Tertullian on Apostolic Tradition and Succession

[Augustine3]

Apostolic Tradition

From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth. – Prescription against Heretics Chapter 21

Apostolic Succession

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith. - Prescription against Heretics Chapter 32

 

[Augustine3]

I would love too read some feedback from my Protestant brethern regarding their thoughts about Tertullian’s assertion.

 

[susanlo]

I would love too read some feedback from my Protestant brethern regarding their thoughts about Tertullian’s assertion.

As I understand it, at the time Tertullian wrote this there were many Gnostic sects that were claiming to have teachings or traditions that were separate from the Scripture teaching and the teachings of the Apostles. They were claiming to have access to this special knowledge that was entrusted to them alone in order to influence people to join their sect. Tertullian thought it was important to check for the source of their teachings and whether these men had learned their teachings from the Apostles or whether they were created by others or the Gnostic heretics themselves. He thought their teachings should be compared to the teaching of the Apostles and the Scriptures to see if it is genuine. I don’t think he is implying anything more than this in these sections of the writing.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

As I understand it, at the time Tertullian wrote this there were many Gnostic sects that were claiming to have teachings or traditions that were separate from the Scripture teaching and the teachings of the Apostles. They were claiming to have access to this special knowledge that was entrusted to them alone in order to influence people to join their sect. Tertullian thought it was important to check for the source of their teachings and whether these men had learned their teachings from the Apostles or whether they were created by others or the Gnostic heretics themselves. He thought their teachings should be compared to the teaching of the Apostles and the Scriptures to see if it is genuine. I don’t think he is implying anything more than this in these sections of the writing.

I don’t think any Catholic would disagree with your conclusion of Tertullian addressing his contemporary heretics trying to infect his Catholic faith.

Tertullian’s comments is the same comments the Catholic Church has made in every age after him.

One can find the TRUE Christian Apostolic faith and revelations of Jesus Christ. When ever one can trace their apostolic, unchangeable, Traditional teachings and their apostolic succession directly to an apostle.

Speaking as a Latin Rite Catholic. My faith and Church apostolic succession can be traced, unbroken back to the original apostle St. Peter.

Tertullian makes the same argument St. Paul makes, there can be only One Faith, One Lord, One baptism in One Church. Which Tertullian argues, one can know the Church of Jesus Christ, when ever one can trace their teachings, (apostolic Tradition) and apostolic succession directly to an apostle.

Tertullian championed against the heretics of his day, because the heretics could not prove their existence traced back to an original apostle. The best they could do, was to trace their heretical faith back to heretics during apostolic times. when Peter and Paul faced them.

Peace be with you

 

[gazelam]

Apostolic Succession

Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.

One can find the TRUE Christian Apostolic faith and revelations of Jesus Christ. When ever one can trace their apostolic, unchangeable, Traditional teachings and their apostolic succession directly to an apostle.

Speaking as a Latin Rite Catholic. My faith and Church apostolic succession can be traced, unbroken back to the original apostle St. Peter.

90% of Catholic bishops trace their succession through Cardinal Rebiba in the 1500s. It is unknown who ordained Cardinal Rebiba. Therefore 90% of Catholic bishops cannot trace their authority back to an Apostle.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

90% of Catholic bishops trace their succession through Cardinal Rebiba in the 1500s. It is unknown who ordained Cardinal Rebiba. Therefore 90% of Catholic bishops cannot trace their authority back to an Apostle.

Sounds like a sketchy and iffy conclusion to me.

 

[gazelam]

Sounds like a sketchy and iffy conclusion to me.

Not sketchy… Here’s Jimmy Akin commenting on the issue: jimmyakin.com/037-unbroken-chain-of-apostolic-succession-bible-software-update

It’s the case of a Cardinal named Scipione Rebiba. He has a very unusual property. He lived back in the 1500’s, at the time he didn’t have the property he’s famous for today. That’s something that he probably would have been very surprised to learn that he would eventually have only because it developed through the course of time.

