One
of the major doctrinal divides between Catholic and Protestant is the Catholic
concept of apostolic succession. According to this Catholic doctrine, the
authority of the original apostles has been passed down to the Catholic bishops
through a mechanical, religious rite called “Apostolic Succession.”
Since
Peter, they argue, was the chief of the apostles whom Christ gave the keys, and since he founded the church in Rome, his authority over all the church has been passed
along to the bishop of Rome (the pope) through this rite of apostolic succession.
Beginning in the latter part of the second century lists began to be
made of this succession.
According to the Congregation of the
Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Inquisition), since Protestant “communities”
do not hold to this Roman Catholic doctrine and practice of “Apostolic Succession,”
or maintain a “sacramental priesthood,” they cannot be called churches.
Being able to trace a mechanical,
institutional succession back to the apostles is, according to Catholic doctrine,
what makes Roman Catholicism the true church and is what disqualifies
Protestant “communities” from being called churches.
No
Biblical Evidence of Such a Succession
There
is, of course, no evidence that either Jesus or the first apostles established
permanent church offices that were to be occupied by a succession of church
leaders/bishops. Judas was replaced out of necessity because he had been one of
the Twelve and by his apostasy he had reduced the number to eleven.
When
James, who is also one of the Twelve, is put to death by Herod in Acts 12,
there is no attempt to replace him. He held no continuing office that another
must fill, nor does any Christian leader in the New Testament. Instead of
establishing permanent offices, Paul and the Twelve understood that the
continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church guaranteed that He would
raise up leaders when and where they were needed.
The
Idea of an Apostolic Succession Began in the 2nd Century
The
idea of permanent church offices occupied by a succession of bishops did not
surface until the latter part of the 2nd century with the church father,
Irenaeus, who used it as a tool to combat heresy. Irenaeus pointed the heretics
to the apostolic churches of his day—the churches of Antioch, Ephesus,
Philippi, Rome and others that supposedly had been founded by Paul or one of
the Twelve. According to Irenaeus, if the heretics were not in communion with
one of these churches (or a church in communion with those churches), then they
had no claim of Christian legitimacy.
The
Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter founded the church in Rome and passed
his authority along through a succession of bishops down to the present pope. The
Eastern Orthodox Church, on the other hand, claims that the true apostolic
succession has continued in their churches, through their bishops. They assert
that, with the division between the eastern and western sectors of the Church
in 1054, the true succession continued with them, while the western Church
(Roman Catholic) veered from the true faith into heresy.
The
Lutheran Church also traces a succession, although their succession of bishops
changes at the time of the Reformation. Lutheran historian, Lars Qualben, says,
“The Lutherans did not form a new Church after the schism with Rome. They
merely formed a continuation of the early Christian Church, as we know it from
the New Testament and from the early Christian Fathers.”
The
Anglican Church’s claim of apostolic succession would be similar to those
above. In fact, all the older churches that claim an ecclesial, organizational
succession have continued the model begun by Irenaeus with modifications to fit
their own unique historical situation.
No Institutionalized
Apostolic Succession
There
is, of course, no Biblical basis for an institutionalized, apostolic
succession. The New Testament writers, in fact, show very little concern for
church offices and organizational structure. This is why the New Testament
scholar, Dr. Gordon Fee, says that the New Testament is full of surprises, “but
none is so surprising as its generally relaxed attitude toward church
structures and leadership.” He and others point out that, excepting Phil. 1:1,
Paul never addresses himself to a leader or group of leaders in any of his
letters to the churches.
Lists
of succeeding bishops, such as that begun by Irenaeus, tend to be based on
dogma and expediency rather than factual history. Dr. Hans Kung, who is the
most widely read Roman Catholic theologian in the world today, says, “An
uninterrupted sequence of ‘laying on of hands’ from the apostles to the bishops
of today, an unbroken chain of succession (of the kind cited in later lists of
succession) cannot be demonstrated historically.”
John Wesley, who as an Anglican minister, initially held
to an apostolic succession through the Anglican bishops, found his views
refined in the fires of the 18th century Methodist revival, which he
spearheaded. Through his diligent study of the New Testament and after
observing the Holy Spirit raise up powerful ministries from the ranks of the
common people outside the Anglican Church, he declared that ”neither Christ nor
his apostles prescribed any form of church government.”
In
his classic work, The Primitive Church,
Professor Burnett Streeter agrees with Wesley and says;
"Whatever
else is disputable, there is, I submit one result from which there is no
escape. In the primitive church there was no single system of church order laid
down by the apostles. During the first hundred years of Christianity, the
Church was an organism alive and growing—changing its organization to meet
changing needs. Uniformity was a later development."
True Apostolic
Succession is a Thing of Faith and of the Spirit
The idea that there can be no church without this Catholic rite
of Apostolic Succession, diminishes both faith and Christ. It makes a doctrine—and
a tenuous one at that—to be predominant and central. It makes both church and the
apostolic appear mechanical and doctrinaire.
Jesus, on the other hand, said that where two or three are
gathered together in His name, that he would sanction that gathering with His
presence (Matthew 18:20). Is His presence not adequate? Paul echoes this in
Colossians 2:9-10 where he says that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in
Christ and that you are complete in Him.
For many Protestants, the Catholic approach to Apostolic
Succession, wherein the authority of the apostles is passed along by a programmed
religious rite, does not make sense or pass the test of Scripture.
I would ask my Catholic friends to consider the following questions.
Should not Apostolic Succession be a thing of substance—of faith and of the
Spirit? Should it not be a succession in apostolic faith, apostolic commitment
to Christ, and an apostolic experience of the Spirit? Are we not all
responsible for adhering to the faith and vision of those first apostles?
Apostolic
succession as a thing of the Spirit cannot be restricted to a religious ritual
that is mechanically repeated generation after generation--as though the Holy
Spirit could be confined to a particular ecclesiastical order. The wind blows where it wishes, Jesus
said (Jn.3:8). This is why Henry P. Van Dusen, former president of Union
Theological Seminary, declared, “The Holy Spirit has always been troublesome to
Church officialdom, because He does seem to be unruly, unpredictable and
radical.”
The Whole Church Is
Apostolic
The
apostles recognized all gatherings of believers as true churches. Although
neither Paul, Peter, nor any apostle had been to Colosse, Paul recognized the
believers there as forming a true ekklesia—a
church. Even though the church in Antioch was not under Peter’s authority, as
evidenced by the fact that Paul publicly rebuked him when he came there and
waffled on the issue of the Gentiles equal acceptance in Christ, there was no
question of Antioch being a true church.
Apostolic
succession is the responsibility of the whole church—of every Christian. A
church is not apostolic because it has a leader who calls himself an apostle,
bishop, or pope. Every believer must
seek to walk in the same selfless devotion to Christ as those first apostles.
Every believer must live in the same selfless love toward others that
characterized the early apostolic Church. And every believer must live in a
radical dependence on the Holy Spirit as did those first followers of Christ.
Only then can the Church today make any claim to being apostolic.
Apostolic
succession is neither mechanical nor automatic. Apostolic succession is a
succession in apostolic commitment to Christ and apostolic life in the power of
the Holy Spirit.
