Posts Tagged ‘apostles’

Authority in the Church: The Biblical Evidence

Dear Reader,

I thought I was done with this topic but I guess I am not. I have been going back and forth with a Catholic friend on authority in the church, how it works, where it comes from, etc. I tend to think through issues as I write. To catch up and see how my thinking on this issue has developed, you can read these earlier posts:

Rocks and Popes

Sources of Authority in the Catholic Church

Sacred Tradition in Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy

Apostolic Authority in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism

Scripture and Tradition– Sorting through All the Issues

Book Review: The Shape of Sola Scriptura

Object and Method

Perhaps, being a good Protestant, I should have come to this first, but I am getting to it last. I’d like to look now at all the biblical evidence I can find on the issue of authority in the church. A few caveats before I begin: I am here acting like a Protestant. I understand that if you are Catholic or Orthodox or other that you will not approach the Bible as I do so you may not accept my conclusions. But this is my method, and it is simply this: When someone says something about God or the Bible or a theological issue that strikes me as funny or wrong, then I find every verse I can on the topic, look it up in context, and try to discern what the text actually has to say. I have done this, for example, on dinosaurs and on the glory of God.  Today’s topic is authority in the church. Second caveat: I am not actually looking at the whole Bible, but only the New Testament. It is an interesting question what we might learn of the church from the Old Testament but since the church as such did not exist in OT times it is a bit of a trickier issue. I do think there are conclusions that could be drawn about God and His people and how He deals with them but anything we would say is going to be more debatable so I am not touching that aspect of the issue at this time. I chose to use a Catholic translation, the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE), for this study to make sure that I am being fair and not biasing my argument with an anti-Catholic translation.

The Issues

Based on my previous studies (see all those links above), here are some of the issues that need to be addressed:

  • Who were the apostles? What makes one an apostle?
  • Is there a continuing apostolic authority or apostolic succession?
  • What is Peter’s role relative to the other apostles? Does he have greater authority?
  • If Peter does have any greater role, does he pass this on to his successors?
  • How are leaders in the church chosen?
  • What gives leaders authority?
  • Are there circumstances in which a leader’s authority can be abrogated?
  • Who has authority to interpret the Scriptures?
  • How can we know true from false teachers?

What does the New Testament have to say about Apostles?

There is not much we all agree on when it comes to authority in the church, but one point that the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants all concede is that there were men the Bible calls apostles who had authority in New Testament times.

Who were the apostles? The simplest and most common answer is that the first apostles were Jesus’ closest 12 disciples (Matt. 10:2; Mk. 3:14; 6:30; Lk. 6:13; 9:10; 22:14; 24:10). Of course, this list includes Judas Iscariot who later betrayed Jesus and died. He was then replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:26) making a nice even 12 again.

But then Paul (aka Saul) was also added to the number, bringing it up to 13 again. Paul makes very clear that he is an apostle, beginning most of his letters by self-identifying as an apostle (Rom. 1:1; I Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; I Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Tit. 1:1) and also giving an extended defense of his apostleship in Galatians (Gal. 1:11-19). These 13, then, make the generally accepted list of apostles and no one seems to doubt their position.

However, there a few places in which others are called as apostles. In Acts 14 and I Corinthians 9, Barnabas seems to be called an apostle as well as Paul.  Acts tells us that:

“. . . where Paul and Barnabas went into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks became believers . . . But the residents of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles.” (Acts: 14:1, 4)

And again later it says “when the apostles Paul and Barnabas heard . . .” (Acts 14:14; cf. I Cor. 9:6).

At the end of Romans Paul concludes his letter by saying:

“Greet Mary, who has worked very hard among you. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” (Rom. 16:6-7)

This passage may be calling Andronicus and Junia apostles or it may be saying that they are well-known to or esteemed by the apostles. The NRSVCE, NIV and KJV prefer the former interpretation, the ASV and ESV the latter.

It should be noted, however, that Paul also seems to call himself the last of the apostles:

“Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” (I Cor. 15:7-9)

This brings us to our next question: What makes one an apostle? When Matthias is chosen, we are told that the qualifications are:

 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22)

Which is to say, an apostle is one who has literally and physically seen Jesus. This may then make some sense of Paul’s (possible) designation of Andronicus and Junia as apostles if they too had seen Jesus firsthand — we are told at least that they came to faith before Paul himself did — though he counts himself as the last of the apostles since he saw Jesus in a vision after His death. Since, as he says, he was the last that Christ appeared to in the flesh (and that in a vision), he becomes the final apostle.

So then we may say that an apostle is one that has seen Jesus in the flesh. To this we may add one further qualification: an apostle gets his authority directly from Christ. In his defense of his own apostleship, Paul says,

“11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal. 1:11-12)

Though Paul appears before Peter and the other apostles, he does not do so till 3 years after his conversion and he makes very clear that his authority comes not from them but from Christ. And again he says that:

” . . .he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles.” (Gal. 2:8)

Thus the other apostles did not give Paul authority but only recognized the grace which had been given him (Gal. 2:9). Matthias also was chosen by God. Though the 11 remaining apostles (at the time) cam up with a list of candidates, they cast lots to decide who would get the position and so left the decision up to the Lord (cf. Prov. 16:33).