In his own day, he was a bishop, he was also a cardinal but like many bishops he did other Episcopal consecrations; he ordained other bishops and they went on to ordain more bishops. In the 1700’s something very interesting happened. One of them became the Pope; Benedict XII. Unlike most popes, Benedict XII had a real passion for doing Episcopal consecrations, especially for big and important Sees.

He ordained bunches of bishops instead of leavening that task to other bishops. Some of the bishops he ordained went to the new world, which was having a lot of Catholic growth. He ordained important Sees in Europe who then ordained other people and his line really blossomed. Today because of that, something like 91% of all Catholic bishops shared this lineage.

Here’s the twist, the ordination records for Scipione Rebiba have been lost…so we’re not entirely sure who consecrated him. It is widely thought that he was consecrated by Gian Pietro Carafa who was later Pope Paul IV. He may well have been ordained by a highly placed man indeed. But because we’re not entirely sure who ordained him and because Benedict XII was so enthusiastic about performing ordinations himself, we have this weird situation were 91% of Catholic bishops are part of this lineage and we can’t see, with clarity, where it goes beyond that. Some people could look at that and say what if Rebiba’s ordination was invalid.

Would that mean all these other bishops had invalid ordinations? No and there are several reasons why. The dominate reason is the fact that there’s a double redundancy built into the Episcopal ordination process. Even if we aren’t sure exactly Gian Pietro Carafa was the guy who ordained Cardinal Rebiba, we know somebody did.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Not sketchy… Here’s Jimmy Akin commenting on the issue: jimmyakin.com/037-unbroken-chain-of-apostolic-succession-bible-software-update

The source you provided directly contradicts your assertion. It says that we can trace them back to the apostles even though we cannot confirm who specifically consecrated Rebiba.

 

[gazelam]

The source you provided directly contradicts your assertion. It says that we can trace them back to the apostles even though we cannot confirm who specifically consecrated Rebiba.

I don’t expect Jimmy Akin to oppose Catholic teaching. I only quoted him to show the issue wasn’t sketchy. If it were, he wouldn’t have addressed it.

Jimmy Akin specifically said “Even if we aren’t sure exactly Gian Pietro Carafa was the guy who ordained Cardinal Rebiba, we know somebody did.”

The OP quoted Tertullian regarding the necessity of being able to name the bishop’s predecessor (i.e., “which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter”).

In answer to the OP’s question to what Protestants think (I’m not Protestant, but neither am I Catholic) of Tertullian’s quote, I say that the Tertullian quote is not today’s Catholic practice since the Cardinal Rebiba issue shows that not all Catholic bishop predecessors need to be definitively named. That’s all.

 

[susanlo]

I don’t think any Catholic would disagree with your conclusion of Tertullian addressing his contemporary heretics trying to infect his Catholic faith.

Tertullian’s comments is the same comments the Catholic Church has made in every age after him.

One can find the TRUE Christian Apostolic faith and revelations of Jesus Christ. When ever one can trace their apostolic, unchangeable, Traditional teachings and their apostolic succession directly to an apostle.

Speaking as a Latin Rite Catholic. My faith and Church apostolic succession can be traced, unbroken back to the original apostle St. Peter.

Tertullian makes the same argument St. Paul makes, there can be only One Faith, One Lord, One baptism in One Church. Which Tertullian argues, one can know the Church of Jesus Christ, when ever one can trace their teachings, (apostolic Tradition) and apostolic succession directly to an apostle.

Tertullian championed against the heretics of his day, because the heretics could not prove their existence traced back to an original apostle. The best they could do, was to trace their heretical faith back to heretics during apostolic times. when Peter and Paul faced them.

