Is Apostolic Succession Biblical?

[Genesius]

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.

I realize how absurd it is to just assume that the Church somehow faded away after the death of the last of the 1st century apostles, but he doesn’t seem to get it. I even asked him by what authority the Bible was compiled since it was canonized almost 400 years after the last apostle died, but just got the standard, “God’s authority!” answer, as though God just magically dropped it out of heaven.

Now, I realize that there are extra-biblical sources that prove apostolic succession to be true, but is there any Scripture passage that teaches this or even indicates that the authority was passed on. Yes, we know others were ordained, but is the fact that this authority was transmitted through ordination anywhere explicitly demonstrated or explained in Scripture?

I realize that we as Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura, nor should we feel pressured by non-Catholics who expect everything to be in Scripture to demonstrate our faith from Scripture alone. However, I simply ask out of curiousity.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Apostolic succession actually existed before the bible did, indeed without it we would not have a bible as it was the very successors of the Apostles who gave us the Christian Bible on no other authority than that given to them from the fact that they were the successors of the Apostles.

If it was not for Apostolic Succession I would not believe in the Bible.

Anyhow, you might find the below links useful:

home.inreach.com/~bstanley/auth.htm
home.inreach.com/~bstanley/apostol.htm

 

[edrazz]

In Acts chapter 1, the apostle Peter - assumes his leadership role and selects a successor to the Apostle Judas. Peter quotes scripture, “let another take his place,” and proceeds to select Matthi’as Acts 1:23 (RSV). You can’t get a more clear example of apostolic succession than that example.

You can also see the teaching authority succession in the old testament. Jesus told his followers that the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. This is a reference - not to a literal chair - but the teaching authority they inherited from the Moses. Likewise, in the new testament, the teaching authority of the apostles was handed down.

 

[Highwayhound]

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.

I realize how absurd it is to just assume that the Church somehow faded away after the death of the last of the 1st century apostles, but he doesn’t seem to get it. I even asked him by what authority the Bible was compiled since it was canonized almost 400 years after the last apostle died, but just got the standard, “God’s authority!” answer, as though God just magically dropped it out of heaven.

Now, I realize that there are extra-biblical sources that prove apostolic succession to be true, but is there any Scripture passage that teaches this or even indicates that the authority was passed on. Yes, we know others were ordained, but is the fact that this authority was transmitted through ordination anywhere explicitly demonstrated or explained in Scripture?

I realize that we as Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura, nor should we feel pressured by non-Catholics who expect everything to be in Scripture to demonstrate our faith from Scripture alone. However, I simply ask out of curiousity.

My initial reaction to the question, “Is apostolic succession biblical?”, was to think, “No, it is Jesusical.”

It always amazes me how some people will put God in a box. If God did not want human involvement in matters He could do it Himself. Afterall he is the Creator of the Universe…?

The verses where Judas is replaced by Mathias was mentioned. Another example to consider is the recountings of how others traveled with the likes of Paul on his missionary journeys. Why were they there? I am sure it was not for the bonus miles.

One might consider the Gospel of Luke. The author of which was not one of the original 12 yet his words are one of the 4 gospels. How did he learn about Jesus to such a point that his words were deemed worthy of inclusion into the canon of the Bible?

I am putting out a few ideas because I am not sure what this fellow wants to see or hear. As stated earlier it appears he has put God in a box. Most likely it is easier for the person to understand matters by limiting God in this fashion. Also, consider that if there is apostolic succession then that means the Catholic Church is legit. Which then means he would have to admit that he does not have the fullness of truth.

God bless

 

[Genesius]

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!!”

 

[inkaneer]

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!!”

Hold on a minute. The replacement of Judas with Matthias was not just for the Apostolic age. If you read the scripture. Peter quotes two Psalms one of them being the one that says “let another take his place.” The KJV [which your non Catholic friend would probably accept] has that verse [Acts 1:20] as “and his bishoprick let another take.” The RSV has that same verse as "…and ‘His office let another take.’ . The point is there is no time restricion placed here by scripture limiting this to the Apostolic Age.

So Matthias was elected to an office and he was a bishop not an Apostle. Remember Judas died before he was "sent"and the very definition of ‘Apostle’ is "one who is sent. All of the Apostles were bishops or episcopoi [overseers] and they wielded authority [Acts 6:1-7]. Now Acts 1:26 does say “…and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” But being enrolled [the KJV says numbered] does not mean he was an Apostle. If it did then why does scripture say “…enrolled with the eleven Apostles” and not “…enrolled with the twelve Apostles”? For he would be the twelth Apostle and Paul would be the thirteenth. Matthias was a bishop and those who succeeded the Apostles were also bishops.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

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!!”

