Is Apostolic Succession Biblical?

[NotWorthy]

What of the wandering Bishops? How can they be explained? Were they all ordained in the Catholic church and then set to wander? What of those who were ordained from them? The wandering Bishops are out there. Personally, I do believe in Apostolic Succession, However, I also believe God calls whom he will however he will.

One simply needs to look at the 1st century letter of St. Clement to the Church in Corinth. It seems the Church in Corinth wanted their own bishops and priests and not use the ones that had been appointed through the years (Christ had been gone about 60 years at this time) via Apostolic Succession. St. Clement emphatically ordered the Church to put the originally ordained clergy back in… and the Church complied. They even read the Letter of St. Clement in their Liturgy for at least 100 years afterwards.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

One simply needs to look at the 1st century letter of St. Clement to the Church in Corinth. It seems the Church in Corinth wanted their own bishops and priests and not use the ones that had been appointed through the years (Christ had been gone about 60 years at this time) via Apostolic Succession. St. Clement emphatically ordered the Church to put the originally ordained clergy back in… and the Church complied. They even read the Letter of St. Clement in their Liturgy for at least 100 years afterwards.

Though upon a closer reading of Clement you’ll see his writings hammer home a tone that is contradictory to monarchial or single headed leadership, the plurality of leadership is repeated over and over and over.

Edited to add: Hi NW, how’s life?

 

[NotWorthy]

Though upon a closer reading of Clement you’ll see his writings hammer home a tone that is contradictory to monarchial or single headed leadership, the plurality of leadership is repeated over and over and over.

Edited to add: Hi NW, how’s life?

Life is fantastic! My legs have healed, even to the point when I was able to do a sprint-triathlon! How is life treating you? You haven’t converted to Catholicism yet, have you? It’s never too late!

But, to your point, where is the anti-monarchial, tone? And should it be on another thread? This is about Apostolic Succession in general, not Papal Authority, brother!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Life is fantastic! My legs have healed, even to the point when I was able to do a sprint-triathlon! How is life treating you? You haven’t converted to Catholicism yet, have you? It’s never too late!

But, to your point, where is the anti-monarchial, tone? And should it be on another thread? This is about Apostolic Succession in general, not Papal Authority, brother!

Nope no conversion, did a sprint back in 06’ the swim nearly did me in…wore me out so bad that my bike and run were nearly double i thought they’d be.

Tos ay anti may be going to far but clearly he promotes a plurality of elders, but i digress as that is for another thread.
Peace my brother.

 

[zaramarie81]

So far, I appreciate all the answers, but I think the strongest ‘proof’ comes from edrazz when he alludes to the ‘chair of Moses’. Two of you mentioned the replacement of Judas by Matthias, but again, that could easily be dismissed as necessary for the age of the apostles alone.

As for Luke writing a gospel, that certainly is indicative of an authoritative writing, but it does not necessarily speak to oral and/or sacramental authority which is intended to be handed down through the centuries.

However, the idea of Jesus referring to the ‘chair of Moses’ as authoritative I think speaks volumes. He obviously recognized a kind of authority that should have successors and be handed down through generations, and it’s not just an apostle who alludes to this (not that that would not be sufficient), it is our Lord, Himself!

Having said all that, and thanking you all sincerely for your answers, and I know I was inquiring specifically about where we find it in Scripture…I do think as apologists we have a tendency to fall prey to the same argument that non-Catholic Christians use every time we try to answer a question about our Catholic faith by the Bible. Although many times we can answer from the Bible, whenever a non-Catholic asks, “Where is that in the Bible?” we should not be afraid to answer them with, “IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE IN THE BIBLE!!”

Why would the replacement of Judas be interpreted as necessary for that age alone? The other 12 were handpicked by Jesus, and the apostles *could have *argued that once the apostles handpicked by Jesus died, no one else could take their place. Instead, Matthias was chosen to take Judas’s place. This demonstrates several points:

1. Judas left a chair that was empty and needed to be filled upon his death. The position did not die with him.
2. Filling Judas’ position demonstrates the authority of the apostles. The apostles didn’t need Jesus standing right there to do the job for them… they had the authority.
3. On Matthias’ end - he has apostolic authority in spite of not being part of the original 12, at the Last Supper, etc. This indicates that the role of “apostle” is something that can be passed down through the ages and eras after Christ died, rose, and ascended.
4. Why would this stop with Matthias? Does your friend have an answer to that? There is no indication in scripture that the practice stopped.