Peace be with you

Tertullian had believed that he and his peers were recipients of the teaching from the Apostles. His writing shows that he knew the Scriptures well and was well versed in Christian teaching. He doesn’t mention in the above writings (or anywhere as far as I am aware) that he is concerned that these Gnostic heretics are unable to perform valid sacraments because they did not receive proper ordination. He is only concerned as to whether the content of their teachings match the content of the Apostles’ teachings.

When we look at what Tertullian’s teaching contained we see certain teachings such as:

On Baptism Chapter 18
And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks…If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.
newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

On the Resurrection of the Flesh Chapter 37
He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; John 6:63 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life.
newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm

On Modesty Chapter 21
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? On you, He says, will I build My Church; and, I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and, Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound.
newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm

It seems that the Catholic Churches have changed their teachings from the Apostolic teachings of the time of Tertullian. I have learned that in Catholicism the changing of Apostolic teachings is called development of doctrine. I understand that concept of doctrine developing, although I am not certain that this is what Christians should be doing. However if we say that the Catholic teaching is unchangeable we are deceiving ourselves (and others).

I don’t know of any church that does or can practice like Tertullian’s 3rd century Christians did. The churches I have attended have set 1st century Christianity as their example. They do not pretend to practice everything exactly in the same way as the as the 1st century Christians did, but that is what is considered to be the model for the church.

Then again after Tertullian’s death, the Montanist Christians he was affiliated with began to be considered heretics and therefore Tertullian himself is officially a heretic himself by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Augustine3]

90% of Catholic bishops trace their succession through Cardinal Rebiba in the 1500s. It is unknown who ordained Cardinal Rebiba. Therefore 90% of Catholic bishops cannot trace their authority back to an Apostle.

If bishops were able to present documentation of their succession tracing back to the apostles, would it make a difference to your faith i.e. salvation through the Catholic Church through the Sacraments?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

susanlo;14123682]Tertullian had believed that he and his peers were recipients of the teaching from the Apostles. His writing shows that he knew the Scriptures well and was well versed in Christian teaching. He doesn’t mention in the above writings (or anywhere as far as I am aware) that he is concerned that these Gnostic heretics are unable to perform valid sacraments because they did not receive proper ordination. He is only concerned as to whether the content of their teachings match the content of the Apostles’ teachings.

The apostolic content of teaching, is key to which a person in a Christian teaching capacity had to prove, their teaching was handed down to them by Sacred Tradition and Apostolic succession. The heretics of Tertullian’s day were silenced.

The point I made about apostolic succession deals directly with the Bishop of Rome, who has unbroken apostolic succession to St. Peter.

To which all other local bishops in communion with Peter’s Chair (a presiding Pope) are to follow. It is to these local bishops (churches) who can prove their sacred Tradition and apostolic succession to an apostle, when the heretics could not.

As far as naming , tracing back a local bishop to an apostle, in different ages, since the resurrection, one would have to take on a case by case to prove their apostolic succession. Hence, when a particular local bishop is found to be in full communion with the apostolic chair of St. Peter or the presiding Pope of his day, although records may be lost, due to fires or war. The ordination is not questioned due to other bishops who witnessed a particular bishop.

When we look at what Tertullian’s teaching contained we see certain teachings such as:

Tertullian wrote many writings, his writings and teachings while in full communion with the Church, are proven to be apostolic and not in contradiction to the apostolic teachings today. Remember during Tertullian’s time, the Nicene Creed was not formulated yet to defeat Eastern heretics. Yet some of Tertullian’s writing’s were instrumental in the development doctrine of the Trinity and the natures of Christ which is unchanged to today. The apostolic faith has not changed in the Trinity or the natures of Christ. What has developed since Tertullian’s time is the naming of the Trinity, whereby the apostolic faith in the Trinity has never Changed.

Here is where most non-Catholic Christians miss the true history of the Church.

Let us be clear here; Tertullian entered into heresy by his Christians disciplines that went against the apostolic teachings, Although later Tertullian reconciled with the Church, but is never raised to the level of a canonized Saint.

