I find it fascinating that there are Lutherans today who profess to believe in Apostolic Succession, apparently recognizing the importance of the concept in maintaining Christian unity. What is ironic is that, as we will see, Luther himself was hardly a ‘fan’ of Apostolic Succession, and in fact in the early portion of his ‘Reforming career’, was opposed to anything other than the priesthood of all believers. In this belief, he obviously opposed any concept of Apostolic Succession, as is evidenced in the following tract of 1520.
To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation
Respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate
“It follows then, that between layman and priests, princes and bishops, or as they call it, between spiritual and temporal persons, the only real difference is one of office and function, and not of estate: for they are all of the same Spiritual Estate, true priests, bishops and Popes, though their functions are not the same: just as among priests and monks every man has not the same functions. And this St. Paul says (Rom. xii.; 1 Cor. xii.) and St. Peter (1 Peter ii.); “we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” Christ’s body is not double or twofold, one temporal, the other spiritual. He is one head, and he has one body.
We see then that just as those that we call spiritual, or priests, bishops or popes, do not differ from other Christians in any other or higher degree, but in that they are to be concerned with the word of God, and the sacraments—that being their work and office—in the same way the temporal authorities hold the sword and the rod in their hands to punish the wicked and to protect the good. A cobbler, a smith, a peasant, every man has the office and function of his calling, and yet all alike are consecrated priests and bishops, and every man in his office must be useful and beneficial to the rest, that so many kinds of work may all be united into one community: just as the members of the body all serve one another.
As for the unction by a pope or a bishop, tonsure, ordination, consecration, clothes differing from those of laymen—all this may make a hypocrite or an anointed puppet, but never a Christian, or a spiritual man. Thus we are all consecrated as priests by baptism, as St. Peter says: “Ye are a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Peter ii. 9); and in the book of Revelations: “and hast made us unto our God, kings and priests.” (Rev. v. 10.) . . .
“…there were no higher and lesser states of perfection, but in every occupation man could live up to a vocation from God, or, put differently, every Christian believer as a priest……(Church) hierarchy hereby received a new meaning, but at the same time was attacked from the sacramental angle……Luther found no special priesthood in the New Testament, and in only three sacraments, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, a penance……….Once hierarchy and sacraments were thrown out as elements irrelevant to the Christian Church, and the faith of all believers was made the exclusive substance of religion, the reformation of Christianity could not be confined to the rebuilding of ecclesiastical institutions or to the mere reform of education; the whole of Christian life within the ‘respublica Christiania’ had to be reoriented.” Hajo Holborn, “A History of Modern Germany, The Reformation”, pg. 142-3
One has to wonder whether Luther would have embarked on his ‘reformation’ if he had realized going in how drastic the ‘reforms’ were going to end up being.
“In a third passage (in Address to the German Nobility) Luther gave additional ground, that the magistrates were fellow Christians sharing the priesthood of all believers, from which some modern historians have inferred that Luther would concede to the magistrate the role of Church reformer only if he were himself a convinced Christian, and then only in an emergency. But no such qualification is stated in this tract. The priesthood of all believers itself was made to rest upon the lower grade of faith implicit in the baptized infant.” Bainton, pg. 144
In other words, the only qualification for the ‘priesthood’ according to Luther was that one be baptized. Obviously this was a VERY watered down ‘set’ of requirements for the priesthood. And of course if the only definition of the priesthood was the priesthood of all believers, then of course there was no such thing as the office of Bishops who were to oversee the priests, priests of course like Luther. It goes without saying that if there was no such thing as bishops, then the concept of the Bishop of Rome as being over the other Bishops and also over the priests (like Luther), was illegitimate. Through this series of doctrinal ‘devices’, Luther had managed to develop a radical theology which resulted in his ‘authority’ to proclaim himself to be an authority without any superior, other than his own personal interpretations of Scripture. This ‘system’ worked out really well, UNTIL other people began to use the ‘rights’ that Luther had inadvertently gained for them.
When Luther revolted against the Church he had to justify that revolt. He did so by denying that there was any legitimate hierarchy at all. As the Holborn quote states, Luther ‘found no special priesthood in the NT”, which of course, makes no sense to anyone even slightly familiar with the NT.
The Catholic Church also teaches that all Christians are ‘priests’ but in a different manner than did Luther. The Church also teaches that in addition to the ‘priesthood of all believers’, there is ALSO an ordained priesthood, which includes an ordained hierarchy, with Bishops as overseers of the priests and the Bishop of Rome above the Bishops. Luther’s ‘priesthood of all believers’, at least initially in his Revolt, was the ONLY definition he held to regarding priests.
) was converted and baptized by a missionary from Hamburg named Poppo. Bluetooth was the first king in Scandanavia to confess Jesus as Lord, he greatly (and rapidly) influenced the expansion of the Church. Just 50 years from Jelling, Denmark to America.