What is wrong with Apostolic Succession? Isn’t it an important aspect of Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jimmy_B

Guest
http://www.allsaintssanfran.org/Twelve Apostles/Peter/Peter, Christ Charge to Rubens.jpg

What is wrong with [Apostolic Succession (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm)? Isn’t it important?

[Catechism (CCC) Search for “Apostolic Succession”. (http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.co...=0&q=Apostolic+Succession&xsubmit=Search&s=SS)

**Apostolic Succession is support by Christian History, Christian Tradition and Biblically. **

What is wrong with [Apostolic Succession (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm)? Isn’t it an important aspect of Christianity?
Much historical and patristic evidence also exists for the bishopric of St. Peter at Rome. No one disputes the fact that St. Clement (d.c.101) was the sole bishop of Rome a little later, or that St. Ignatius (d.c.110) was the bishop at Antioch, starting around 69 A.D. Thus, the “monarchical” bishop is both a biblical concept and an unarguable fact of the early Church. By the time we get to the mid-second century, virtually all historians hold that single bishops led each Christian community. This was to be the case in all Christendom, east and west, until Luther transferred this power to the secular princes in the 16th century, and the Anabaptist tradition eschewed ecclesiastical office either altogether or in large part. Today many denominations have no bishops whatsoever.
Found here
Click to expand...
Additional Recourses:

Apostolic Succession supported in the Bible;
  • Gal 1:19, 2:12
  • 1 Cor 15:7.
  • Acts 1:2,13; cf. Matthew 16:18
  • Acts 1:20-26
  • Acts 12:17, 15:13,19, 21:18
  • Acts 15:1-29 (The Council of Jerusalem)
  • Acts 15:14, 15:13-29
  • Jude 1:3
  • Judges 9:28
  • Isaiah 60:17
  • 2 Chronicles 34:12,17
  • Nehemiah 11:9
  • 2 Kings 11:18
  • Numbers 4:16
  • Job 20:29
  • 1 Peter 2:25
  • 1 Peter 5:1; cf. John 21:15-17
  • John 6:70
  • John 14:26, 16:18
  • Ephesians 2:20
  • Mark 6:30
  • Matthew 10:1-5
  • Revelation 21:14
  • 2 Timothy 4:1-6
The Pope
Catechism (CCC) Search for, “the Pope”
Vicar of Christ
Catechism (CCC) Search for, “Vicar of Christ”
Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles
Chronological list of Roman Catholic Popes
General Councils
Ecclesiastical History
Traditions and the Living Magisterium
Biblical Chronology
Septuagint Version (The first translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, made into popular Greek before the Christian era.)
Codex Amiatinus
The Bible
The Douay Bible
 
I think that this is a good topic, but I would ask questions, and I think that some Protestants would agree with these questions.

What is Apostolic Succession?

Who determins who has it and who does not?

Some may say that in teaching what the Apostles taught, they have Apostolic Succession (they continue the work). As Catholics, we accept that as a part of the answer. We also hold that it means to have clergy who can trace their ordenation back to the Apostles. The EO also agree with that view.
 
ralphinal said:
I think that this is a good topic, but I would ask questions, and I think that some Protestants would agree with these questions.

What is Apostolic Succession?

Who determins who has it and who does not?

Some may say that in teaching what the Apostles taught, they have Apostolic Succession (they continue the work). As Catholics, we accept that as a part of the answer. We also hold that it means to have clergy who can trace their ordenation back to the Apostles. The EO also agree with that view.
Click to expand...
So do most Anglicans.

GKC
 
GKC said:
So do most Anglicans.

GKC
Click to expand...
I was thinking about you guys when I asked “who determines what is and is not valid succession.”

There is no doubt that the Anglicans understand the importance of it. We say that you are not in possession of it and you guys disagree. However, we are on common ground when we both say that it is important and integral to the Christian community.
 
ralphinal said:
I was thinking about you guys when I asked “who determines what is and is not valid succession.”

