Non-Catholic Christians view on apostolic succession?

[Lenten_ashes]

Greetings.

Curious as to what the overall sentiment on apostolic succession is? I know the Orthodox and Anglicans are in total agreement.

I have had some interesting discussions with friends and family(non-Catholics) about this topic.

Do you think it is/was a legitimate Christian practice?

If so, is it something that Jesus instructed or something the apostles implemented with or w/o guidance of the Holy Spirit after His ascension?

Do you think that since Judas was such a extraordinary case, and really a phony apostle, that St Matthias was the exception and not the norm??

Or do you think it was necessary only until the reformation and the advent of the printing press?

Thanks

 

[ChurchSoldier]

From my experience, non-apostolic churches do not discuss it. I would guess either because it leads to a discussion of Roman Catholicism, or more likely that generations of Pastors have not been taught it in seminary and as such it is a non-topic/lost topic.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Greetings.

Curious as to what the overall sentiment on apostolic succession is? I know the Orthodox and Anglicans are in total agreement.

I have had some interesting discussions with friends and family(non-Catholics) about this topic.

Do you think it is/was a legitimate Christian practice?

If so, is it something that Jesus instructed or something the apostles implemented with or w/o guidance of the Holy Spirit after His ascension?

Do you think that since Judas was such a extraordinary case, and really a phony apostle, that St Matthias was the exception and not the norm??

Or do you think it was necessary only until the reformation and the advent of the printing press?

Thanks

It’s simply not discussed by Protestants in general. They know they don’t use it so it is an inconvenient part of history.

Many hold some sort of apostasy theory without any evidence.

I have had Mormon missionaries visiting lately and they of course hold to apostasy and thus far have no answer to the historical evidence presented to them.

 

[Libtam]

We are all born equal.

 

[JonNC]

Greetings.

Curious as to what the overall sentiment on apostolic succession is? I know the Orthodox and Anglicans are in total agreement.

I have had some interesting discussions with friends and family(non-Catholics) about this topic.

Do you think it is/was a legitimate Christian practice?

If so, is it something that Jesus instructed or something the apostles implemented with or w/o guidance of the Holy Spirit after His ascension?

Do you think that since Judas was such a extraordinary case, and really a phony apostle, that St Matthias was the exception and not the norm??

Or do you think it was necessary only until the reformation and the advent of the printing press?

Thanks

It is not only legitimate it is necessary, though it does not exclude the validity of presbyter ordination.
From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

Jon

 

[susanlo]

Greetings.

Curious as to what the overall sentiment on apostolic succession is? I know the Orthodox and Anglicans are in total agreement.

I have had some interesting discussions with friends and family(non-Catholics) about this topic.

Do you think it is/was a legitimate Christian practice?

If so, is it something that Jesus instructed or something the apostles implemented with or w/o guidance of the Holy Spirit after His ascension?

Do you think that since Judas was such a extraordinary case, and really a phony apostle, that St Matthias was the exception and not the norm??

Or do you think it was necessary only until the reformation and the advent of the printing press?

Thanks

I had never heard about Apostolic succession in all of my years at church and Christian school until I heard about it from a Catholic friend last year. I spent a good deal of time researching the concept and reading the early literature. I don’t see any evidence of Jesus or the Apostles creating the specific system of Apostolic succession as is utilized by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Bible there are examples of ordinations with laying on of hands that most all Christian churches do as far as I am aware.
In the early literature there are writings by Irenaeus and Tertullian that are distinguishing between the churches that can trace their lineage of bishops back to the Apostles as opposed to the churches teaching gnostic concepts (like Jesus wasn’t a person, but a phantom-like image). These writings do not document a system of succession with certain granting of powers and privileges, or state a protocol to be in place for 1000’s of years, but are basically providing accreditation to these churches. As you read further into their writings, one of the key components is that these churches contain the Scriptures which are the complete source of knowledge. They specify that there are not other separate sources outside of these churches as the gnostic heretics were asserting. I think what these writers are stating makes perfect sense for the world that they were in.
I find it confusing because the term bishop as being a Catholic Bishop that oversees multiple churches was not in place for a few centuries. In the beginning there was a bishop in every church. I understand that the Roman Catholic Church only allows Bishops to ordain clergy, which makes sense for institutional purposes. However, how do we know that a fully ordained Priest (such as Martin Luther or Menno Simons as a few examples) are unable to convey whatever is thought to be conveyed by Apostolic succession when they founded churches (Lutheran, Mennonite, more) and continued the practice of laying on of hands. The role of Roman Catholic Bishop was not in place in the Apostolic age and that specific protocol can’t be Apostolic in nature.
As far as Matthias replacing Judas, he received the Spirit and the ability to perform as an Apostle directly at Pentecost the same way the other 11 did. I don’t think Peter placed hands on him in order to make him an Apostle. And the prophecies from Psalms that Peter quotes are clearly about Judas and Judas alone being replaced. However, Paul was not there at Pentecost. I wonder if an Apostle laid hands on him to convey Apostolic Authority. I would think that if in the first century when Acts was written, if Apostolic succession was an important precursor to having authority, they would have documented that for Paul, but there is no clear indication of an ordination for Paul.

