The Holy Spirit.
I am my father’s son, even if I never beget any grandchildren to him.Not to be pedantic, but ya’ll are getting a little off topic. We’re talking about apostolic succession here, not ordination, per se. While it’s true that all apostles (a.k.a. ‘bishops’) are valid priests, their priestly ordination isn’t what’s in play – it’s their episcopal consecration.
When a man is ordained a priest, a permanent ontological change happens; he becomes conformed to “Christ the Head of the Church” (in persona Christi Capitis). When a priest is consecrated as a bishop, he receives the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. It’s this latter act – episcopal consecration – that ‘makes’ apostolic succession occur. (Vatican Council II fleshed out this concept in a radical way – prior to VCII, the elevation of a priest to the episcopacy was seen as more an administrative action than any sort of sacramental action. So, even back then, the notion of ‘ordination’ wouldn’t have come to bear on the question of apostolic succession.)
(As it turns out, apostolic succession is something that we see in the Bible itself: in Acts 1, Peter authoritatively establishes that a successor to a deceased bishop is needed, and they choose Matthias to enter into that role.)
The tangent ya’ll are going down is one of the places that the “apostolic succession” question gets muddied – that is, by conflating ‘ordination of priests’ with ‘successors to the apostles’. But, to susanlo’s question, the answer is a combination of ‘ontological change’ and sacerdotal theology. I can’t speak for all Protestant denominations, but as I recall, one of Luther’s main theological inventions was the notion of a ‘universal priesthood’ that rendered priestly service moot. He thought that, by virtue of our baptism, we were all equally priests, to the point that he rejected the Catholic distinction between the “common priesthood” of the faithful and the “ministerial priesthood” in persona Christi Capitis. If I recall correctly, Luther asserted that ministerial service was just a ‘task’ someone could pick up and set down again; it didn’t touch upon his status of ‘priest.’
So, susanlo, if you’re asking what’s different about a Protestant ordination and a Catholic one, then my gut feel is that (as PRmerger points out) “ontological change” happens in a Catholic ordination, but is not believed to happen in a Protestant ordination. (Don’t let that get in the way of an understanding of apostolic succession, though.)
It is important to note what did **not **take place in Scripture. We don’t see a picture of various people, who may or may not know each other or the apostles, springing up here and there as apostles/bishops, all ordained by their independent congregation.
A bishop is always a priest as well, but a priest isn’t always or necessarily a bishop
Judas held an office.
Judas was replaced by Matthias prior to the day of Pentecost. He was not ordained with the laying on of hands as part of a succession. He received the Holy Spirit and whatever apostolic powers he had the same way the other 11 did in Acts 2.
Does the ordination of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:1-3 qualify as springing up from the congregation? Or is it thought that one of the 11 surviving apostles was there, but just not mentioned? Or was there a “real” ordination that happened another time that wasn’t recorded?
This writing by Irenaeus, like others from its day, does talk about a succession. However it seems that at this time they were concerned about the contents of the teaching and not concerned that those who do not come from this succession do not have the power to perform the sacraments because of being invalidly ordination. I haven’t seen that mentioned in this time period of writings. Irenaeus and Tertullian are concerned that these gnostics are claiming to have a ‘tradition’ that only they have access to and one must come to their church to receive this special teaching. Irenaues and Tertullian are stating that one should check the credentials of the leader of the church - people should see if they are teaching the same tradition that these churches established by the apostles have. I don’t know if they had the same understanding of passing on certain powers in ordination.
this showed, apostolic succession was already defined and defended, right down to naming names in succession to a certain apostle
In reality we see
Hi susan.
They’re both part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but there are three ‘degrees’ (if you will), to that sacrament: diaconate, priesthood, episcopate.
Ordination to the priesthood brings with it the ‘ontological change’ that PRmerger talked about. Consecration to the episcopate brings with it the fullness of the sacrament – of becoming a successor to the apostles (which priests are not).
It’s a type of ordination, and it brings with it a slight difference.
And that ‘replacement’ means that there must be a successor to the apostolic ministry. Yep, you’re on the right track!
I’m not disagreeing with the reason for the successor; however, it’s the question of whether there should be successors and whether Peter or subsequent popes have sufficient authority to determine that there can be successors. Clearly, Acts 1 says “yes”.
Two simple questions: did Peter have the authority to call for a successor? Did he do so, in the Scriptures? If so, then subsequent establishment of ‘apostolic succession’ is reasonable.
Flip back one page in your Bible, and please read the verse that precedes what you’ve quoted here: “After Barnabas and Saul completed their relief mission, they returned to Jerusalem” (Acts 12:25).
