I am told by most non-Catholics that apostolic succession was invented by the Catholic church and that it did not come from God even though there is a scriptural basis for AS.
Playing devil’s advocate, my first question is:
If it was a later catholic invention then what other reason can one give for the CC’s success at maintaining oneness and unity for almost a whopping 2000 years? As far as I can tell there is only one catholic church with 23 eastern Rites due to the fact that they eventually returned to the one CC.
Protestant churches today, regarding reformation succession, lack any kind of fluid continuity to the 16th century, which is sadly why it has has failed to provide any degree of oneness and unity so my second question is:
What are some possible remedies that could be put in place to help recover, restore and foster some semblance of oneness and unity in the protestant sphere? I just think it would be cool to see protestantism as one church, just as there is only one catholic church, and that is not to be taken as some sort of derisive or insincere shot at protestantism either. Many know me here and know that that is not my style!
I am not trying to raise hackles but a Lutheran view from TREATISE ON THE POWER AND PRIMACY OF THE POPE (1537):
[Testimony of the Scriptures]
7 1. First of all, therefore, let us show from the Gospel that the Roman bishop is not by divine right above all other bishops and pastors. In Luke 22:24–27 Christ expressly forbids lordship among the apostles. 8 For this was the very question the disciples were disputing when Christ spoke of his passion: Who was to be the leader and, as it were, the vicar of Christ after his departure? Christ reproved the apostles for this error and taught them that no one should have lordship or superiority among them but that the apostles should be sent forth as equals and exercise the ministry of the Gospel in common. Accordingly he said, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as one who serves.” The antithesis here shows that lordship is disapproved. The same thing is taught by a parable when, in a similar dispute concerning the kingdom, Christ put a child in the midst of the disciples, signifying thereby that there was to be no primacy among ministers, just as a child neither seeks nor takes pre-eminence for himself.
9 2. According to John 20:21 Christ sent his disciples out as equals, without discrimination, when he said, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” He sent out each one individually, he said, in the same way in which he had himself been sent. Wherefore he granted to none a prerogative or lordship over the rest.
10 3. In Gal. 2:2, 6 Paul plainly asserts that he was neither ordained nor confirmed by Peter, nor does he acknowledge Peter as one from whom confirmation should be sought. From this fact he expressly argues that his call did not depend on the authority of Peter. But he should have acknowledged Peter as his superior if Peter had been his superior by divine right. He says, however, that he at once preached the Gospel without consulting Peter. “What they were who were reputed to be something,” he says, “makes no difference to me” and again, “Those who were of repute added nothing to me” (Gal. 2:6). (tr-507) Since Paul clearly testifies that he did not desire to seek confirmation from Peter, even after he had come to him, he teaches that the authority of the ministry depends on the Word of God, that Peter was not superior to the other apostles, and that ordination or confirmation was not to be sought from Peter alone.
11 4. In 1 Cor. 3:4–8 Paul places ministers on an equality and teaches that the church is above the ministers. Therefore he does not attribute to Peter superiority or authority over the church or the other ministers. For he says, “All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas” (1 Cor. 3:21, 22). This is to say that neither Peter nor the other ministers should assume lordship or authority over the church, nor burden the church with traditions, nor let anybody’s authority count for more than the Word, nor set the authority of Cephas over against the authority of the other apostles. At that time, however, they reasoned thus: “Cephas observes this. He is an apostle of superior rank. Therefore Paul and the others ought to observe this.” Paul deprives Peter of this pretext and denies that Peter’s authority is superior to that of the others and of the church, 1 Peter 5:3, “Not domineering over the clergy.”