 

[MT1926]

However, how do we know that a fully ordained Priest (such as Martin Luther or Menno Simons as a few examples) are unable to convey whatever is thought to be conveyed by Apostolic succession when they founded churches (Lutheran, Mennonite, more) and continued the practice of laying on of hands.

This statement pretty much sums it all up for me. I don’t need any facts, any biblical evidence, and ancient documents to tell me the truth. When I read the words “how do we know” I can affirm with 100% certainty we can never no. It is a proven fact in the world we live in today if someone isn’t left in charge to direct the work, the work never gets done, or not on time anyway. To me it is common sense, and I am sure you would all agree, Jesus sure has a heck of a lot more common sense than me. If I can’t trust my kids to follow the list of choirs I left them, without checking in on them throughout the day, why would Jesus leave everyone with a Bible, that the majority of the population couldn’t read for 1500 years, and no one in charge of it?

However, Paul was not there at Pentecost. I wonder if an Apostle laid hands on him to convey Apostolic Authority. I would think that if in the first century when Acts was written, if Apostolic succession was an important precursor to having authority, they would have documented that for Paul, but there is no clear indication of an ordination for Paul.

I understood that Paul presented himself to Peter for his consent in:
Galatians 1:18
18 [a]Then after three years** I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.
Whether he physically laid hands on Paul, the scripture does not tell us, but we do know Paul presented himself to Peter.
Now when I turn to the very next page to:
Galatians 2:1-2
The Council of Jerusalem.[a] 1 Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas,** taking Titus along also. 2 I went up in accord with a revelation,[c] and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles—but privately to those of repute—so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain.
I can see that Paul jumps forward 14 years later to stress the point that he returned to the authority in Jerusalem. He says he did this to present them with the gospel he was preaching. The final sentence tells me why, because he wanted to make sure the authority above him accepted what he was preaching so he could have confidence that he did not preach in vain for the past 14 years.

I think we could take these writings, of Paul, to allude to the fact that he was at the least accepted and given the stamp of approval of Peter and the Apostles.****

 

[JonNC]

We are all born equal.

Yes, and Apostolic Succession doesn’t change that.

Jon

 

[andrewstx]

Aren’t their Lutherans in Scandanavia,.{I think in Sweden and Norway} that also as Protestants teach and practice A S ?
I believe that ELCA is trying to renew their A S?
I know that most here are LCMS but the others still exist.

 

[JonNC]

Aren’t their Lutherans in Scandanavia,.{I think in Sweden and Norway} that also as Protestants teach and practice A S ?
I believe that ELCA is trying to renew their A S?
I know that most here are LCMS but the others still exist.

Correct. The ELCA now ordains with the participation of TEC bishops who can trace their lines, Catholic rejection of the lines notwithstanding. Consequently,ELCA bishops can also trace their lines. Of course, the elephant in the room is ordination of women.

Jon

 

[pablope]

It is not only legitimate it is necessary, though it does not exclude the validity of presbyter ordination.

I guess it is only in the Lutherans who stress this to rationalize their lack or in disregarding apostolic succession.

Besides, bishops are an important element of AS, by both East and West…and Lutherans had discarded the bishopric.