There is no doubt that the Anglicans understand the importance of it. We say that you are not in possession of it and you guys disagree. However, we are on common ground when we both say that it is important and integral to the Christian community.
Click to expand...
D’accord.

GKC
 
ralphinal said:
I think that this is a good topic, but I would ask questions, and I think that some Protestants would agree with these questions.

What is Apostolic Succession?

Who determins who has it and who does not?

Some may say that in teaching what the Apostles taught, they have Apostolic Succession (they continue the work). As Catholics, we accept that as a part of the answer. We also hold that it means to have clergy who can trace their ordenation back to the Apostles. The EO also agree with that view.
Click to expand...
Yes, could you please answer those for us?! Thanks.
 
To me, it coincides with St. Paul’s statement: how can a man preach, unless he be sent. The charism for governing and teaching in the name of the Church bestowed on bishops is a gift that must be handed on, it is not something one can usurp for himself. This is why simony is such a grave sin–it’s an attempt to buy that gift.

Of course, in Scripture we see the Apostles laying hands on Matthias after Judas’ death. They then lay hands on Paul and Barnabas. Paul ordains Timothy and Titus and gives them instructions on how to choose suitable men to ordain. Presumably they do the same and then so forth and so on until today 🙂
 
For the record, I voted yes because I was feeling snarky. I know that the assumption of the OP is that “Apostolic Succession” = The Catholic Way of Maintaining Leadership, the short answer to a question about that particular assumption is: “well, no”.

But humor me.

The assumption that this succession is sacramental, institutional and must be documented seems more clearly related to medieval ideas of monarchical pedigree than to the New Testament record.

Many Catholics like to think that Protestants generally have this idea that the offices of leadership in the the church are sort of free ranging, just kind of floating around until God selects someone for the office to descend upon. I suppose there are churches like that but it certainly isn’t the norm.

In most Protestant churches an individual experiences a call to the ministry no different than that which might be experienced by a Catholic drawn to the priesthood or religious life. After a period of reflection and discernment a decision may be taken to enter seminary where the individual will receive training in a variety of disciplines related to the office he is working toward. He will get a graduate degree and then be placed on the rolls of people deemed acceptable for the office of pastor, he will then get a regular call from a congregation to go and be their pastor.

In other churches a young man may experience the call and attend a seminary with a view to returning to his home congregation as an assistant to the senior pastor in order to succeed him upon retirement.

In either case, the office did not descend upon the young man out of the blue. He was a member of the church, which has a succession all its own involving discipling, equipping, baptizing and reception into full membership in the Body of Christ. From that place he moved into leadership and in every case he received training and a call from the church in the persons of his teachers and pastors who, in their turn received the same before him.

Every pastor can name the man who personified his call and through whom he received the desire to be a pastor as well as all those who took part in his formation. They in turn can do the same for those who came before them. This can be surmised back to the apostles since there are not, nor have there ever been any Christians made who were not either made through the agency of the church or at some point enfolded by her.

I submit to you that this is the only kind of apostolic succession that matters and that it is irrelevant whether a list has been kept. I also dispute whether any particular charism for the office of pastor is in the gift of the institutional church beyond the regular call and the granting of privileges and duties pertaining to it. The ability to do the job is given by God to the individual in all the several gifts and talents He has granted that man.
 
reteeks21 said:
Yes, could you please answer those for us?! Thanks.
Click to expand...
As a Catholic, my answers will be slanted. I would say that Apostolic Succession has two features. First, the Church must teach that which the Apostles taught AND with the Authority that they had to teach it. Second, the Church must be able to trace itself back to the Apostles.
 
Steadfast said:
My (Lutheran) church has that too.

Ditto.
Click to expand...
Ah. And the Catholic Church would agree if you factored in the fact that Luther, or those who followed him, broke from the Church and started a new one.

