Apostolic Succession

[Grocery Bag]

I am very confused about the whole concept of apostolic succession. Several religions have versions of apostolic succession and they all claim to have the right understanding and consequently to have the true succession in their church. But that can't possibly be true; they can't all have the right one!

Can anyone explain the apostolic succession of their church and explain why that is the right and true succession?

 

[Aqualung]

Well, let me first say why we need apostolic succession in the first place. First of all, we need apostles because somebody needs to hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven. For example, in Matt 16:19 Jesus specifically tells his apostles he will give them the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Mark 3:14 says that he ordained twelve, meaning he gave them certain things that the general person did not have. Luke 6:13 says pretty much the same thing, except it clearifies that he called them apostles. and John 15:16 says "ye have not chosen me, but I have chose you," which clearifies the heavenly authority they have. Okay, so Jesus set up his apostles on his own. It must have been importatnt if he did all that. Another way one sees that it is so important is that after Judas Killed himself, they bothered to fill that spot in. They already had eleven other apostles. Why bother with another one if it didn't matter? And they prayed about it. They didn't just choose him, but Jesus did. Once again, like John 15:16.

Acts 12:28 shows that Paul knew there were apostles in the church. "And God hath set some in teh church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that..." So Paul saw that there were apostles in the church.

Eph 2:20 says the church is founded upon the foundation of prophets and apostles. If you take away the foundation, can a building stand? No.
4:11 says about the same thing.

 

[Dayv]

To me it's like having a country club were the only people let in are of surtain decent, and everybody in this country club thinks they are above everyone else because of this stupid, mindless idea, while the people on the outside (hopefully) realize that it doesn't amount to crap.

 

[Scott1]

Can anyone explain the apostolic succession of their church and explain why that is the right and true succession?

Pretty good discussion of it here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9163

 

[Francine]

To me it's like having a country club were the only people let in are of surtain decent, and everybody in this country club thinks they are above everyone else because of this stupid, mindless idea, while the people on the outside (hopefully) realize that it doesn't amount to crap.

Usually the people who call Apostolic Succession "sour grapes" are the ones who belong to a sect that broke from the Apostolic Succession. The nature of the doctrine is such that even the smallest break from apostolicity is permanent. That automatically assures that those who retain the Apostolic Succession belong to a tradition that never broke from the original teachings of Christ.

 

[doppelganger]

Usually the people who call Apostolic Succession "sour grapes" are the ones who belong to a sect that broke from the Apostolic Succession.

Of course, there's a lot of variations on the precise details of the "succession." In mainstream Christianity this notion of needing "succession" is so ingrained that splinter groups almost invariably require a succession mythology. I think they are all made up stories to compete with one another for "official authority" - including the Roman Catholic version, which simply has the advantage of being the most established and still common of the earliest rounds of this silly "authority" wrangling.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well, let me first say why we need apostolic succession in the first place. First of all, we need apostles because somebody needs to hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

This is where a number of us who think that Apostolic Succession is a bunch of hoooey disagree with. Once the door was opened, the keys became USELESS. Think about it... who is able to keep me from my God, my Lord and my Christ? NO ONE!

Romans 8:38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. NIV

It's like closing the barn door AFTER all of the horses have run out.

Then there is their supposed need for a "head". The church has only ONE HEAD, and it ain't human!

Ephesians 1:18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23w hich is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. NIV

We never had a human head of the church: only Jesus!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Usually the people who call Apostolic Succession "sour grapes" are the ones who belong to a sect that broke from the Apostolic Succession. The nature of the doctrine is such that even the smallest break from apostolicity is permanent. That automatically assures that those who retain the Apostolic Succession belong to a tradition that never broke from the original teachings of Christ.

I notice that the support for Apostolic Succession in gets kinda fuzzy in the first few centuries of Chrisitianity, regardless of denomination.

So... if it happened even once in the history of the church that a single bishop was not validly ordained, the entire line of ordinations that flowed from him (e.g. the bishops he ordained, the ones they ordained and so on, plus all the priests that all those bishops ordained) would be completely invalid.