Paul wasn’t ordained a priest by a bishop; he was an apostle, which means he was ordained directly and explicitly by Jesus himself. Paul gives witness to this. As an apostle / bishop, he had the ability to ordain others. However, it’s not the case that “one could be ordained without a bishop in the 1st century”; we have no evidence that this ever happened – and Paul’s call by Christ is not an example of what you’re claiming.
Not exactly true.
Presbyterorum ordinis also notes that priests “participate in the office of the apostles”. It also points out that “[p]riests, never losing sight of the fullness of the priesthood which the bishops enjoy, must respect in them the authority of Christ, the Supreme Shepherd. They must therefore stand by their bishops in sincere charity and obedience.”
I’ve heard that argument before – that it wasn’t valid, since it preceded Pentecost. Yet, this doesn’t really make sense. Are you saying that Peter and the other apostles were not given their ministry by Jesus? Are you saying that His command to “do this in memory of me” and his grant of authority to Peter in Mt 16:18-19 and to the apostles in Mt 18:18 weren’t valid and effective, since they happened prior to Pentecost? :nope:
Yep – there’s the fundamental difference between us. Catholics don’t believe that the apostles “received… whatever apostolic powers [they] had” at Pentecost. They just began to exercise them once they had been strengthened by the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus had promised them.
There are two James’s mentioned in Acts 12. The James you’re talking about is the son of Zebedee, or “St James the Greater”. Some say that he spread the Gospel in Spain; others say that he had not yet left Jerusalem at the time of his martyrdom. He’s believed to have been the first apostle to have been martyred.
Like I mentioned earlier, that’s not an ‘ordination’, it’s being sent to a particular ministry. Paul had already been ‘ordained’ directly by Christ by that point, as he later gives witness to through his own testimony.
Like I said earlier, Paul was an apostle, not a successor to the apostles, so he wasn’t ordained by any of them. He himself was quite clear about this – his ministry (and status as an apostle) came directly from Christ Himself, not from Peter or another apostle.
Who was the 12th Apostle who replaced Judas?And that ‘replacement’ means that there must be a successor to the apostolic ministry. Yep, you’re on the right track!
I’m not disagreeing with the reason for the successor; however, it’s the question of whether there should be successors and whether Peter or subsequent popes have sufficient authority to determine that there can be successors. Clearly, Acts 1 says “yes”.
Two simple questions: did Peter have the authority to call for a successor? Did he do so, in the Scriptures? If so, then subsequent establishment of ‘apostolic succession’ is reasonable.
Flip back one page in your Bible, and please read the verse that precedes what you’ve quoted here: “After Barnabas and Saul completed their relief mission, they returned to Jerusalem” (Acts 12:25).
Now go back to Acts 9. There, we see Paul’s conversion, as well as his appearance before the apostles in Jerusalem.
So, what you quote in Acts 13 isn’t Paul’s “ordination” – rather, it’s the beginning of his missionary journey. The “laying on of hands” isn’t his entry into apostleship; it’s being assigned to a particular ministry.
In other words, Paul’s “ordination” was unique and extraordinary. Paul himself says that he was made an apostle directly by Jesus (just, as it turns out, the other apostles were). So, Paul’s case isn’t one of apostolic succession – he was an apostle!
Paul wasn’t ordained a priest by a bishop; he was an apostle, which means he was ordained directly and explicitly by Jesus himself. Paul gives witness to this. As an apostle / bishop, he had the ability to ordain others. However, it’s not the case that “one could be ordained without a bishop in the 1st century”; we have no evidence that this ever happened – and Paul’s call by Christ is not an example of what you’re claiming.
Does this help?
Blessings,
G.
I think the Apostles were appointed before the time Jesus selected them when He started His ministry. However a change happened at Pentecost. Acts 1:4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with** the Holy Spirit.”** It wasn’t until after Pentecost when they began ministering and baptizing.
If Paul could become an Apostle with apostolic authority and powers without needing to have an ordination by the current apostles, then why couldn’t this happen in future centuries? How do you know that Christ didn’t directly ‘ordain’ others over the centuries to apostolic authority?
I think John Martignoni said If you believe you(meaning anyone) are/were just as called as Paul was then you should probably be penning scripture just as he did. The bottom line is that there is simply no evidence to suggest this actually occurred outside the exception of Paul.
Close. Paul was the 13th apostle (after all, there had already been 12…
), and Matthias was the first successor to the apostles. The 12 apostles, themselves, were the first bishops.Right – that’s the argument that wants to discount Scriptural Apostolic Succession, and therefore, it claims that Matthias wasn’t anything at all.
If that were the case, then we’d expect Peter to have vetoed any attempt to name additional bishops, since that would be creating somewhat more than 12 apostles.
