Question regarding apostolic succession?

[joe370]

The first question I asked myself as a former non-Catholic, regarding those non-Catholic churches claiming apostolic succession, which I am now asking, here at CAF - was:

Which non-Catholic church in the world today, (leaving the Catholic Church completely out of the picture) - can rightfully trace its provenance all the way back to the apostolic age? In other words, let’s assume for the time being, that the Catholic church never existed. To claim apostolic succession via the Catholic church, all the while rejecting the teachings of the CC as well as rejecting allegiance to Catholic church, does not seem practicably viable. To reject the CC - any organization for that matter, regardless of affiliation, and continue the work of that organization, outside the authoritative structure and purview of that organization, with a new mission statement and vision in mind, all the while claiming continuity with the founders of that organization, seems impracticable and unworkable.

Regarding those non-Catholic churches claiming apostolic succession, there simply does not seem to be a successive continuation/continuity with the apostolic age. It seems more like starting anew, with new founders, and a new authoritative structure as well as a new charter.

I am not “goading or baiting” and I certainly do not want to offend anyone’s sensibilities; just a simple question I pondered long ago. Your thoughts non-Catholics?

Thanks, in advance for any and all feedback…

 

[bjryman]

There have been pockets of disagreement regarding the Church’s teaching from its earliest days. Some religious groups (I most often have had this come from decendants of the Anabaptists) claim that their members have ALWAYS been there, hiding from the Church’s persecutions…and only at the Reformation, being able to “come out of the closet”.

Using that logic almost any religion can claim its descent from a group of believers living about the time of the Apostles

 

[vsedriver]

There have been pockets of disagreement regarding the Church’s teaching from its earliest days. Some religious groups (I most often have had this come from decendants of the Anabaptists) claim that their members have ALWAYS been there, hiding from the Church’s persecutions…and only at the Reformation, being able to “come out of the closet”.

Using that logic almost any religion can claim its descent from a group of believers living about the time of the Apostles

if such a church existed surely there would be written evidence? Correspondence between members, warnings and advice, etc. Unless they are claiming an Oral Tradition? That can’t be it because then they’d have to acknowledge the Catholic Oral Tradition, right?

 

[Nine_Two]

The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East.

 

[Constans]

Thanks, Joe, for an interesting question.

To begin, we should note that the word “Catholic” in the post-apostolic age had a very different connotation from what a “Roman Catholic” might mean today. The very word – katholikos- means “universal”. So Christ’s “universal” church necessarily descends from the apostles by definition. Now Jesus Himself promised that He would send His Holy Spirit to remind His church of all things (John 14:26). These “called out ones” - the ekklesia – are Christ’s true Church. Jesus further instructs us that the work of the Spirit is knowable but not identifiable as to its origins. (John 3:8) So to identify the working of the Spirit as originating in a specific locale – i.e. Rome – seems to contradict Christ and His intention for apostolic succession.

And there are many problems with the “apostolic claims” made by Rome. The first is that the only mention of it in the Bible is from Paul to his follower, Timothy. Timothy, as history shows, became the bishop at Ephesus which is an “eastern” church. So the problem initially is that apostolic succession leads away from Rome.

Another problem is that there have been many gaps in “succession”. How did the church operate when there was no one in the seat of Peter – something that has happened quite frequently in history?

And lastly, the papacy has often been filled with political appointees who have no relation at all to whatever “apostolic succession” might mean. Calvin made this point to the King of France regarding the Council of Basle,

Coming back to your question, non-Roman Catholic churches lay claim to apostolic succession in the same way that Augustine did. And that is, that A.S. is really the correct interpretation of Scripture as can be discerned through the ages. So when Calvin or Luther cite Augustine who cites the Apostle Paul that is an indication of true apostolic succession.

I wish you well.

Peace.

 

[joe370]

The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East.