Wait, I guess I am saying that Catholics would disagree 😛

Unless you mean your particular Lutheran Church…
 
ralphinal said:
Ah. And the Catholic Church would agree if you factored in the fact that Luther, or those who followed him, broke from the Church and started a new one.

Wait, I guess I am saying that Catholics would disagree 😛

Unless you mean your particular Lutheran Church…
Click to expand...
Actually, I mean all churches who confess the nicene, chalcedonian faith and was just using mine as an example.
 
Steadfast said:
Actually, I mean all churches who confess the nicene, chalcedonian faith.
Click to expand...
Alright. This gets into another level of the issue, and one that may be too deep for this specific topic.

All properly baptised people are Christian and we all have a calling to teach the faith. No dispute. Any group that professes the Creeds and understands them as such is teaching the proper faith to some level. However, as a Catholic, any group that can trace itself back to a man who broke from the Catholic Church (or any other church for that matter) will not have valid succession. This does not mean that they do not teach the faith or that they are not Christian. Nor does it mean that they have no calling to teach the faith or that its ministers have no calling to teach the faith.

It does mean that they are separated from the Catholic Faith. I would say that they do not have full succession.
 
ralphinal said:
Alright. This gets into another level of the issue, and one that may be too deep for this specific topic.

All properly baptised people are Christian and we all have a calling to teach the faith. No dispute. Any group that professes the Creeds and understands them as such is teaching the proper faith to some level. However, as a Catholic, any group that can trace itself back to a man who broke from the Catholic Church (or any other church for that matter) will not have valid succession. This does not mean that they do not teach the faith or that they are not Christian. Nor does it mean that they have no calling to teach the faith or that its ministers have no calling to teach the faith.

It does mean that they are separated from the Catholic Faith. I would say that they do not have full succession.
Click to expand...
That’s the crux really.

It’s not possible to break away from the church but remain a Christian since the church is His Body and without that there is no life.

If the reformers remained Christian, they did not break away from the Church, they broke away from a human institution which can be (regrettably) distinguished from the church.
 
Steadfast said:
That’s the crux really.

It’s not possible to break away from the church but remain a Christian since the church is His Body and without that there is no life.

If the reformers remained Christian, they did not break away from the Church, they broke away from a human institution which can be (regrettably) distinguished from the church.
Click to expand...
Ok. I see your point, and I do not completely disagree. This does touch on the invisible and visible church. If the Church fell into error so profound that leaving it could be justified, how do you know that what you took is correct? How do you know that what you left was wrong?

How do you know that you can leave it in the first place?
 
ralphinal said:
Ok. I see your point, and I do not completely disagree. This does touch on the invisible and visible church. If the Church fell into error so profound that leaving it could be justified, how do you know that what you took is correct? How do you know that what you left was wrong?

How do you know that you can leave it in the first place?
Click to expand...
Faith, my son…

Kidding… …sort of.

It’s never as categorical as leaving and going, the old saying is that when Luther left he took a lot of the furniture with him, but your main point that we cannot really know if they did well is well taken.

My only answer is that every Christian, when everything is said and done, is left with only two inherent tools for the discernment of abiding truth:

Faith and experience.

This does not mean that truth is subjective or relative, but it does mean that our means of apprehending it will always be conditioned by our nature and the grace of God.

This is true of the Catholic who says that his church was instituted by Christ and cannot therefore err and the Protestant who says that the Bible is clear about everything necessary to believe in order to be saved and with Jesus and everyone else in between or even outside these poles.
 
GKC said:
This is the proper thing for a RC to affirm.

You will not be surprised that Anglicans differ on the matter.

GKC
Click to expand...
No, I’m not surprised. It’s proper to affirm, though, because it’s true. Anglicans have an invalid priesthood, and therefore how can the sacraments as given by Christ of the Eucharist or Reconciliation be valid in that church? Once you cut yourself off from the line of succession, you can’t restore it. Sorry for you guys. If you want seven valid and legitimate Sacraments, come on over to the RCC. The Light shining in the Catholic Church is the Light of the World.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top