I think you’re trying to have it both ways – I’m not seeing how you can claim both that Matthias is a (pre-Pentecost) apostle with and through “apostolic power and authority” and that the apostles don’t really have power and authority until after Pentecost. (After all, if they didn’t have power and authority before Pentecost, how could Peter have made the decision and how could they validly have selected Mathias? And, if they did have the power and authority to do so, then the “post-Pentecost only” argument falls apart.)
Specifically, Luther taught that this was the only priesthood – that there was no ministerial priesthood.
Your New Testament must be missing a few books, then.
In 1 Cor 10 and 11, Paul discusses the Eucharist, going to far as to talk about passing on to the worshiping community what Jesus had passed on to him – namely, the Eucharist.
In 1 Timothy 4 and 2 Timothy 1, Paul mentions the ordination through the laying on of hands.
These are examples of sacramental actions performed by priests, and received by priests. Your claim of “no other types of Christian priests in the NT” just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny of the Scriptures…
Jesus called 12 Apostles or disciples to His ministry who followed and learned from Him. One of these was Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus and committed suicide leaving only 11. So if Judas Iscariot is not on a throne in Heaven, who is the 12th apostle to be on a throne in Heaven? Is Matthias this 12th Apostle? If you say that Paul was the 13th apostle, then Matthias was one of the 12 Apostles and not a recipient of apostolic succession. Matthias was then an actual part of the original 12 that started the ministry. Paul came after the start of the ministry and was not one of the original apostles.Close. Paul was the 13th apostle (after all, there had already been 12…
Right – that’s the argument that wants to discount Scriptural Apostolic Succession, and therefore, it claims that Matthias wasn’t anything at all.
If that were the case, then we’d expect Peter to have vetoed any attempt to name additional bishops, since that would be creating somewhat more than 12 apostles.
The Apostles had a role before Pentecost - Jesus had told them to wait in Jerusalem in Acts 1:4 because …you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Acts 1:8 They had a role, but they were not yet filled with the Holy Spirit.I think you’re trying to have it both ways – I’m not seeing how you can claim both that Matthias is a (pre-Pentecost) apostle with and through “apostolic power and authority” and that the apostles don’t really have power and authority until after Pentecost. (After all, if they didn’t have power and authority before Pentecost, how could Peter have made the decision and how could they validly have selected Mathias? And, if they did have the power and authority to do so, then the “post-Pentecost only” argument falls apart.)
That’s an interesting claim; I’d avoided discussing it earlier. Is it your belief that the apostles did no ministering prior to Pentecost? That would support your argument. Unfortunately, it’s not supported by the Bible: we see that, prior to Pentecost, they gather and dedicate themselves to prayer. Now, I’d agree that there was no public ministry prior to Pentecost, but I’d disagree that the apostles were “without power and authority” until Pentecost. Take that claim to its logical conclusion, and what you’re really saying is that Jesus’ authority meant nothing, and that the Holy Spirit’s authority and presence is the only one that’s efficacious.
In the New Testament and the first few centuries of Christianity forms of the Greek work ‘hiereus’ which mean ‘priest’ were only used to refer to Jewish and Pagan priests with the exception of Jesus as the High Priest in the book of Hebrews and the priesthood of all believers mentioned in 1 Peter 2. They had the Eucharist and laying on of hands, but this was done by Bishops, Elders and Deacons.Specifically, Luther taught that this was the only priesthood – that there was no ministerial priesthood.
Your New Testament must be missing a few books, then.
In 1 Cor 10 and 11, Paul discusses the Eucharist, going to far as to talk about passing on to the worshiping community what Jesus had passed on to him – namely, the Eucharist.
In 1 Timothy 4 and 2 Timothy 1, Paul mentions the ordination through the laying on of hands.
These are examples of sacramental actions performed by priests, and received by priests. Your claim of “no other types of Christian priests in the NT” just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny of the Scriptures…
By the “Word” of God, I take it, we mean the Bible. If an Episcopalian minister teaches one thing, a Presbyterian minister another, a Lutheran minister still another thing, and a Baptist minister yet another, all of them waving a Bible in their hand, how are we to determine with absolute certainty which of them has infallibly interpreted the written word of God? Without a divinely appointed apostolic teaching authority in union with the chair of Peter, which the Holy Spirit safeguards from teaching error, the infallibility of the Bible becomes non-sequitur - not that the Bible is the final rule of faith. It certainly couldn’t have been for the first three centuries before the Bible (73 Books) was eventually compiled. And if the Bible wasn’t the final rule of faith before the Synod of Rome, it surely couldn’t be following the ruling of the canon of Scripture. We know that the Bible, as it’s been compiled by the Catholic Church, is the infallible word of God from the (extra-biblical) final ruling authority of the Church: The Magisterium.
Since each of the apostles were individually infallible (unlike bishops), they could not literally teach doctrinal error.