How many bishops have there been? I can't help but think that the chances that there would have never been any sort of error or wilful act that would have invalidated even one of those ordinations would be amazingly remote.

When this first occured to me, I realized that I could apply Pascal's Wager-style logic to the question of whether to treat the Eucharist as the literal body of Christ and come up with a result that I don't think the Church would appreciate (is it Christ or not? If the man at the altar's not a priest, it's not... and if he wasn't ordained by a valid bishop in the line of Apostolic Succession, he's not a priest).

Going back to something you said, though: I'm not sure why you think Apostolic Succession would ensure that a church never broke from the teachings of Christ. Plenty can happen over the years, even when you have an unbroken line of succession. Appointing a successor doesn't automatically mean that the successor will have the same beliefs and opinions as you do - you're dealing with people, not robots.

 

[Francine]

Appointing a successor doesn't automatically mean that the successor will have the same beliefs and opinions as you do - you're dealing with people, not robots.

Your statement would be true if it was purely a human endeavor. But Holy Orders is a sacrament of the Church, and the Holy Spirit is the active ingredient.

 

[doppelganger]

Your statement would be true if it was purely a human endeavor. But Holy Orders is a sacrament of the Church, and the Holy Spirit is the active ingredient.

 

[Quiddity]

It's more like a spiral then a circle.

 

[sojourner]

The Apostolic Succession isn't absolute. In other words, no one has irrefutable evidence of an unbroken line. The unbrokenness, at some early point, has to be determined through means other than an "official list." However, we trust that, even though the historical evidence be lost, the tradition was handed on faithfully.

In the Church's infancy, the Succession was necessary. But, with the rise of literacy and the need for the Church to be authoritative diminished (after the Enlightenment), the Faith has been handed on legitimately without the aid of an "official" Succession. It's really academic, as, even the different groups that espouse the Succession, espouse different authority for their version of it and don't intercommune. It's sad.

 

[Francine]

It's really academic, as, even the different groups that espouse the Succession, espouse different authority for their version of it and don't intercommune. It's sad.

Intercommunion is not broken between the Western and Eastern Churches because of different theories of apostolic sucession; rather, we don't intercommune because no unity exists in fact.

 

[TrueBlue2]

Well, let me first say why we need apostolic succession in the first place. First of all, we need apostles because somebody needs to hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven. For example, in Matt 16:19 Jesus specifically tells his apostles he will give them the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Mark 3:14 says that he ordained twelve, meaning he gave them certain things that the general person did not have. Luke 6:13 says pretty much the same thing, except it clearifies that he called them apostles. and John 15:16 says "ye have not chosen me, but I have chose you," which clearifies the heavenly authority they have. Okay, so Jesus set up his apostles on his own. It must have been importatnt if he did all that. Another way one sees that it is so important is that after Judas Killed himself, they bothered to fill that spot in. They already had eleven other apostles. Why bother with another one if it didn't matter? And they prayed about it. They didn't just choose him, but Jesus did. Once again, like John 15:16.

Acts 12:28 shows that Paul knew there were apostles in the church. "And God hath set some in teh church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that..." So Paul saw that there were apostles in the church.

Eph 2:20 says the church is founded upon the foundation of prophets and apostles. If you take away the foundation, can a building stand? No.
4:11 says about the same thing.

I agree with everything written here. It is the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints that apostolic succession, or the authority to act in God's name, was lost soon after the death of the original apostles. The church fell into apostasy. Thus the need for a "restoration" of authority from God that began when a young man, Joseph Smith, went into the woods to pray and ask God which church was true. According to Joseph Smith's testimony he eventually received that authority directly from the hands of Peter, James, and John who visited him as heavenly messengers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your statement would be true if it was purely a human endeavor. But Holy Orders is a sacrament of the Church, and the Holy Spirit is the active ingredient.

From what I can gather from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the sacrament of Holy Orders is only valid (and therefore only a sacrament, correct?) when performed by a bishop on a baptized man. Once the chain of Apostolic Succession is broken, it wouldn't be a sacrament any more, would it? In that case, AFAIK, the Church does not teach that the Holy Spirit would be an "active ingredient".