Thats why if in doubt its always best to just take it back to authority, the protestants have no authority, the authority lies with the successors of the Apostles, it they and only they who ahve been sent to teach, no protestant has been sent rather they promote thesmelves and try and usurp the authority of the successors of the Apostles…

 

[Genesius]

You are so right, Inkaneer. Sorry I missed that. I just went into the USCCB website and looked up the passage in the online bible (NAB). However, although I have no doubt that Matthias was a bishop, he is never alluded to as being a bishop in the passage itself.

 

[Robintrinket]

He told me that although Jesus obviously gave the apostles authority, there is no indication that Jesus intended for it to be handed down.

Then ask him, what was supposed to happen when the apostles died? Without permanent authority, the Church would break up and fall into error, and Christ’s teachings would become distorted. What does he think Christ intended to happen? Who would carry on Christ’s teachings after the apostles? Does he think Jesus just wanted everyone to read the Bible, and interpret it any way they wish? Since people have gotten so many different interpretations from the Bible, how would people know the true interpretation without a Church? Pointing out the Bible was compiled by the Church was a good idea.

No matter what good arguments you have, however, some people are just set in their ways and are not going to change easily.

 

[VioletMary]

. . . 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!!”

Since we’re stating the obvious in this thread, another simple thought that bears repeating is that nowhere in the Bible does it say “Sola Scriptura,” that the Bible alone is to be the source for faith and practice. (It was a lightbulb moment for me when I heard this–it started the path to my becoming a Revert by freeing me to remember and embrace my love for Jesus in the Eucharist.)

The Holy Spirit is able to work in time and space without being limited to the words in His book, that’s for sure.

 

[geekborj]

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.

I realize how absurd it is to just assume that the Church somehow faded away after the death of the last of the 1st century apostles, but he doesn’t seem to get it. I even asked him by what authority the Bible was compiled since it was canonized almost 400 years after the last apostle died, but just got the standard, “God’s authority!” answer, as though God just magically dropped it out of heaven.

Now, I realize that there are extra-biblical sources that prove apostolic succession to be true, but is there any Scripture passage that teaches this or even indicates that the authority was passed on. Yes, we know others were ordained, but is the fact that this authority was transmitted through ordination anywhere explicitly demonstrated or explained in Scripture?

I realize that we as Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura, nor should we feel pressured by non-Catholics who expect everything to be in Scripture to demonstrate our faith from Scripture alone. However, I simply ask out of curiousity.

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:

Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

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.

 

[JohnCS]

Then ask him, what was supposed to happen when the apostles died? Without permanent authority, the Church would break up and fall into error, and Christ’s teachings would become distorted. What does he think Christ intended to happen? Who would carry on Christ’s teachings after the apostles? Does he think Jesus just wanted everyone to read the Bible, and interpret it any way they wish? Since people have gotten so many different interpretations from the Bible, how would people know the true interpretation without a Church? Pointing out the Bible was compiled by the Church was a good idea.

No matter what good arguments you have, however, some people are just set in their ways and are not going to change easily.

I would add to this question some of the Gospel of John. Jesus asks Peter 3 times if he loves him, after getting the answer Jesus then tells him to shepard his flock 3 times. Why would Jesus tell Peter to shepard his flock only to leave them shepardless after Peter dies. It is common sense and logic.

 

[Bastoune]

Anyone so ignorant as to argue that the replacement of Judas by Mathias was simply “necessary for the Apostolic age” but not an example of Apostolic Succession has the huge burden of PROVING that scripturally.

What’s more, given that the other 11 Apostles were still alive and active, even LESS reason to have to elect a replacement for the apostate Judas. The other 11 couldn’t handle the slack? No. Peter infallibly interpreted Scripture.

We also see the diaconate created (reflecting the OT practice of ordaining Judges) in Acts to help the bishops (Apostles and their successors).

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

If there is no Apostolic Successsion, from where comes the authority of a Protestant to just make up his own church? I know that many non-denominational churches will tell you Paul, Barnabus and Silas went around “church planting” – setting up independent churches guided by the Bible. (Yet all this before a NT was even written… I love Protestant re-writing of history).

Some people just prefer to put on the blinders, cover their ears and go, “LALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!” rather than hear the Truth.

 

[comfort1st]

Apostolic succession actually existed before the bible did, indeed without it we would not have a bible as it was the very successors of the Apostles who gave us the Christian Bible on no other authority than that given to them from the fact that they were the successors of the Apostles.

Blasphemy!