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

 

[pablope]

I. I don’t see any evidence of Jesus or the Apostles creating the specific system of Apostolic succession as is utilized by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Orthodox also exercise apostolic succession…and we both consider it a sacrament of Holy Orders.

After the reformation, this sacrament was thrown out.

In the Bible there are examples of ordinations with laying on of hands that most all Christian churches do as far as I am aware.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I had never heard about Apostolic succession in all of my years at church and Christian school until I heard about it from a Catholic friend last year. I spent a good deal of time researching the concept and reading the early literature. I don’t see any evidence of Jesus or the Apostles creating the specific system of Apostolic succession as is utilized by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Bible there are examples of ordinations with laying on of hands that most all Christian churches do as far as I am aware.
In the early literature there are writings by Irenaeus and Tertullian that are distinguishing between the churches that can trace their lineage of bishops back to the Apostles as opposed to the churches teaching gnostic concepts (like Jesus wasn’t a person, but a phantom-like image). These writings do not document a system of succession with certain granting of powers and privileges, or state a protocol to be in place for 1000’s of years, but are basically providing accreditation to these churches. As you read further into their writings, one of the key components is that these churches contain the Scriptures which are the complete source of knowledge. They specify that there are not other separate sources outside of these churches as the gnostic heretics were asserting. I think what these writers are stating makes perfect sense for the world that they were in.
I find it confusing because the term bishop as being a Catholic Bishop that oversees multiple churches was not in place for a few centuries. In the beginning there was a bishop in every church. I understand that the Roman Catholic Church only allows Bishops to ordain clergy, which makes sense for institutional purposes. However, how do we know that a fully ordained Priest (such as Martin Luther or Menno Simons as a few examples) are unable to convey whatever is thought to be conveyed by Apostolic succession when they founded churches (Lutheran, Mennonite, more) and continued the practice of laying on of hands. The role of Roman Catholic Bishop was not in place in the Apostolic age and that specific protocol can’t be Apostolic in nature.
As far as Matthias replacing Judas, he received the Spirit and the ability to perform as an Apostle directly at Pentecost the same way the other 11 did. I don’t think Peter placed hands on him in order to make him an Apostle. And the prophecies from Psalms that Peter quotes are clearly about Judas and Judas alone being replaced. However, Paul was not there at Pentecost. I wonder if an Apostle laid hands on him to convey Apostolic Authority. I would think that if in the first century when Acts was written, if Apostolic succession was an important precursor to having authority, they would have documented that for Paul, but there is no clear indication of an ordination for Paul.

I notice several errors and assumptions in your post. And other details I will address.

First: I too had never heard of apostolic succession until I looked into Catholicism. 30 years of evangelical training and never even heard of it. Why? Because it is an inconvenient point of history that undermines evangelicalism.

You make some assumptions based on your worldview that I believe do disservice to the historical record. You sort of say, “they couldn’t have meant that” to which I say, “why not” what evidence do you have for that?

Further, you mention that Irenaeus for example was able to judge the Gnostics as heretics. With what authority does he say this without apostolic succession? What parallel is there in evangelicalism? There isn’t because everyone is entitled to their opinion in evangelicalism.

I would encourage you to read Ignatius of Antioch. He was contemporary of Polycarp, and heard the Apostle John preach. He clearly Lays out the authority of the bishop and its succession.

Id encourage you read this synopsis/quotes from St Ignatius if Antioch:

calledtocommunion.com/2010/10/st-ignatius-of-antioch-on-the-church/

As well as this exhaustive and thorough treatise on apostolic succession.

calledtocommunion.com/2014/06/the-bishops-of-history-and-the-catholic-faith-a-reply-to-brandon-addison/#epicdocwit

 

[susanlo]

I notice several errors and assumptions in your post. And other details I will address.

First: I too had never heard of apostolic succession until I looked into Catholicism. 30 years of evangelical training and never even heard of it. Why? Because it is an inconvenient point of history that undermines evangelicalism.

You make some assumptions based on your worldview that I believe do disservice to the historical record. You sort of say, “they couldn’t have meant that” to which I say, “why not” what evidence do you have for that?