I totally agree with you brother. I was mainly referring to the protestant churches but I don’t like using such an ugly word. The various EOC’s can trace their lineage all the way back to one of the apostles, just as the CC can trace its lineage all the way back to Peter. I considered the EOC(es) in my non-Catholic days, but wanted to belong to the church of Matthew 16:

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock* I will build my church, *and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Thinks for the feedback…

 

[gmcbroom]

The Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East are Catholic though their traditions are different due to culture but the Doctrines are similiar to the Catholic Church and they claim to be Catholic though its a broad term and they would be correct. Wow it’s been awhile since I’ve done a run on sentence.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[ignatius777]

Thanks, Joe, for an interesting question.

To begin, we should note that the word “Catholic” in the post-apostolic age had a very different connotation from what a “Roman Catholic” might mean today. The very word – katholikos- means “universal”. So Christ’s “universal” church necessarily descends from the apostles by definition. Now Jesus Himself promised that He would send His Holy Spirit to remind His church of all things (John 14:26). These “called out ones” - the ekklesia – are Christ’s true Church. Jesus further instructs us that the work of the Spirit is knowable but not identifiable as to its origins. (John 3:8) So to identify the working of the Spirit as originating in a specific locale – i.e. Rome – seems to contradict Christ and His intention for apostolic succession.

And there are many problems with the “apostolic claims” made by Rome. The first is that the only mention of it in the Bible is from Paul to his follower, Timothy. Timothy, as history shows, became the bishop at Ephesus which is an “eastern” church. So the problem initially is that apostolic succession leads away from Rome.

Another problem is that there have been many gaps in “succession”. How did the church operate when there was no one in the seat of Peter – something that has happened quite frequently in history?

And lastly, the papacy has often been filled with political appointees who have no relation at all to whatever “apostolic succession” might mean. Calvin made this point to the King of France regarding the Council of Basle,

Coming back to your question, non-Roman Catholic churches lay claim to apostolic succession in the same way that Augustine did. And that is, that A.S. is really the correct interpretation of Scripture as can be discerned through the ages. So when Calvin or Luther cite Augustine who cites the Apostle Paul that is an indication of true apostolic succession.

I wish you well.

Peace.

And even with all that the catholic church still stands. Every parish in every community can be traced back to the catholic church which can be traed back to Peter. I seriously doubt there are any protestant parishes that can make the same claim.

 

[joe370]

Constans;7515613]Thanks, Joe, for an interesting question.

To begin, we should note that the word “Catholic” in the post-apostolic age had a very different connotation from what a “Roman Catholic” might mean today.

I believe, as a former non-Catholic, that the word “Catholic” in the post-apostolic age had a very different connotation from what non-Catholics believe today. Protestant author, with which I agree, who is honest about this is the renowned early-Church historian J. N. D. Kelly wrote:

*“As regards Catholic,' its original meaning was universal’ or `general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).
*

The very word – katholikos- means “universal”. So Christ’s “universal” church necessarily descends from the apostles by definition.

Agreed.

Now Jesus Himself promised that He would send His Holy Spirit to remind His church of all things (John 14:26). These “called out ones” - the ekklesia – are Christ’s true Church.

Regarding the church of Matthew 16? I agree.

Jesus further instructs us that the work of the Spirit is knowable but not identifiable as to its origins. (John 3:8)

Of course no one can identify the origins of the work of the Holy Spirit. It’s quite inscrutable and ineffable! How the HS guiides Jesus’ church to all truth is a mystery.

So to identify the working of the Spirit as originating in a specific locale – i.e. Rome – seems to contradict Christ and His intention for apostolic succession.

The origin of the work of the holy spirit, is Pentecost. The HS, since Pentecost, has been guiding Jesus’ church of Matthew 16, John 16 and John 14, according to scripture.

And there are many problems with the “apostolic claims” made by Rome. The first is that the only mention of it in the Bible is from Paul to his follower, Timothy. Timothy, as history shows, became the bishop at Ephesus which is an “eastern” church. So the problem initially is that apostolic succession leads away from Rome.