 

[inkaneer]

What of the wandering Bishops? How can they be explained? Were they all ordained in the Catholic church and then set to wander? What of those who were ordained from them? The wandering Bishops are out there. Personally, I do believe in Apostolic Succession, However, I also believe God calls whom he will however he will. If they started out in the Catholic church great. But I don’t think all are, I apologize if it sounds blasfemous, but didn’t Jesus tell his Disciples to leave the others alone? I think that sometimes we as people forget to turn the other cheek. If others follow Sola Scriptura we should atleast rejoice that they are worshipping God in there own way. Is it biblical yes through Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ie the Trinitarian Formula untites us all as Christians. No Lalalalalalala’s are needed.

What wandering bishops? The word ‘bishop’ comes from the Greek episcopoi which means overseer. The bishops supervised the church in a given locality. For instance, Paul ordained Timothy and Titus to oversee the church in Ephesus and Cyprus respectively. If, by ‘wandering bishops’, you are referring to those people like the man mentioned by John in Mark 9:38 or Luke 9:49 Jesus’ response is hardly a ringing endorsement. Or are you referring to the 70 disciples of Luke 10:1 who are referred to in some of the Eastern churches as the so called ‘minor Apostles’? If so these people are not called Apostles in scripture and therefore are not bishops. Most of the Apostles went to a geographical area and established a central location to work from. The exceptions are Peter and Paul. Paul journeys are well documented in scripture. Peter , at first was at Jerusalem then left for Antioch and then on to Rome. As for ‘rejoicing’ that these people are “worshipping God in their own way” may I remind you that Jesus prayer to the Father was that His followers be one as he and the Father were one? Jesus established one church not the tens of thousands of man made denominations that make up protestantism. So the question is not one of turning the other cheek. Rather, it is do you seek truth or are you satisfied with man made tradition from the 16th century?

 

[mercygate]

So far, I appreciate all the answers, but I think the strongest ‘proof’ comes from edrazz when he alludes to the ‘chair of Moses’. Two of you mentioned the replacement of Judas by Matthias, but again, that could easily be dismissed as necessary for the age of the apostles alone.

As for Luke writing a gospel, that certainly is indicative of an authoritative writing, but it does not necessarily speak to oral and/or sacramental authority which is intended to be handed down through the centuries.

However, the idea of Jesus referring to the ‘chair of Moses’ as authoritative I think speaks volumes. He obviously recognized a kind of authority that should have successors and be handed down through generations, and it’s not just an apostle who alludes to this (not that that would not be sufficient), it is our Lord, Himself!

Having said all that, and thanking you all sincerely for your answers, and I know I was inquiring specifically about where we find it in Scripture…I do think as apologists we have a tendency to fall prey to the same argument that non-Catholic Christians use every time we try to answer a question about our Catholic faith by the Bible. Although many times we can answer from the Bible, whenever a non-Catholic asks, “Where is that in the Bible?” we should not be afraid to answer them with, “IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE IN THE BIBLE!!”

I can’t find the reference right now, but in the Book of Nehemiah, there is reference to the exclusion from service of priests who could not trace their lineage back to Aaron. That’s a blood link, of course, but types always build on their foreshadowings. So the spiritual succession of the Apostles is consistent with the blood succession of the OT Priesthood.

 

[sllunsford]

I recently discovered the following web site that directly answers this question. Log on to, “http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download”. The site contains several full length audio talks on many catholic subjects. Select, “Apostolic Authority and the Pope”. The talk is aprox 1 hour and is terrific!!! It directly answers, “Is Apostolic Succession Biblical.” Enjoy!

 

[NotWorthy]

I recently discovered the following web site that directly answers this question. Log on to, “http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download”. The site contains several full length audio talks on many catholic subjects. Select, “Apostolic Authority and the Pope”. The talk is aprox 1 hour and is terrific!!! It directly answers, “Is Apostolic Succession Biblical.” Enjoy!

John Martignoni is wonderful, isn’t he! He never gets too deep that you can’t understand what point he’s trying to make! He just talks pure common sense!

 

[skydiv35]

The way I see it, from the time of Adam God chose 40 leaders before Jesus. I’m talking about men like Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac and the rest to Zerubbabel. Now comes Mary and Joseph then Jesus. Jesus chose Peter and the 11 apostles. When Jesus ascended into Heaven He breathed His authority on the apostle to takeover on earth. Why would God choose all these leaders before Jesus when he could have ruled Himself? Why would Jesus give the apostles his authority only to end with Peter. In an earlier post it was said that Jesus told Peter to tend to his sheep. Why would Jesus have Peter tend to His sheep until he died and then Jesus would have to take over again. Now from Peter there is a list of all the popes to the present. I think all the leaders from Adam to the present is what God had in mind.

 

[PJM]

Dear friends in Christ,

I have read the preceeding post with great joy.

There seems to be a perspective that noone has touched directly upon. We might call it “Biblical Logic.”

Mt. 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [This clearly is a direct order; a mandate.]