Further, you mention that Irenaeus for example was able to judge the Gnostics as heretics. With what authority does he say this without apostolic succession? What parallel is there in evangelicalism? There isn’t because everyone is entitled to their opinion in evangelicalism.

I would encourage you to read Ignatius of Antioch. He was contemporary of Polycarp, and heard the Apostle John preach. He clearly Lays out the authority of the bishop and its succession.

Id encourage you read this synopsis/quotes from St Ignatius if Antioch:

calledtocommunion.com/2010/10/st-ignatius-of-antioch-on-the-church/

As well as this exhaustive and thorough treatise on apostolic succession.

calledtocommunion.com/2014/06/the-bishops-of-history-and-the-catholic-faith-a-reply-to-brandon-addison/#epicdocwit

Thank you for the response. I will look at the writings.
I don’t know if I would say “they couldn’t have meant that” and that I have proof that they didn’t mean that. But I would mean to say that they didn’t explicitly say that. In other words, I can’t prove that they didn’t support the modern view of Apostolic succession, but I can’t find proof that they did support it.
I would think that the Gnostics could be judged as heretics by the scriptures. The churches had possession of the scriptures and the writings of the Apostles and the Gnostics did not.

I have been wondering for awhile and unable to find a good answer: What exactly is conveyed when a Bishop ordains a Priest that only a Roman Catholic Bishop can convey? Is there a separate Spirit, power, or piece of knowledge? Or is it just an expression of conveying authority? I am confused about what this is.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thank you for the response. I will look at the writings.

Awesome I think they will be very helpful to you. One thing no Catholic fears is history… it supports our claims over and over.

I don’t know if I would say “they couldn’t have meant that” and that I have proof that they didn’t mean that. But I would mean to say that they didn’t explicitly say that. In other words, I can’t prove that they didn’t support the modern view of Apostolic succession, but I can’t find proof that they did support it.

I do believe some more detailed research will aid you in this. I do see it also occurring in the New Testament, but it is more clear when viewed through the Apostolic lens which we gain by reading the early church teaching. How cool that we can read the writings of people in the first and second generation of the Church who were figuring this all out!

I would think that the Gnostics could be judged as heretics by the scriptures. The churches had possession of the scriptures and the writings of the Apostles and the Gnostics did not.

I do not believe it is true that the gnostics did not have the scriptures…I don’t see why they wouldn’t have. Without the authority of the Apostles to even say what scripture is though, let alone what it definitively means in light of the oral teaching of the apostles, then you cannot correct anyone…simply offer an opinion.

At this time in history what books belonged in the NT was still in dispute after all.

I have been wondering for awhile and unable to find a good answer: What exactly is conveyed when a Bishop ordains a Priest that only a Roman Catholic Bishop can convey? Is there a separate Spirit, power, or piece of knowledge? Or is it just an expression of conveying authority? I am confused about what this is.

This is like saying, “What is conveyed on Matthias in Acts by the laying on of hands that was not conveyed to Joe Shmoe who received the Spirit at Pentecost” Clearly there was a difference right?

Simply put, In John 20, Jesus “breathes on the Apostles” With that he gave them special authority to forgive and retain sins and he commissioned them to a special service within the church. Jesus gave this to his apostles…not Mary Magdalene, not Nicodemus, not any of his followers, but only to the 12.

It is this special authority that is passed down. It is an authority linked to the office of apostle which carries to successors the bishops. This is a participation of God with man for his mission as he has always done. By virtue of the office of bishop, God protects the deposit of faith and shepherds his people in orthodoxy.

The priest is simply the agent of the bishop and so the bishop confers some of his authority to the priest.

Hopefully that helps you,

I leave you with this quote…but please do the reading I posted! After that reading, I do not believe you will be able to honestly say, “I haven’t heard a good argument for it”

Note the Authority that Ignatius gives to the office of bishop… “follow the bishop even as Jesus Christ does the Father” That is without question! St. Ignatius heard the apostle John preach. He was second bishop of Antioch where they were first called Christians. He overlaps in time with the apostles. Polycarp, mentioned in the NT several times, was his good friend. How can we discount his views as he writes letters to the churches enroute to Rome and his Martyrdom in 107AD?

