How do I explain apostolic succession?

[Mgray82]

How do I explain apostolic succession to a Protestant Christian that doesn’t understand?

For example; “if Peter was the first pope, why wasn’t he called the pope” and “how did they succeed his papacy?”

 

[Spencerian]

How do I explain apostolic succession to a Protestant Christian that doesn’t understand?

For example; “if Peter was the first pope, why wasn’t he called the pope” and “how did they succeed his papacy?”

Hi.

The Catholic Answers web site has a searchable field that will bring up many tracts, radio program archives and much more to help you answer this question and others.

When you browse the site on the Papacy, you will see many items on succession and the papacy and its clear support not only in Scripture but in Early Church writings and practice. Emphasize that such practices existed for over 1500 years before Protestantism dispatched it and created so many separate and disparate versions of Christianity that essential teachings held for thousands of years are distorted or missing.

In any case, frame your answers so that you say that your friend’s faith is genuine, but that Catholics have practiced the faith with greater information and clarity, under a teaching and clerical authority that avoids the doctrinal and divisive issues that they may certain see in their faith tradition.

When someone questions why a particular word isn’t seen in the Bible, use their beliefs to illustrate how the Bible was not meant as a sole teaching authority. If they believe in the Trinity, ask them to find that word in Scripture. It took Catholic teaching to create and define that word. The term, “Pope” is derived from the word, “popa,” or “father.” It’s the leadership amongst his fellow Apostles (and their successors, the bishops) that is the important thing.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Papal succession is not the same as Apostolic succession - it is something that is “in addition to” Apostolic succession. The Pope must be a Bishop (and thus, like all Bishops, have valid Apostolic Orders), but he is Pope by virtue of being the Bishop of Rome. The manner of transmitting Apostolic Orders is dogma, and has never changed, but the manner of deciding who is Bishop of Rome (ie, Papal election) is not doctrinal, and has changed over the centuries. The manner in which the Pope is elected is irrelevant - the fact that he becomes the Bishop of Rome is what matters.

We clearly see Apostolic Succession in the Bible. Paul tells Titus (whom he ordained Bishop of Gortyn),

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. [Titus 1:5-9]

Paul instructs Timothy (Bishop of Ephesus),

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine… [etc, similar to Titus, 1Tim 3:1-6]

We see in both Titus and Timothy that Paul ordained them, and they were expected to ordain others. This is Apostolic succession.

FWIW, the Church encountered a problem with Apostolic succession following the Edict of Milan (in 313 AD) and Constantine’s conversion to Christianity. Suddenly it became prestigious (and profitable) to be a Christian Bishop (something that would have gotten you killed previously). People started claiming to be Bishops who really were not (and their credentials were difficult to verify). That presents a very serious threat to the Church - what if these phony “bishops” “ordained” others (who would probably not be aware that their “consecrator” was a fake). The Church addressed this at the Council of Nicea in 325 - the first true Ecumenical Council of the Church. Nicea made a rule that Episcopal consecrations must be performed by (at least) three Bishops. Theologically, only one need be valid, so this is a significant “safety factor.” The Council Fathers were apparently also very good at math - if we suppose that one in twenty Bishops is a fake, the mathematical probability of selecting three fake “bishops” is one in 8000. With this rule, the line of Bishops actually purifies itself over time. Because of this rule, we are more sure of the valid Apostolic Orders of Bishops today than people were even in Biblical times.

 

[confucius]

How do I explain apostolic succession to a Protestant Christian that doesn’t understand?

For example; “if Peter was the first pope, why wasn’t he called the pope” and “how did they succeed his papacy?”

Peter was not called Pope for the word Pope did not exist in the English language at that time. Anyway, there was no English Language then. I tell you, the word Pope, in 2000 years, will not be Pope anymore.

So, what is the problem? A question of words?

Please verify etymology: click to see
List of Popes: click to see
How is it chosen the Pope: click to see
How was it chosen before 1059 : click to see

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Primacy of Peter, the Papacy and Apostolic Succession by apologist Mark Bonocore

 

[Mgray82]

Thanks for the feedback!

So, what other churches have valid apostolic succession? And/or, which of these churches are in communion with the Catholic Church? Why or why not?

Thanks again for the answers, keep them coming.

God bless!

 

[DavidFilmer]

So, what other churches have valid apostolic succession? And/or, which of these churches are in communion with the Catholic Church?

There are several Eastern Churches that are in full communion with Rome (so they obviously have valid Orders). When we think of the Catholic Church, most people think of the Latin Rite - but there are also eastern Rites.

Other Churches have valid Orders, but are not in communion with Rome, mainly because they dispute the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. Such as the Greek Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Polish National Catholic Church. This list would have once included the Anglican Church, but that communion has lost the validity of their Orders.

Any Church which has valid Orders has valid Sacraments. If you visit a Greek Orthodox Church, you should genuflect before their Tabernacle - it contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord.

No church which considers itself protestant has valid Orders.