The bible tells us that Jesus built (still building) - His church on Kepha, and there is ample evidence from the early church fathers that this actually happened in Rome. Still waiting for your response to the OP??? Remember: I asked people to pretend as if the Catholic church never existed!!!

Another problem is that there have been many gaps in “succession”. How did the church operate when there was no one in the seat of Peter – something that has happened quite frequently in history? And lastly, the papacy has often been filled with political appointees who have no relation at all to whatever “apostolic succession” might mean. Calvin made this point to the King of France regarding the Council of Basle,

Start a thread and ask that question and I would be happy to address it. Please stick to the OP. Please do not derail it. Thanks friend.

Coming back to your question, non-Roman Catholic churches lay claim to apostolic succession in the same way that Augustine did.

And that is, that A.S. is really the correct interpretation of Scripture as can be discerned through the ages.

So A.S. interprets scripture? Again, let’s assume the CC never existed! Please bypass the Catholic church altogether, and then trace any one protestant church all the way back to the apostolic age?

So when Calvin or Luther cite Augustine who cites the Apostle Paul that is an indication of true apostolic succession.

So if I start a church tomorrow, just as Luther and Calvin did, and it thrives, and I cite Augustine who cites the Apostle Paul, that too is an indication that my church possesses true apostolic succession???

 

[joe370]

The Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East are Catholic though their traditions are different due to culture but the Doctrines are similiar to the Catholic Church and they claim to be Catholic though its a broad term and they would be correct. Wow it’s been awhile since I’ve done a run on sentence.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

I agree with you brother. John Paul II stated that an end to the Great Schism was one of his fondest wishes. Healing divisions between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches regarding Latin and Byzantine traditions was clearly of great personal interest. For a number of years John Paul II actively sought to facilitate dialogue and unity stating as early as 1988 that “Europe has two lungs, it will never breathe easily until it uses both of them”.

 

[bjryman]

Staying with the theme of the OP…any group that started as a result of the original 11 plus 1…and of course Paul, would most likely claim hereditary “ownership” to their succession.

There are a couple of facts (scriptural and oral tradition) that comprise the basic apostolic succession concept. 1. Scriptural…“You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shal not prevail against it”. 2. The “validation” , yes the “confirmation” of those chosen to lead early church’s (rather quickly evolving into the “Bishop” title) by the Apostles, through invitation by Paul. That confimation being done often by “laying on of hands” as noted in scripture and tradition.

So, any organization that would claim apostolic succession would really need to take ownership of the prime thread of the Christian Community that over the years became the most prevelant accepted view of “the Church”.(this time Capital “C” intended to mean the Official version of the community)

I think a scenario like the above would be one you might expect

 

[agent_grey]

Proving or demonstrating succession is an impossibility. The same goes for anybody claiming to be a Catholic or Orthodox Priest/bishop. The same goes for any canon of scripture. Proving what scripures are God breathed and wich are not is also a ludacris proposition.

What you need to look for to determine succesion is UNITY. And world wide unity. You need to find absolute intolerance for any and all that are not part of said unity.

 

[joe370]

Proving or demonstrating succession is an impossibility.

Specifically when did apostolic succession end, or, is determining when, also impossible?

The same goes for any canon of scripture. Proving what scripures are God breathed and wich are not is also a ludacris proposition.

So you are an orthodox catholic suggesting that the 27 books of the NT might not be God breathed?

What you need to look for to determine succesion is UNITY.

You lost me, but no need to elaborate.

And world wide unity. You need to find absolute intolerance for any and all that are not part of said unity.

Wow, good luck with that. Thanks for answering the question. I did not expect that answer from anyone.

 

[AngloCatholic1]

joe370,

This is a great thread. I also found myself asking this question when I was a protestant (I am a recent convert to Catholicism). I think those protestants who are following this thread are beginning to see the strength of the Catholic argument here. So far, all I’ve seen is feeble attempts to redefine “catholic” and “succession”; as if others can claim the label “catholic” whilst holding to particular doctrines, and claim “succession” by spiritually leaping over several generations of the laying on of hands!

