical for 1500 years, and then suddenly it wasn’t? Did God allow the church founded on Jesus Christ in the first century to go astray for the next 1500 years, only to cause it to get back in line with a “proper” understanding of scripture by the Reformists? Do you really believe that?

Okay, firstly, I’m not here to argue but to learn. I highlighted the your phrase “accepted as Biblical” because what I want to ask - is apostolic a Biblical concept or part of the “Magisterium” or Tradition.

Also, in my limited understanding of the Reformation, apostolic succession was not a primary issue, was it? Again, I bring this up to understand rather than argue or debate. Maybe there are others who can give the answers you were looking forward in your question here.

 

[JMM1957]

spedteacherita,

First of all, the Catholic church does not need to depend on the Magisterium or Tradition to explain why apostolic succession “must” be something to be accepted by Christians in the true church of Jesus Christ, it is shown to be the case very clearly from scripture alone if need be. On the other hand, there are absolutely no scriptural references that can be produced which show that apostolic succession is not the case. The doctrine of apostolic succession came about around the second century in response mainly to the Gnostics claim of secret knowledge or teachings of Christ. Up to that point, it was just considered to be logical that in order to get the proper understanding of scripture, you must be in contact with a teaching authority that was in direct link back to the original twelve apostles and Paul.

As far as I know, based on my limited reading of the Reformation, the doctrine of apostolic succession was not the main issue involved, at least with Luther, there were other issues more bothersome to him concerning the Catholic church.

 

[SteveVH]

Okay, firstly, I’m not here to argue but to learn. I highlighted the your phrase “accepted as Biblical” because what I want to ask - is apostolic a Biblical concept or part of the “Magisterium” or Tradition.

Also, in my limited understanding of the Reformation, apostolic succession was not a primary issue, was it? Again, I bring this up to understand rather than argue or debate. Maybe there are others who can give the answers you were looking forward in your question here.

It is both. The election of Mathias to replace Judas is the Biblical example. The succession of the bishops as recorded by the ECF’s would be the example from Tradition, including the office of Bishop of Rome. So it is not a concept, but a very well documented practice that has been in place since the Apostles. It is obviously a necessity if the authority that Christ gave to the Apostles was not meant to die with them and if the Church was to carry out Christ’s command to teach all nations.

 

[JMM1957]

Just thought I would mention, for those that are looking for more information on the doctrine of apostolic succession, Catholic apologist John Martignoni has an excellent talk on this subject which can be accessed on Youtube. Sorry I don’t know how to post the link to it.

 

[SJacob7]

It is both. The election of Mathias to replace Judas is the Biblical example. The succession of the bishops as recorded by the ECF’s would be the example from Tradition, including the office of Bishop of Rome. So it is not a concept, but a very well documented practice that has been in place since the Apostles. It is obviously a necessity if the authority that Christ gave to the Apostles was not meant to die with them and if the Church was to carry out Christ’s command to teach all nations.

I would like to say that I don’t believe the election of Mathias to replace Judas is an example of succession. It was in fulfillment of the scriptures. We learn that in Acts 1:15-22.

Acts 1:15-22 (RSVCE)

*15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. 18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong[a] he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel′dama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,

‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;

and

‘His office let another take.’

21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”*

This also happened before the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. It was to fulfill scripture and to reestablish the 12. Nothing to do with succession.

 

[SteveVH]

I would like to say that I don’t believe the election of Mathias to replace Judas is an example of succession. It was in fulfillment of the scriptures. We learn that in Acts 1:15-22.

Acts 1:15-22 (RSVCE)

*15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. 18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong[a] he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel′dama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,

‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;

and

‘His office let another take.’

21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”*

This also happened before the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. It was to fulfill scripture and to reestablish the 12. Nothing to do with succession.

Really? Did Mathias not succeed Judas? Yes, it fulfilled Scripture. Why would that disqualify the election of Mathias as an example of succession? He was chosen for the express purpose of succeeding Judas.

 

[pablope]

Okay, firstly, I’m not here to argue but to learn. I highlighted the your phrase “accepted as Biblical” because what I want to ask - is apostolic a Biblical concept or part of the “Magisterium” or Tradition.

Also, in my limited understanding of the Reformation, apostolic succession was not a primary issue, was it? Again, I bring this up to understand rather than argue or debate. Maybe there are others who can give the answers you were looking forward in your question here.

It is both, actually, it starts in the OT:

Numbers 27:
18 So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership,[a] and lay your hand on him. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence…………22 Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. 23 Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses.

The example of St. Paul, before his first missionary journey:

at Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

And then Paul telling Titus to to do the same thing:

In Titus 1:5, Paul tells Titus: “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee.”

And then Clement of Rome:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html
1Clem 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I would like to say that I don’t believe the election of Mathias to replace Judas is an example of succession. It was in fulfillment of the scriptures.

It was both. It’s clearly an example of succession, in fulfillment of the scriptures.

Another case, it seems, of the Catholic both/and.

 

[JMM1957]

I think the election of Mathias to replace Judas was done to fulfill scripture also, I wouldn’t say it explicitly shows an example of apostolic succession, there are much better examples mentioned in the letters of Paul. The Catholic Catechism doesn’t even use the Mathias election as a proof text for apostolic succession either.

 

[JMM1957]

Resistance to apostolic succession certainly didn’t start at the time frame of the Reformation, there were objectors to it almost immediately at the founding of the first and second century Christian communities. John and Paul, in their letters, speak about the dissenter’s already showing up in some of the church’s.

 

[Erich]

I highlighted the your phrase “accepted as Biblical” because what I want to ask - is apostolic a Biblical concept or part of the “Magisterium” or Tradition.