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Physically this would not be possible except through succession.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[placido]

A non-Catholic recently challenged me to show him in the Bible where Apostolic Authority was intended to be handed down through the centuries. The only passage I could quote him was Matthew 16. I told him that either Jesus meant what He said, that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, or He was a liar. He told me that although Jesus obviously gave the apostles authority, there is no indication that Jesus intended for it to be handed down.

It amazes me that non-Catholics believe that what Jesus said in Matthew 16 was not intended to be handed down, yet they don’t apply same logic to Matthew 28:19-20.

placido

 

[Genesius]

Obviously, I would recommend the following faith tracks article in Catholic.com
Apostolic Tradition
The following paragraphs in the the same site hits the bull’s eye directly at the center:

What kind of “tradition” are your non-Catholic christians trying to make up just because they don’t want to stay with the Tree that started from a small Seed? I believe there is only ONE TREE.

You say that there are 4 generations alluded to in the passage. I can understand 2 of the four, but I think you would be reaching to say that those who Timothy was to instruct were ALL from the generation AFTER him. He could easily teach his own generation, and probably the next, but I don’t see how you could reach a conclusion for the fourth from the passage alone.

 

[Genesius]

Zaramarie81 wrote:

Why would the replacement of Judas be interpreted as necessary for that age alone? The other 12 were handpicked by Jesus, and the apostles *could have *argued that once the apostles handpicked by Jesus died, no one else could take their place. Instead, Matthias was chosen to take Judas’s place. This demonstrates several points:

1. Judas left a chair that was empty and needed to be filled upon his death. The position did not die with him.
2. Filling Judas’ position demonstrates the authority of the apostles. The apostles didn’t need Jesus standing right there to do the job for them… they had the authority.
3. On Matthias’ end - he has apostolic authority in spite of not being part of the original 12, at the Last Supper, etc. This indicates that the role of “apostle” is something that can be passed down through the ages and eras after Christ died, rose, and ascended.
4. Why would this stop with Matthias? Does your friend have an answer to that? There is no indication in scripture that the practice stopped.

On point 3, the only thing that Matthias’ authority really demonstrates is that the original Apostles had authority to replace Judas, and/or one could argue others (though in the passage it is only Judas who is being replaced). It speaks to nothing of the next generations continuing the tradition.

On point 4, you are begging the question. The reason for the question to begin with was that the person who posed it wanted to know where the scriptures tell us that the practice was intended to continue.

Now, having said that I should let you know that I do not rebut these wonderful points that people here are sharing because I don’t agree with the main point, but rather as a way of playing ‘devil’s advocate’ (excuse the expression); to prompt refining of the arguments, or to consider what a non-Catholic might answer back.

In reading some of the replies in here I notice that some people seem very passionate about the issue, using reason and kneejerk reactions to dictate their answers rather than treating it objectively and simply presenting a logical argument from Scripture. I never intend to get personal with people in these forums by turning the threads into a heated argument, but only to prompt thought.

 

[Genesius]

Gmcbroom wrote:

However, I also believe God calls whom he will however he will. If they started out in the Catholic church great. But I don’t think all are, I apologize if it sounds blasfemous [actually should be spelled ‘blasphemous’], but didn’t Jesus tell his Disciples to leave the others alone? I think that sometimes we as people forget to turn the other cheek. If others follow Sola Scriptura we should at least rejoice that they are worshipping God in there own way. Is it biblical yes through Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ie the Trinitarian Formula unites us all as Christians. No Lalalalalalala’s are needed.

…and…

Inkaneer wrote:

As for ‘rejoicing’ that these people are “worshipping God in their own way” may I remind you that Jesus prayer to the Father was that His followers be one as he and the Father were one? Jesus established one church not the tens of thousands of man made denominations that make up protestantism. So the question is not one of turning the other cheek. Rather, it is do you seek truth or are you satisfied with man made tradition from the 16th century?

You both make a good point. However, I think the truth is somewhere between. True, as Inkaneer indicates, truth is truth and we shouldn’t apologize for standing up for the truth. However, I also note gmc’s point that we should allow for grace as well. Gmcbroom is correct in saying we should rejoice that protestants (or maybe the term ‘non-Catholic Christians’ is more warranted here) at least have most of the Scriptures, and most hold to most of the essentials and are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Should we be content with that? In a sense, yes. After all, we are united to some degree. In another sense, no, for we are not completely united.

However, the prompting of the question in this thread was not a matter of ‘leaving them alone’. The person who asked it was challenging the authority of the Catholic Church. They are the ones who passionately attacked, not vice-versa. I just tried to get a word in edgewise to answer them objectively, or to let them know that I would try to find the answer. And the fact is, even if I am able to give them an answer at this point I doubt that they would even listen or care, and I am not in a position to judge them one way or another. It’s up to the Holy Spirit to work on hearts. It did however, allow me to start an interesting thread here.

