Succession

[challenger]

I get the feeling this has been asked before, and it’s kind of a convoluted question, but here goes…

Acts 1:20- a successor was appointed to Judas’ office. Now, weren’t all the bishops appointed by the apostles successors to the apostles? If so, why was only one chosen here- Matthias.

Ah, but is it only the specific office of Judas in mind, and the other bishops appointed had new offices created for them? If so, are there 12 specific successors to the apostles roaming the earth today? Or 14, counting Paul and the other guy?

Now, if not, was Judas’ office as apostle only applicable through the apostolic age? If so, why is the office of Peter applicable through more than the apostolic age- or is his apostolic office not, but rather his office of chief bishop? Did, then, he hold two distinct offices?

We can postulate that, but then why would Acts 1:20 be pointed to as proof of apostolic succession?

 

[Angainor]

challenger:

Now, if not, was Judas’ office as apostle only applicable through the apostolic age?

Yes. Luke is very clear on that point.
“…Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
Acts 1:21-22

It seems successors to 12 apostles must themselves be eyewitnesses to the events. After a generation, there would be no more applicants.

challenger:

If so, why is the office of Peter applicable through more than the apostolic age- or is his apostolic office not, but rather his office of chief bishop? Did, then, he hold two distinct offices?

We can postulate that, but then why would Acts 1:20 be pointed to as proof of apostolic succession?

Good questions. I would like to hear the answers as well.

 

[RyanL]

This link appears to answer the question quite nicely:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

God bless,
RyanL

 

[Atreyu]

I’m reading “101 questions on the bible” by Raymond Brown at the moment (I mention that name with some trepidation…). Although he doesn’t specifically say it, I think he has a particular view on the 12 and on the Apostles which I had not come across before, and I think it makes sense. Instead of me trying to paraphrase him (and most likely failing), I will try and say it as I understand it.

The Twelve and the Apostles are two different entitites. Matthias replaces Judas as one of the Twelve. However, later on after it seems Paul has been appointed as an Apostle, there is still talk of the Twelve. I can’t remember where this is in the bible (sorry). Anyway, Peter and Paul were both Apostles, but (possibly) Paul wasn’t one of the Twelve. Whether or not all of the Twelve are Apostles is up for discussion, but I don’t think it is really all that important. What is important is to say that the appointment of Matthias isn’t necessarily evidence of Apostolic succession. There are only twelve tribes of Israel and there is the Twelve: Peter, John, Matthew, James, Matthias etc. However there is still evidence of Apostolic succession in the bible, namely Paul himself! Also there is Timothy, and in his letter to Timothy, Paul mentions two generations beyond Timothy.

Although you might disagree with this theory (and indeed, I am not proclaiming it as the Truth, merely putting it forward as a theory), I only invite you to give it some thought. Also, I must emphasize that I don’t have this exactly as Raymond Brown had it, so please forgive me if I wrote something that isn’t consistent with his teachings.