Definitely a Biblical concept. In fact, there are four generations of apostolic succession described in 2 Tim 2:2:

And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Paul → Timothy → those he entrusts (via imposition of hands) → those they entrust

 

[JMM1957]

Definitely a Biblical concept. In fact, there are four generations of apostolic succession described in 2 Tim 2:2:
Quote:
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
Paul → Timothy → those he entrusts (via imposition of hands) → those they entrust

For those who deny apostolic succession, what would you call this?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The problem could be stated another way, can those churches which claim an inheritance in the fathers: Apostles, Apostolic fathers, Nicene and everyone after, can they really be the inheritors of the Christian faith in its fullness if they fundamentally disagree with the concept of church which was promulgated? That is Protestants, every one of them without exception (in my opinion), have to rely on an invisible church construct or else suggest the true believers were completely hidden and only appeared when their church came about. This is why I think apostolic succession means little to the protestant, what counts is the invisible church, that is the faith which is passed down which effects the individual and not so much the outward status of the community.

Perhaps Lutherans and Anglicans might jump in here and say they do not agree with this. It seems to me based on what I have heard Lutherans say, that they do not identify the Lutheran church as the one true church, rather the church is wherever the Sacrament and word are rightly distributed, which could be any church. This still seems a far cry from the church before the reformation, who even called those whom denied what we would see as minor things, heretics and cut off from the church.

Like in all things protestant there are degrees as to how far one might take this, either completely rejecting Christians of the past (except for first century Christians) or accepting them as examples and teachers but not the inheritors of a general burden of authority to be used for the church and building it up. The issue isn’t so much what church succeeded what apostle but what is the church in the first place?

 

[JMM1957]

The Protestant claim of an invisible church couldn’t be further from the truth. What purpose would that serve? Jesus surely didn’t instruct his followers to build a secret, hidden church. Did Jesus preach secretly? Are we not to imitate him?

I realize that the early church had to be careful about being too obvious at times because of persecution by the pagan authorities in parts of the world, but that has nothing to do with apostolic succession.

 

[Tomoko]

The problem could be stated another way, can those churches which claim an inheritance in the fathers: Apostles, Apostolic fathers, Nicene and everyone after, can they really be the inheritors of the Christian faith in its fullness if they fundamentally disagree with the concept of church which was promulgated? That is Protestants, every one of them without exception (in my opinion), have to rely on an invisible church construct or else suggest the true believers were completely hidden and only appeared when their church came about. This is why I think apostolic succession means little to the protestant, what counts is the invisible church, that is the faith which is passed down which effects the individual and not so much the outward status of the community.

Perhaps Lutherans and Anglicans might jump in here and say they do not agree with this. It seems to me based on what I have heard Lutherans say, that they do not identify the Lutheran church as the one true church, rather the church is wherever the Sacrament and word are rightly distributed, which could be any church. This still seems a far cry from the church before the reformation, who even called those whom denied what we would see as minor things, heretics and cut off from the church.

Like in all things protestant there are degrees as to how far one might take this, either completely rejecting Christians of the past (except for first century Christians) or accepting them as examples and teachers but not the inheritors of a general burden of authority to be used for the church and building it up. The issue isn’t so much what church succeeded what apostle but what is the church in the first place?

As an ex-Anglican, I think it’s unlikely you would find a consensus of opinion among Anglicans. I was in the “Catholic” side of the C of E, and many there would hold the same understanding of apostolic succession as the CC does - this wing of the C of E sees itself as the continuation of the CC in England, albeit not in communion with Rome. Therefore, holy orders are still valid because they trace back to RC England, and from there to the apostles.

My Anglican friends in the more reformed wing, generally, hold a different view to holy orders; more or less that the priest/pastor is the appointed leader of the community. Succession really then becomes a moot point; ordination doesn’t really “do” anything, so it doesn’t really matter who does it. As you mentioned, there is more of a sense of a universal church of believers passing down the faith to each other, rather than any kind of approved succession, which are just trappings of earthly traditions and not necessary.

Those are my experiences at least, I’m sure others will differ.

 

[JMM1957]

It doesn’t appear to me that Paul considered apostolic succession as “trappings of earthly traditions”. Folks need to understand that the doctrine of apostolic succession was not developed concretely yet in the first century, as we see it today. But the foundation for it was clearly layed out by the first Apostles, it just needed to be implemented, developed, and built on by successors of the Apostles, which it was.

 

[GKC]

As an ex-Anglican, I think it’s unlikely you would find a consensus of opinion among Anglicans. I was in the “Catholic” side of the C of E, and many there would hold the same understanding of apostolic succession as the CC does - this wing of the C of E sees itself as the continuation of the CC in England, albeit not in communion with Rome. Therefore, holy orders are still valid because they trace back to RC England, and from there to the apostles.

My Anglican friends in the more reformed wing, generally, hold a different view to holy orders; more or less that the priest/pastor is the appointed leader of the community. Succession really then becomes a moot point; ordination doesn’t really “do” anything, so it doesn’t really matter who does it. As you mentioned, there is more of a sense of a universal church of believers passing down the faith to each other, rather than any kind of approved succession, which are just trappings of earthly traditions and not necessary.

Those are my experiences at least, I’m sure others will differ.

I salute your first sentence.

GKC

 

[Novocastrian]

I salute your first sentence.

GKC

As do I. I’d note, however, that the Ordinal has a surprisingly strong doctrine of orders. Definitely not Roman Catholic or mediaeval, but I’m happy describing it as reformed catholic, in a way that is harder to justify with other parts of the Prayer Book…