Protestants: Why Abandon Apostolic Succession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Metaron
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Metaron

Guest
The Early Church believed that authentic authority and ability to preside over the Sacraments came through Apostolic Succession.
Clement of Rome
Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1 [A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1 [A.D. 110]).
For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter? (Trallians, 7 [A.D. 110]).
It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 180-199]).
It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion (ibid 4:26:2).
Tertullian
Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origin of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles. Let the heretics invent something like it. After their blasphemies, what could be unlawful for them? But even if they should contrive it, they will accomplish nothing; for their doctrine itself, when compared with that of the Apostles, will show by its own diversity and contrariety that it has for its author neither an Apostle nor an apostolic man. The Apostles would not have differed among themselves in teaching, nor would an apostolic man have taught contrary to the Apostles, unless those who were taught by the Apostles then preached otherwise.
Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those Churches which are of much later date – for they are being established daily – and whose founder is not from among the Apostles nor from among the apostolic men; for those which agree in the same faith are reckoned as apostolic on account of the blood ties in their doctrine. Then let all heresies prove how they regard themselves as apostolic, when they are challenged by our Churches to meet either test. But in fact they are not apostolic, nor can they prove themselves to be what they are not. Neither are they received in peace and communion by the Churches which are in any way apostolic, since on account of their diverse belief they are in no way apostolic (The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:1 [A.D. 200]).
Epiphanius
During the days of that Anicetus, bishop of Rome, who succeeded Pius and his predecessors, For, in Rome, Peter and Paul were the first both apostles and bishops; then came Linus, then Cletus … However the succession of the bishops in Rome was in the following order. Peter and Paul, and Cletus, Clement… (Panarion, 27:6 [A.D. 377])
In light of all this, especially since it was a doctrine of the early Church and the ante- and post-Nicene Church Fathers, what explaination does Protestantism give to answer this?
 
Here are some more quotes from the Church Fathers:
Firmilian
Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination. (To Cyprian, Epistle 75:16 [A.D. 256]).
Athanasius
While before your election you lived to yourself, after it, you live for your flock. And before you had received the grace of the episcopate, no one knew you; but after you became one, the laity expect you to bring them food, namely instruction from the Scriptures … For if all were of the same mind as your present advisers, how would you have become a Christian, since there would be no bishops? Or if our successors are to inherit this state of mind, how will the Churches be able to hold together? (To Dracontius, Epistle 49 [A.D. 355]).
Lucifer of Calaris
Believe as we believe, we, who are, by succession from the blessed apostles, bishops; confess as we and they have confessed, the only Son of God, and thus shalt thou obtain forgiveness for thy numerous crimes. (On St. Athanasius [A.D. 361]).
Hilary of Poitiers
We shall not recede from the faith … as once laid it continues even to this say, through the tradition of the fathers, according to the succession from the apostles, even to the discussion had at Nicea against the heresy which had, at that period, sprung up. (History Fragment 7 [before A.D. 367]).
Firmilion of Caesarea
But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics, and who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: “Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven;” and by this, again in the gospel, when Christ breathed upon the Apostles alone, saying to them; “Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any mans sins, they shall be retained.” Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place (Letter to Cyprian 75:16 [A.D. 255-256]).
We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and the ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than as the churches of God have by succession transmitted to us. [Commentary on Matthew [post-A.D. 244])
Clement of Alexandria
After the death of the tyrant, the [Apostle John] came back again to Ephesus from the Island of Patmos; and, upon being invited, he went even to the neighboring cities of the pagans, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, and there to ordain to the clerical estate such as were designated by the Spirit (Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? 42:2 [inter 190-210 A.D.])
 
The Early Church believed that authentic authority and ability to preside over the Sacraments came through Apostolic Succession.

In light of all this, especially since it was a doctrine of the early Church and the ante- and post-Nicene Church Fathers, what explaination does Protestantism give to answer this?
I suppose the quick answer is that lots of Protestants believe that the Catholic Church became apostate and therefore has no legitimate claim to the notion of apostolic succession.
 
I suppose the quick answer is that lots of Protestants believe that the Catholic Church became apostate and therefore has no legitimate claim to the notion of apostolic succession.
I did not ask about the Roman Church. I asked how do Protestants reconcile what the early Church believed about Apostolic Succession to there total lack of it?
 
I did not ask about the Roman Church. I asked how do Protestants reconcile what the early Church believed about Apostolic Succession to there total lack of it?
I think that lots, or maybe most Protestants believe that the idea of apostolic succession as defined by the Catholic Church is not true. Therefore the people who attempted to reform the Catholic Church but failed needed to go forward with a system that was different. I suppose one could say that the RCC destroyed the idea of apostolic succession by her apostasy. The reformation necessarily resulted in a different system. It was necessary because the RCC would not reform. Luther clearly wanted reform of the RCC. He kept many of the teachings of the original Church, but he and others were forced to find a new way that was not in apostasy.
 