I’d like to bring everyone’s attention to the Jerusalem Council mentioned in Acts 15. Here we see how the Christian Church handled the first really divisive issue over doctrine. The issue was whether or not gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to receive Christ. The issue, and its outcome, are not important here. What IS important are TWO things: **1) Everyone was in agreement that the ONE Church had to come to an agreement on this question, and 2) The agreement, once reached, was BINDING on ALL those who continued to call themselves “Christians”. **In other words, nobody could continue to insist on circumcision for gentile converts and still be preaching Christianity.

Contrary to the ignorant teachings of some protestants, this process of developing Church doctrine did NOT cease once the New Testament scripture had been canonized. Scripture did NOT, and can NOT, replace the Church. How could it? It’s not as though ALL of the controversial issues affecting the formation of doctrine are recorded in the scriptures. The process of illuminating and expounding upon Christian doctrine has been on-going for almost 2000 years, and is STILL going on today. It is done today the same way it has ALWAYS been done since the beginning; in the Councils of the ONE Church.

Now the question is: **How can any “Christian” group REJECT the doctrinal statements of the ONE Church, the Church which claims apostolic succession by the laying-on of hands since the time of the Apostles, and still claim “Apostolic Succession”? **In order to do this, they have to prove two things: 1) The Church which Christ set-up on this earth and claimed would NOT fail, has indeed failed! 2) Apostolic Succession was only essential until the scriptures were canonized; Sola Scriptura is true, and all “Christians” who are armed with the canonized scriptures will always reach common agreement on all matters of doctrine! Anglican claimants must try to prove #1, and even if they succeed they’ll violate scripture (Matt. 16:18)! Other protestants must try to prove #2, with the reality of thousands of different disagreeing denominations staring them in the face!

In other words, I think the debate is closed. You simply will NOT find anyone able to “prove” apostolic succession outside of the Catholic/Orthodox traditions.

 

[JonNC]

Ok, Joe, I have a question, because these two statements appear to me to be contradictory.

=joe370;7515836]Which non-Catholic church in the world today, (leaving the Catholic Church completely out of the picture) - can rightfully trace its provenance all the way back to the apostolic age? **In other words, let’s assume for the time being, that the Catholic church never existed. **To claim apostolic succession via the Catholic church, all the while rejecting the teachings of the CC as well as rejecting allegiance to Catholic church, does not seem practicably viable.

I totally agree with you brother. I was mainly referring to the protestant churches but I don’t like using such an ugly word. The various EOC’s can trace their lineage all the way back to one of the apostles, just as the CC can trace its lineage all the way back to Peter. I considered the EOC(es) in my non-Catholic days, but wanted to belong to the church of Matthew 16:

If, in fact, the Catholic Church had never existed the premise of the thread), how could the Orthodox, who were once part of the Catholic Church (or, was the Catholic Church once part of Orthodoxy - topic for another thread ) claim to be in succession?
But let’s say they split from Rome, don’t they also trace their lines through the Catholic Church?

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

If, in fact, the Catholic Church had never existed the premise of the thread), how could the Orthodox, who were once part of the Catholic Church (or, was the Catholic Church once part of Orthodoxy - topic for another thread ) claim to be in succession?

I believe, the EOC can trace its origin all the way back to the apostolic age, so even if the Catholic Church of Rome never existed, hypothetically speaking, the EOC could still exist today, and there are no protestant offshoots of the EOC. The same cannot be said about the CC. Take the CC out of the equation and and every PC would cease to exist, unless I have overlooked something.

But let’s say they split from Rome, don’t they also trace their lines through the Catholic Church?