Sacred Apostolic Tradition has never changed in the Catholic Church since the resurrection. She remains Rock. Disciplines can change. Holy Orders cannot change. The Only Holy Orders God ordained is the Bishop, Priest and Deacon. Other ecclesial offices can come and go. Sacraments cannot change, for who can change or remove what God has joined together?

The Trinity is a prime example of development of doctrine. Tertullian emphasized on the Trinity but did not name the Trinity for the whole Church. What has developed is the naming of the Trinity, which points to Tertullian’s Holy Apostolic faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This development of the Trinity is never a change from the original Apostles teaching and baptism in the name of the Trinity which falls under Sacred Tradition that can never change.

The biblical (written Tradition) teachings and practices such as Sacraments and Oral Sacred Tradition such as our Liturgy which the Original Apostles handed down to us, including Holy Orders can never change and has never changed in the Catholic Church.

Disciplines, theological expressions and exegesis can change so long as they do not contradict the Sacred Tradition which Jesus revealed and the apostles handed down.

What you assert to be change in the Church deals with development of doctrine to defeat heretics who opposed Sacred Tradition. The doctrine confirms the Apostolic unchangeable faith from Apostolic Sacred Tradition and separates the sheep of Jesus Christ from false shepherds in every age since the resurrection.

Church doctrine does not change the Apostolic Sacred Tradition and revelations of Jesus Christ. Church doctrine is when the Church exercises here divine Keys handed down to her by Jesus himself to bind and loose upon the whole earth.

We do not look to development of doctrine as a change in the Church, but the apostolic successors exercising their divine Keys which comes from the unchangeable Apostolic Sacred Tradition.

In summary, yes, Tertullian fell into heresy due to his disciplines, as did many other Church fathers. Tertullian reconciled with the Church. The Only Apostolic see that has never fallen into heresy is the Bishop of Rome. Let us not forget the Catholic Martyrs and Saints who never fell into heresy, since the resurrection to today

Peace be with you.

 

[gazelam]

If bishops were able to present documentation of their succession tracing back to the apostles, would it make a difference to your faith i.e. salvation through the Catholic Church through the Sacraments?

No, but having a line of authority back to Jesus Christ is important to me and I personally believe that it is found today on Earth in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Were I a devout Catholic I would probably overlook the Cardinal Rebiba issue.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Tertullian later became a Montanist so I would presume this writing was during the period he was part of the Church right? Does this mean that Tertullian came to reject the necessity of Apostolic continuity when the Montanists did away with the need for Bishops and preferred to place spiritual authority in their Prophet and leaders who claimed the Spirit as giving them authority?

I think we have to take that context into consideration when interpreting Tertullian because it seems obvious he was advocating for some form of Apostolic connection, not merely in teaching but in communion in the quotes given by the OP.

• Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic*

That phrase in particular should prohibit us from saying Tertullian here is saying that merely the faith is important. There are two tests, the historical continuity with the apostolically ordained churches and the faith once for all given and preserved by those churches.

 

[Augustine3]

I personally believe that it is found today on Earth in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

What convinces you of this conclusion?

 

[Augustine3]

Here is a very interesting post that deals with Apostolic Succession

 

[gazelam]

What convinces you of this conclusion?

I’ve received a witness from the Holy Spirit of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon which means that I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Joseph Smith received his authority from Peter, James, and John and in turn passed that authority on to those he ordained. Peter, James, and John received their authority from Jesus Christ. In the LDS church, priesthood authority can be traced back to Jesus Christ through Peter, James, and John through Joseph Smith. I hope this helps.

 

[gazelam]

Here is a very interesting post that deals with Apostolic Succession

Suppose that there were invalid bishops running around in 325 AD (we don’t know that there actually were - there are no records of spurious bishops - but it could have happened). Suppose we accept the ridiculous idea that as many as 1 in 20 bishops was invalid. What is the probability of selecting three invalid bishops? It’s 20 x 20 x 20 (assuming there are at least 22 invalid bishops). That is a probability of 1 in 8000. The first generation of Bishops had 1 in 20 invalid bishops, but the second generation has only 1 in 8000 invalid bishops.