I think that lots, or maybe most Protestants believe that the idea of apostolic succession as defined by the Catholic Church is not true. Therefore the people who attempted to reform the Catholic Church but failed needed to go forward with a system that was different. I suppose one could say that the RCC destroyed the idea of apostolic succession by her apostasy. The reformation necessarily resulted in a different system. It was necessary because the RCC would not reform. Luther clearly wanted reform of the RCC. He kept many of the teachings of the original Church, but he and others were forced to find a new way that was not in apostasy.
Your missing my point. I’m asking about what the Protestant communities think of the fact that they are missing something that the early Church considered vitally important, as shown in the quotes of the Fathers.

(Coupled with the fact that all the ancient Churches hold to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, so it couldn’t have just been conjured up by the Roman Catholic Church.)
 
I did not ask about the Roman Church. I asked how do Protestants reconcile what the early Church believed about Apostolic Succession to there total lack of it?
When one creates ones own church in ones own image they either don’t need apostolic succession or they make it up as they go along. I’ve seen both.

CDL
 
Your missing my point. I’m asking about what the Protestant communities think of the fact that they are missing something that the early Church considered vitally important, as shown in the quotes of the Fathers.

(Coupled with the fact that all the ancient Churches hold to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, so it couldn’t have just been conjured up by the Roman Catholic Church.)
The reformation was all about the RCC. The RCC held the belief in apostolic succession. The reformers were forced to refute the RCC’s claim of apostolic succession and leave it behind because of the apostasy of the RCC.

Furthermore, most Protestants do not believe that Peter was the foundation of the church that Christ founded. Protestants don’t believe that basic Catholic idea. Protestants believe that Christ founded His church on the confession of Peter that Christ is the Son of the living God. To Protestants it’s all about Christ Jesus. It’s not about men.

Apostolic succession just isn’t valid in the way that Catholics view it, to Protestants that is.
 
The reformation was all about the RCC. The RCC held the belief in apostolic succession. The reformers were forced to refute the RCC’s claim of apostolic succession and leave it behind because of the apostasy of the RCC.

Furthermore, most Protestants do not believe that Peter was the foundation of the church that Christ founded. Protestants don’t believe that basic Catholic idea. Protestants believe that Christ founded His church on the confession of Peter that Christ is the Son of the living God. To Protestants it’s all about Christ Jesus. It’s not about men.

Apostolic succession just isn’t valid in the way that Catholics view it, to Protestants that is.
Are you avoiding it on purpose? All I wanted to know is (basically) how do Protestants react to the fact that they are lacking what the early Church considered essential (never mind the Roman Church at this point!).

By the way, what denomination of Protestant are you, Namesake?
 
The Early Church believed that authentic authority and ability to preside over the Sacraments came through Apostolic Succession.

In light of all this, especially since it was a doctrine of the early Church and the ante- and post-Nicene Church Fathers, what explaination does Protestantism give to answer this?
Anglicanism never abandoned Apostolic Succession.
 
Are you avoiding it on purpose? All I wanted to know is (basically) how do Protestants react to the fact that they are lacking what the early Church considered essential (never mind the Roman Church at this point!).
Protestants do not believe that what you call essential, is essential. You are seeing it through Catholic teaching. Protestants do not believe that Catholic teaching is correct in this matter. It is a non issue.

Protestants do not believe that the early church considered it essential at all, in the way RCCs believe.
 
Are you avoiding it on purpose? All I wanted to know is (basically) how do Protestants react to the fact that they are lacking what the early Church considered essential (never mind the Roman Church at this point!).

By the way, what denomination of Protestant are you, Namesake?
They just don’t agree that it is essential. And according to the posters who have spoken so far, they don’t believe it exists anywhere in the first place, so they don’t feel they are abandoning it.
 
I suppose the quick answer is that lots of Protestants believe that the Catholic Church became apostate and therefore has no legitimate claim to the notion of apostolic succession.
When do you believe that Catholic Church “became apostate”? As an orthodox Christian, we believe that Rome abandonned the faith when it unilaterally changed the Creed (catholics, let’s time out on our dispute for now to keep focused on this thread). When exactly do you believe this apostacy happened?
 
Protestants do not believe that what you call essential, is essential. You are seeing it through Catholic teaching. Protestants do not believe that Catholic teaching is correct in this matter. It is a non issue.
So Protestants just throw out what the early Church and the later Church Fathers believed and taught??? They call an Apostolic truth a non-issue???
 
Ah, you and I agree there I do believe.
Are you Anglican, SIA? I am (Part of the independent Anglican Church of the Chesapeake, with valid Apostolic Succession derived from Orthodox bishops and Independent Roman bishops).
 
When do you believe that Catholic Church “became apostate”? As an orthodox Christian, we believe that Rome abandonned the faith when it unilaterally changed the Creed (catholics, let’s time out on our dispute for now to keep focused on this thread). When exactly do you believe this apostacy happened?
I don’t know when it happened in the first instance, but it was apparent for all to see when Luther attempted to reform the Church and she would not be reformed. Certainly the Church came into apostasy earlier, even before 1054. It was a gradual process, but it probably began very early, like when the Creed was changed, or even before that.
 
Are you Anglican, SIA? I am (Part of the independent Anglican Church of the Chesapeake, with valid Apostolic Succession derived from Orthodox bishops and Independent Roman bishops).
Church of Uganda
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top