There are 66 books in the Bible. All of the Hebrew Scripture (which forms part of the Bible) was written before the time of Christ. With the exception of the replacement of Judas by Matthias (who was also with the group throughout Christ’s ministry) there was no ‘apostolic succession’ until after Paul had written his letters. Hence most of the Bible had already been written before any move to organise ‘Apostolic Succession.’ The only way that the claim could be true is if you consider the bible to not exist until the canon was established. We call a claim of authority over materials written by someone else plagiarism, so please give the credit where it’s due.

Edrazz also wrote: “In Acts chapter 1, the apostle Peter - assumes his leadership role and selects a successor to the Apostle Judas.”

Please let’s have it in context. One person, in this case Peter, pointed out that another person needed to be chosen to take the place of Judas. I see this scenario played out at least once every week, where a member of a group assumes a leadership role for the purpose of raising an issue and having it resolved. What’s more, Peter did not select a successor. The disciples did that by casting lots. This is very much a parallel to a long-standing reserve player in a sporting team being chosen to replace a player who had left, but here it’s not the coach or manager who makes the call but one among equals with the disciples making the decision (by casting lots).

Apostolic Succession in the early church worked with the laying on of hands by one who already had authority to do so. Anyone who has been given that authority by the laying on of hands can pass on that authority the same way. Contrary to much Roman Catholic teaching, the Anglican Church (which does not fit into the ‘Protestant’ label) has maintained the line of Apostolic Succession because those who first ordained priests and consecrated bishops outside the authority of Rome had already been given the authority to ordain and consecrate. Those priests and bishops chose to dissociate themselves with Rome whereas the Jesuit movement chose to remain nominally loyal to the Pope.

 

[NotWorthy]

Paul’s letters to Timothy are very pertinent to Apostolic Succession. Paul’s teaching Timothy to be very careful in choosing people to succeed him, so that they can choose those to succeed them.

 

[sedonaman]

A non-Catholic recently challenged me to show him in the Bible where Apostolic Authority was intended to be handed down through the centuries. …

Why does EVERYTHING having to do with Catholicism either has to come from the Bible or it’s wrong? C’mon. This smacks of fundamentalism.

And then consider, could Jesus have explained everything, theology and how to administer a church of billions of members all over the planet, in only three years of ministry?

 

[CastingCrown]

…Anyone who has been given that authority by the laying on of hands can pass on that authority the same way. Contrary to much Roman Catholic teaching, the Anglican Church (which does not fit into the ‘Protestant’ label) has maintained the line of Apostolic Succession because those who first ordained priests and consecrated bishops outside the authority of Rome had already been given the authority to ordain and consecrate.

Would you consider someone like Arius as having retaining his authority, even after he finds his beliefs in conflict with the Church?

 

[MarcoPolo]

There are 66 books in the Bible.

There are Anglicans who embrace the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture.

 

[steve711]

Blasphemy!

There are 66 books in the Bible. All of the Hebrew Scripture (which forms part of the Bible) was written before the time of Christ. With the exception of the replacement of Judas by Matthias (who was also with the group throughout Christ’s ministry) there was no ‘apostolic succession’ until after Paul had written his letters. Hence most of the Bible had already been written before any move to organise ‘Apostolic Succession.’ The only way that the claim could be true is if you consider the bible to not exist until the canon was established. We call a claim of authority over materials written by someone else plagiarism, so please give the credit where it’s due.

Edrazz also wrote: “In Acts chapter 1, the apostle Peter - assumes his leadership role and selects a successor to the Apostle Judas.”

Please let’s have it in context. One person, in this case Peter, pointed out that another person needed to be chosen to take the place of Judas. I see this scenario played out at least once every week, where a member of a group assumes a leadership role for the purpose of raising an issue and having it resolved. What’s more, Peter did not select a successor. The disciples did that by casting lots. This is very much a parallel to a long-standing reserve player in a sporting team being chosen to replace a player who had left, but here it’s not the coach or manager who makes the call but one among equals with the disciples making the decision (by casting lots).

Apostolic Succession in the early church worked with the laying on of hands by one who already had authority to do so. Anyone who has been given that authority by the laying on of hands can pass on that authority the same way. Contrary to much Roman Catholic teaching, the Anglican Church (which does not fit into the ‘Protestant’ label) has maintained the line of Apostolic Succession because those who first ordained priests and consecrated bishops outside the authority of Rome had already been given the authority to ordain and consecrate. Those priests and bishops chose to dissociate themselves with Rome whereas the Jesuit movement chose to remain nominally loyal to the Pope.

Just a simple question, where did the Anglican church begin and by who’s athority did it begin. Also, did it not begin over 1000 years plus after the Catholic Church was established.

Go with Gods Grace!

 

[gmcbroom]

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.