Supposed there were 1 in 20 invalid bishops in 325 AD. What happens to those who were baptized by priests ordained by the invalid bishops? Are they not in Heaven?

 

[TOmNossor]

I would say that Tertullian found that the continuity of Apostolic succession was a GUIDE in knowing where the true doctrine resided, but I do not see how one can claim he saw such as infalliable.
Tertullian ultimately became a Montanist. In some of his writings generally attributed to his pre-Montanist days (as I understand things), he claimed the Pope was “usurp”-ing Peter’s authority. Tertullian doesn’t deny that the Bishop of Rome is in succession with the Apostles, but he denies that the Bishop of Rome can rule (contrary to Tertullian’s opinions) on the rehabilitations of sinners.
More important for the LDS, Tertullian is quite clear that revelation in the church continues. Eusebuis attributes to this time (and this conflict with Tertullian and the Montanists) the elevation of “the historical” over “developing revelation” and puts emphasis upon “scriptural canon.” I echo Eusebuis’ assessment, but instead suggest that the church originally was one of continued revelation and that the idea that “public revelation” ceased with the Apostles was a CHANGE instituting the radical focus upon Tradition as opposed to Revelation. Christ’s church was originally a church led by Revelation.

So, I find in Tertullian a mix of emphasis upon the teachings we can trace to the Apostles through what is TODAY called Apostolic succession AND the recognition that revelation continued and was to continue in the church. This is a very LDS view and only half of it is a Catholic view.

All that being said, I can echo something (I heard) Gazelem said. While the case Catholic’s present from Tertullian and history and … has numerous problems (like 91% of Bishops …) such things in isolation are not so egregious that I think Catholics are unjustified in “overlooking” issues.

So, having offered a little on the OP, I thought I would offer a little on the question you asked Gazelem (and I hope I do not step on his toes).

gazelam;14125610:

I personally believe that it is found today on Earth in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

What convinces you of this conclusion?

While a certain anti-Mormon Catholic poster on this board is a fan of claiming that LDS rely on their spiritual witness to the exclusion of all facts and evidence, I (as best as I can assess the inner workings of my mind) do not.
I think there is great “evidence” present in the idea of continuing revelation, but anyone can claim “continuing revelation.”
I also agree with Gazelem that spiritual witness is critical. But …

But, when I attempt to assess the relative strength of the LDS position vs. other (and most frequently the Catholic) position(s), and I attempt to EXCLUDE spiritual witness; I find the Book of Mormon to be a pillar of such strength it withstands all assaults handily. I simply cannot explain the existence of the BOM without appealing to the supernatural. While I have read about numerous historical problems, I see the positive evidences for the BOM to be virtually impossible to explain via any naturalistic means. I do not think any explanation for the coming forth of the BOM offered by critics explains what is there well at all.

So, I find it perfectly acceptable for LDS to be LDS because God witnessed the truth of the BOM and/or the CoJCoLDS to them directly. But, if the Catholic method of knowing truth frequently advocated by Catholic apologists (some kind of appeal to the “facts” of history) is God’s method, the existence of the BOM is unexplainable for me via some Catholic theory (and the existence of the Pope and the Bishops is quite explainable via some LDS theory).
Charity, TOm

 

[Augustine3]

I’ve received a witness from the Holy Spirit of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon which means that I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Joseph Smith received his authority from Peter, James, and John and in turn passed that authority on to those he ordained. Peter, James, and John received their authority from Jesus Christ. In the LDS church, priesthood authority can be traced back to Jesus Christ through Peter, James, and John through Joseph Smith. I hope this helps.

Interesting.

I have two questions:

1. 
   *]How do you know the witness was sent by the Holy Spirit?
   
   *]How do you know John Smith was a prophet?