Technically, as you know, there was just one CC, as Ignatius of Antioch, of the east pointed out, until the great east west schism. All of those catholic churches in the north south, east and the west, prior to the schism, could trace their lines all the way back to the apostolic age. The EOC (other than the break away churches of the EOC, such as the Chalcedonian churches) - was not a break away church of the CC, and therefore the RCC is not necessary for them to trace their lines all the way back…

 

[joe370]

Hey AngloCatholic, those are excellent points and excellent questions. Thanks for the feedback brother.

Contrary to the ignorant teachings of some protestants, this process of developing Church doctrine did NOT cease once the New Testament scripture had been canonized. Scripture did NOT, and can NOT, replace the Church. How could it? It’s not as though ALL of the controversial issues affecting the formation of doctrine are recorded in the scriptures. The process of illuminating and expounding upon Christian doctrine has been on-going for almost 2000 years, and is STILL going on today. It is done today the same way it has ALWAYS been done since the beginning; in the Councils of the ONE Church.

Now the question is: **How can any “Christian” group REJECT the doctrinal statements of the ONE Church, the Church which claims apostolic succession by the laying-on of hands since the time of the Apostles, and still claim “Apostolic Succession”? **In order to do this, they have to prove two things: 1) The Church which Christ set-up on this earth and claimed would NOT fail, has indeed failed! 2) Apostolic Succession was only essential until the scriptures were canonized; Sola Scriptura is true, and all “Christians” who are armed with the canonized scriptures will always reach common agreement on all matters of doctrine! Anglican claimants must try to prove #1, and even if they succeed they’ll violate scripture (Matt. 16:18)! Other protestants must try to prove #2, with the reality of thousands of different disagreeing denominations staring them in the face!

**In other words, I think the debate is closed. You simply will NOT **find anyone able to “prove” apostolic succession outside of the Catholic/Orthodox traditions.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7520986]Hey Jon…
I believe, the EOC can trace its origin all the way back to the apostolic age, so even if the Catholic Church of Rome never existed, hypothetically speaking, the EOC could still exist today, and there are no protestant offshoots of the EOC. The same cannot be said about the CC. Take the CC out of the equation and and every PC would cease to exist, unless I have overlooked something.

No, you haven’t overlooked our undeniable link to the western Church. My question is more directed to the idea that, without the Chair of Peter, there is no Church, and that Orthodoxy has schismed from Rome, wich means even their AS is of the Catholic Church.
Maybe I’m hearing the ideas of the more triumphalist Catholics.

Technically, as you know, there was just one CC, as Ignatius of Antioch, of the east pointed out, until the great east west schism. All of those catholic churches in the north south, east and the west, prior to the schism, could trace their lines all the way back to the apostolic age. The EOC (other than the break away churches of the EOC, such as the Chalcedonian churches) - was not a break away church of the CC, and therefore the RCC is not necessary for them to trace their lines all the way back…

Have they not all broken from the Chair of Peter?

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Orthodoxy is indeed in schism from Catholicism. They have broken unity with the Chair. And Pope Benedict XVI has made it clear that Orthodoxy, while holding valid sacraments and apostolicity, is essentially defective in the vacuum of true magisterial leadership lacking the pope. That is my understanding.

No, you haven’t overlooked our undeniable link to the western Church. My question is more directed to the idea that, without the Chair of Peter, there is no Church, and that Orthodoxy has schismed from Rome, wich means even their AS is of the Catholic Church.
Maybe I’m hearing the ideas of the more triumphalist Catholics.

Have they not all broken from the Chair of Peter?

Jon

 

[AngloCatholic1]

Orthodoxy is indeed in schism from Catholicism. They have broken unity with the Chair. And Pope Benedict XVI has made it clear that Orthodoxy, while holding valid sacraments and apostolicity, is essentially defective in the vacuum of true magisterial leadership lacking the pope. That is my understanding.

Agreed. Yes, there is schism with regard to recognizing the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, but they have nevertheless maintained an unbroken line of apostolic succession in the simplest sense of the term (if not in the fullest sense).