If the parents of just one bishop lied about whether their son was baptised any time in the last 2000 years, that might mean that a whole chain of bishops, priests and deacons since then are not actually bishops, priests or deacons.

From what I can gather of Church teaching, an invalid sacrament is not actually a sacrament, and is therefore a purely human endeavour. Would you disagree?

 

[Francine]

If the parents of just one bishop lied about whether their son was baptised any time in the last 2000 years, that might mean that a whole chain of bishops, priests and deacons since then are not actually bishops, priests or deacons.

My parish in my hometown has records of my baptism and confirmation and first communion, and it is reasonable to believe the ancients were as meticulous about their records as we are today, even if they didn't have FileMaker Pro. And in the old days there was nothing but the Catholic Church, and people didn't move around much, so it would have been very unlikely that a person was not baptized but told he was, and there would be no reason for the parents to lie about something like that. Their own immortal souls would be in peril.

At any rate, the CCC says, (1556) To fulfil their exalted mission, the apostles were endowed by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and by the imposition of hands they passed on to their auxiliaries the gift of the Spirit, which is transmitted down to our day through episcopal consecration.

 

[Smoke]

My parish in my hometown has records of my baptism and confirmation and first communion, and it is reasonable to believe the ancients were as meticulous about their records as we are today, even if they didn't have FileMaker Pro.

However, they weren't. The keeping of parish registers began in the 16th century.

Regarding apostolic succession, it's always struck me as odd that the churches keep these long lists of bishops for each see and trot them out as proof of apostolic succession. It seem to me the relevant point is not whom you succeeded, but who consecrated you.

 

[Francine]

Regarding apostolic succession, it's always struck me as odd that the churches keep these long lists of bishops for each see and trot them out as proof of apostolic succession. It seem to me the relevant point is not whom you succeeded, but who consecrated you.

Apostolic succession is not done in a vacuum, it requires papal approval. This is why the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre without such approval resulted in automatic excommunication for the new bishops and the one who consecrated them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My parish in my hometown has records of my baptism and confirmation and first communion, and it is reasonable to believe the ancients were as meticulous about their records as we are today, even if they didn't have FileMaker Pro.

Why would you consider that a reasonable assumption for the whole of Church history?

There have been plenty of events that have disrupted regular parish goings-on, and there have been plenty of incidents through history where entire parish churches or their records were destroyed by war or sectarian turmoil.

And in the old days there was nothing but the Catholic Church, and people didn't move around much, so it would have been very unlikely that a person was not baptized but told he was, and there would be no reason for the parents to lie about something like that. Their own immortal souls would be in peril.

That's only one example; my point was that it's concievable that under the rules and laws of the Catholic Church, it's possible for even a genuine, honest man to go through the rituals and not be a valid bishop. On top of this, there is the possibility of genuine deception:

When we look at the last two thousand years of Christian history, we can see that "people who didn't move around too much" spread Christianity outward from Rome, and then:

- moved from Roman Britain into Pagan Ireland
- moved from France into Britain with the Norman conquest
- moved all over Europe to avoid successive plagues
- moved all over Europe to avoid successive wars
- explored the world and colonized vast swaths of it
- spread missionaries all over the planet

There are plenty of times throughout the last 2000 years of history where it was far from a simple matter for a representative of the Church to confirm details about a candidate for bishophood.

Put yourself in the position of, say, Bishop of Quebec Francois de Laval circa 1670. A "priest" comes before you bearing letters from Rome (genuine, but stolen - he killed a priest travelling to the port in France and decided to take his place on the ship to the New World) instructing you to place him in a parish church. It would take a year or more to get a message to Rome to ask for confirmation, and any response would appear to confirm the interloper - after all, he fits the general description of the right man, and there was no photo ID in the 17th century.

As the Church in the New World expands, what would happen if that "priest" was elevated to bishop of his own diocese?

With countless possibilities of events like this throughout the last two thousand years of history, how can it be reasonable to assume that the events resolved themselves in favour of Apostolic Succession every single time so that every single bishop in the Catholic Church today is valid?

 

[lunamoth]

I thought it took three bishops to make a new bishop.