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

 

[Lenten_ashes]

It’s simply not discussed by Protestants in general. They know they don’t use it so it is an inconvenient part of history.

Many hold some sort of apostasy theory without any evidence.

I have had Mormon missionaries visiting lately and they of course hold to apostasy and thus far have no answer to the historical evidence presented to them.

I have had a few of those guys in my house before - wife let them in.

Started bombarding them with scripture and LDS history as well…hilarious to watch them frantically put their stuff away and run for the door, lol. Amazing, they want to share their faith but don’t want to be challenged at all.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

We are all born equal.

Do men bear children?

We are created equal but not the same.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I have had a few of those guys in my house before - wife let them in.

Started bombarding them with scripture and LDS history as well…hilarious to watch them frantically put their stuff away and run for the door, lol. Amazing, they want to share their faith but don’t want to be challenged at all.

The ones visiting me are quite nice and seem to want to find answers, but haven’t yet…we’ve had good discussion. I even got them to come to mass last week!

I am having my fourth meeting with them Wednesday. They are supposed to bring an apostasy expert…should be interesting. I already know what he will say. Point to done Bible verses, infer way too much and say that the church was corrupted as soon as the apostles died.

No evidence of that will be offered and it frankly is illogical.

Pray for these young men that seeds will be planted.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I had never heard about Apostolic succession in all of my years at church and Christian school until I heard about it from a Catholic friend last year. I spent a good deal of time researching the concept and reading the early literature. I don’t see any evidence of Jesus or the Apostles creating the specific system of Apostolic succession as is utilized by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Bible there are examples of ordinations with laying on of hands that most all Christian churches do as far as I am aware.

Greetings, Susan.

I see your point. However, Jesus had many, many followers, yet he only commissioned the select few. He also gave them authority John 20:21-23 Do you find this to be at all significant?

In the early literature there are writings by Irenaeus and Tertullian that are distinguishing between the churches that can trace their lineage of bishops back to the Apostles as opposed to the churches teaching gnostic concepts (like Jesus wasn’t a person, but a phantom-like image). These writings do not document a system of succession with certain granting of powers and privileges, or state a protocol to be in place for 1000’s of years, but are basically providing accreditation to these churches. As you read further into their writings, one of the key components is that these churches contain the Scriptures which are the complete source of knowledge.

Absolutely, they safeguarded the scriptures…actually they safeguarded the entire deposit of faith.

They specify that there are not other separate sources outside of these churches as the gnostic heretics were asserting. I think what these writers are stating makes perfect sense for the world that they were in.

So do you think A/S was necessary, maybe for that time but not to be continued post reformation?

I find it confusing because the term bishop as being a Catholic Bishop that oversees multiple churches was not in place for a few centuries. In the beginning there was a bishop in every church. I understand that the Roman Catholic Church only allows Bishops to ordain clergy, which makes sense for institutional purposes. However, how do we know that a fully ordained Priest (such as Martin Luther or Menno Simons as a few examples) are unable to convey whatever is thought to be conveyed by Apostolic succession when they founded churches (Lutheran, Mennonite, more) and continued the practice of laying on of hands. The role of Roman Catholic Bishop was not in place in the Apostolic age and that specific protocol can’t be Apostolic in nature.
As far as Matthias replacing Judas, he received the Spirit and the ability to perform as an Apostle directly at Pentecost the same way the other 11 did. I don’t think Peter placed hands on him in order to make him an Apostle. And the prophecies from Psalms that Peter quotes are clearly about Judas and Judas alone being replaced. However, Paul was not there at Pentecost. I wonder if an Apostle laid hands on him to convey Apostolic Authority. I would think that if in the first century when Acts was written, if Apostolic succession was an important precursor to having authority, they would have documented that for Paul, but there is no clear indication of an ordination for Paul.

I think Paul was a extraordinary case for sure. I think non-apostolic churches can/do point to that and say, see anybody is called and do not need to be from the line of succession. The problem with that is Paul was raised up to provide nearly half the NT, and we are no longer receiving revelation as the book of Revelation(and the church) says. So if we parallel ourselves to Paul then you could also say we are authorized to pen our own scripture. And most of us would agree that that is absurd.