 

[IGNAT]

We need to realise that part of Jesus’ task was to teach the apostoles to carry on his work, until the end of time - " feed my sheep". After establishing the Church and giving auhority to the apostles he said he would be with them until the end of time. It wouldn’t have been until the end of those apostles’ time. Therefore Jesus is with us until that time and apostolic teaching is continuing.

Regards

 

[inkaneer]

Gmcbroom wrote:

However, I also believe God calls whom he will however he will. If they started out in the Catholic church great. But I don’t think all are, I apologize if it sounds blasfemous [actually should be spelled ‘blasphemous’], but didn’t Jesus tell his Disciples to leave the others alone? I think that sometimes we as people forget to turn the other cheek. If others follow Sola Scriptura we should at least rejoice that they are worshipping God in there own way. Is it biblical yes through Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ie the Trinitarian Formula unites us all as Christians. No Lalalalalalala’s are needed.

…and…

Inkaneer wrote:

As for ‘rejoicing’ that these people are “worshipping God in their own way” may I remind you that Jesus prayer to the Father was that His followers be one as he and the Father were one? Jesus established one church not the tens of thousands of man made denominations that make up protestantism. So the question is not one of turning the other cheek. Rather, it is do you seek truth or are you satisfied with man made tradition from the 16th century?

You both make a good point. However, I think the truth is somewhere between. True, as Inkaneer indicates, truth is truth and we shouldn’t apologize for standing up for the truth. However, I also note gmc’s point that we should allow for grace as well. Gmcbroom is correct in saying we should rejoice that protestants (or maybe the term ‘non-Catholic Christians’ is more warranted here) at least have most of the Scriptures, and most hold to most of the essentials and are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Should we be content with that? In a sense, yes. After all, we are united to some degree. In another sense, no, for we are not completely united.

There is only one Body of Christ and unity of the body is essential. Imagine how much use you would have if your body had its arms and legs severed from it or they are only dangling by a few sinews. Would you say your body was one? I sure wouldn’t. There is just no way one can rationalize the division, any division, in Christianity for it all comes down to Jesus’ prayer that His followers be one as He and the Father are one. Unity in the Body of Christ is nort achieved by cafeteria christianity.

However, the prompting of the question in this thread was not a matter of ‘leaving them alone’. The person who asked it was challenging the authority of the Catholic Church. They are the ones who passionately attacked, not vice-versa. I just tried to get a word in edgewise to answer them objectively, or to let them know that I would try to find the answer. And the fact is, even if I am able to give them an answer at this point I doubt that they would even listen or care, and I am not in a position to judge them one way or another. It’s up to the Holy Spirit to work on hearts. It did however, allow me to start an interesting thread here.

Some people will not accept the truth if it smacked them in the face. Jesus told His disciples what to do if people do not accept them. He told them to shake the dust off their sandals and leave them alone. The same applies here. We are not trying to drag people into heaven by their ankles while they kick and scream and fight the entire way. We are here to point out the truth hoping that it will make them free. Whether they accept truth or not is up to them. As for attaining heaven, I sincerely doubt that for those non Catholics around here who frequent these boards there is any invinceable ignorance.

 

[PJM]

=placido;6300282]It amazes me that non-Catholics believe that what Jesus said in Matthew 16 was not intended to be handed down, yet they don’t apply same logic to Matthew 28:19-20.

placido

Well done good and faithful servant. SOLID LOGIC and a very profound point. The reason of course** is **Mt. 16:15-19 **is very threatning to the licit etablishment of illicit churches while Mt. 28:1-20 is **much easier to apply to there own undestanding of Christ [Catholic-ignored] mandate.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I can’t find the reference right now, but in the Book of Nehemiah, there is reference to the exclusion from service of priests who could not trace their lineage back to Aaron. That’s a blood link, of course, but types always build on their foreshadowings. So the spiritual succession of the Apostles is consistent with the blood succession of the OT Priesthood.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:After the Babylonian Exile strict genealogical proof of priestly descent was even more rigidly demanded, and any failure to furnish the same meant exclusion from the priesthood (Ezra 2:61-62; Nehemiah 7:63-64.).

 

[Genesius]

We need to realise that part of Jesus’ task was to teach the apostoles to carry on his work, until the end of time - " feed my sheep". After establishing the Church and giving auhority to the apostles he said he would be with them until the end of time. It wouldn’t have been until the end of those apostles’ time. Therefore Jesus is with us until that time and apostolic teaching is continuing.

Regards

Good point, IGNAT. I never thought about the ‘end of time’ thing. Thanks.