I’m not sure if there is any church teaching on whether or not Paul received the laying on of hands. I need to look into it.

I think it’s tough to compare the original few churches to the expanded universal church hundreds of years later. Not apple to apples because of natural expansion that was going to occur.

Blessings.

 

[Abu]

Susanlo #6
I had never heard about Apostolic succession in all of my years at church and Christian school until I heard about it from a Catholic friend last year. I spent a good deal of time researching the concept and reading the early literature. I don’t see any evidence of Jesus or the Apostles creating the specific system of Apostolic succession as is utilized by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Bible there are examples of ordinations with laying on of hands that most all Christian churches do as far as I am aware.

Jesus was very clear about Apostolic Succession which flows from the mandate given by Christ to Peter and expressed clearly in the Apostolic College at the Council of Jerusalem at which Peter as head of the Church stated the charter of the Church’s universality, giving his decision.

From the N.T. we know that Christ promised that His Church would last until the end of time, which would mean the constitutional permanence of the office of head of His Church which He had bestowed on Peter alone. (Mt 16:18).

Refer to early Church history: e.g. St Irenaeus, taught by St Polycarp who had been a disciple of St John the Apostle, wrote in his great work *Adversus Haereses *in Bk 3, Sect 2 “The blessed Apostles, after founding and building up the Church (in Rome), handed over to Linus the office of Bishop.”

The role of Roman Catholic Bishop was not in place in the Apostolic age and that specific protocol can’t be Apostolic in nature.

It certainly was as the Apostles left bishops as their successors with “their own position of teaching authority.” [St Irenaeus, *Adv haeres. 3,3,1. See CCC # 77].

In the Acts of the Apostles (14:23) Saints Paul and Barnabas “appointed presbyters (=priests) for them in every church.” Paul and Barnabas were bishops who had received at ordination the power to ordain others. In Greek the words used were presbyteros for priest, elder, presbyter, and episcopos for bishop, overseer, supervisor, or guardian. By the time of St Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) he speaks of the bishop as one who has “acquired his ministry, not from himself, nor through men”, and that he is to be regarded “as the Lord Himself.” (Ep. Ad Philad., 1; Ephes. 6).

St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch and was martyred in Rome in approximately 107 A.D. His letter comes from about 96 A.D. Even at this early date, the threefold hierarchy of bishops, priests (presbyters in Greek), and deacons is present and the practice of celebrating the Holy Eucharist is clearly a long-established practice.

“The substance of the record contained in the Ignatian epistles is this:
While the Christian communities of this period (c.100-110) have many presbyters and deacons, they have only one bishop….there are bishops and the faithful are to obey both the bishops and the presbyters.” The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 78].

Cardinal Lawrence Shehan says that the NT is not a book of neat linguistics. He cites the New American Bible, Hinds, Noble and Eldredge’s Greek English Dictionary, the English Jerusalem Bible, Goodspeed’s translation of the Chicago Bible, Kleist-Lilly, Joseph Fitzmer, SJ, and Fr Andre Feuillet’s *The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers *as all acknowledging priests or priesthood in the NT under a variety of terms – presbuteroi, leitourgos, hierourgos, Leitourgon, Leitourgon hierougounta. “The absence of the use of the one term hierus is evidence merely that this one term was not used, not that priest or priesthood are unacknowledged in the NT.” [See *The New Biblical Theorists, Servant Books, 1983, by Msgr George A Kelly, p 84].

The First Epistle of Pope Clement (1 Clem) confirms “The apostles are from Christ …they appointed their first fruits – after having tested them though the Spirit – to be the bishops and deacons of the future believers.” ‘Apostolic succession thereby is confirmed in New Testament times by a non-New Testament source.’ The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1982, p77-78]. [My emphasis].

Pope Clement I writing to the Church of Corinth reminds the rebels at Corinth that the apostles ordained bishops and deacons, and unquestionably expects them to respect men: “who had been appointed by the apostles or afterward by other eminent men……The apostles are from Christ…they appointed their first fruits – after having tested them through the Spirit – to be the bishops and deacons of the future believers.” The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 97-98].