Before moving on, we can say a few words about the works of an apostle. The apostles, we are told, teach (Acts 2:42), do signs and wonders (Acts 2:43; 5:12; 2 Cor. 12:12), make major decisions affecting the church (Acts 9:27ff; Acts 15:2ff), accept money given to the church (Acts 4:37), lay on hands for the purpose of conferring authority (Acts 6:6; 8:18), and send people (including Peter and John) on missions (Acts 8:14).

Apostolic Succession?

Having looked at who they apostles were and what defines an apostle, we may then ask if there continue to be apostles. Based on the above criteria — that an apostle has seen Jesus in the flesh and has been appointed directly by God– I think we would have to say that, no, there are no more apostles after Paul (who, as I said above, speaks of himself as the last).

This is not to say that the authority of the apostles does not continue, however. We have also seen that the apostles lay hands on others as a means of conferring authority. We can add to this that they appointed leaders in the churches:

“And after they had appointed elders for them in each church, with prayer and fasting they entrusted them to the Lord in whom they had come to believe.” (Acts 14:23)

So too Paul tells Titus to “appoint elders in every town, as I directed you” (Tit. 1:5; cf. 2 Tim. 2:2). He also gives both Timothy and Titus extensive lists of qualifications for elders  (1 Tim.3:1ff; Tit. 1:7ff). It should be noted that the word for “elder” in these passages may be translated as “bishop,” “presbyter, or “overseer” depending on one’s inclination. I am not worried here about which word we use but about the role of these men, whatever one calls them.

The role of an elder is to teach and argue for the faith (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:9; 1 Tim. 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:2) and to care for the church (1 Tim. 3:5; James 5:14). There is evidence as well that they, as the apostles did, can practice the laying on of hands for the purpose of conferring authority (1 Tim. 4:14). Even while the apostles are still around they are involved in the big decisions of the church as we are told that the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 consisted of the apostles and the elders. It is notable that signs and wonders, the mark of an apostle, are not mentioned in connection with the elders.

Is there then an apostolic succession? If we mean by that term that there continue to be apostles through all generations, I would have to say no. But there is a passing on of authority from the apostles to the elders who would then appoint more elders and so on. Inherent in the idea of apostolic succession is the notion that those who stand in such a line have exclusive authority over the church, particularly in matters of scriptural interpretation. So I think this issue needs more study before a firm conclusion can be reached. For now I would like to set it aside and look instead at the primacy of Peter.

Peter among the Apostles

What really sets the Roman Catholic Church apart from all others is the doctrine of the primacy of Peter and his successors. So we must now look at what the Bible has to say about Peter’s role specifically.

I’d like to think about the passages relating to this issue in two groups: those that seem to confer authority in Peter and those that show Peter’s role in the early church. When asked to defend the primacy of Peter, Catholics go immediately to the former group and particularly to Matthew 16. I’d like to begin instead with the latter.

There is no doubt that Peter takes a prominent role in the early church and particularly in the events recounted in the first half of the book of Acts. When Christ has ascended, we are told that “Peter stood up among the believers” (Acts 1:15). He speaks first and he takes charge. Early in the book of Acts, Luke often speaks of “Peter and the apostles” (Acts 2:14, 37; 5:29). Peter takes a prominent role at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7) and  is given a significant vision (Acts 10). He heals Aeneas and raises Dorcas from the dead (Acts 9). His fame seems to precede him and to be widely known since the people believe that even his shadow will heal them (Acts 5:16).

Though there us no doubt that Peter is singled out most often in the early chapter of Acts, John, we are told, is often with him (Acts 3-4). James also takes a prominent role at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13ff). The three of them — Peter, James and John — are called by Paul “pillars of the church” (Gal. 2:9). Paul and John are sent by the apostles, implying that that body has authority over them (Acts 8:14).  In defense of his own apostleship, Paul equates himself with Peter (whom he calls Cephas; Gal. 2:8) and he urges Christians not to consider themselves followers of one apostle or leader, naming specifically himself, Peter (Cephas) and Apollos, but of Christ alone (1 Cor. 1:12-13). He even tells of a time in which he opposed Peter publicly, accusing him of hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-14).

From this collection of passages, I conclude that while Peter took a leadership role in the early church and was clearly the most prominent apostle up until Acts 13, when Paul’s ministry become the focus, that there is no evidence that he had any authority over the other apostles or any greater authority than they did.

We turn then to those passages from the gospels in which Jesus is believed to have conferred special authority upon Peter. Twice Christ seems to give Peter special instructions to care for others. In Luke 22, when He is predicting Peter’s betrayal, Jesus tells him, “‘You, when you have once turned back, strengthen your brothers'” (Luke 22:32). And after his resurrection, Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves Him and three times tells him (in various ways) “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-19). The three-fold repetition of this scene has been connected to Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ. That is, having to say he loves Jesus three times undoes the three times he denied his Lord.

The primary passage used to defend the primacy of Peter is Matthew 16:17-19. I have blogged on this passage once before (here), but I will go over it once again. The passage reads as follows:

“17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

There are really two key bits to this passage: “upon this rock I will build my church” and “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” As you hopefully know, Peter’s name was originally not Peter but Simon. John’s gospel tells us that Jesus changed his name to Peter which means Rock when He first called him to follow Him (John 1:42). Here He makes a play on that name. Catholics understand the rock of Matthew 16 upon which the church is to be built to be Peter himself; others take it to be Peter’s declaration about Christ.

There is an interesting contrast here with the passage which comes right after it, Matthew 16:21-23. (I am indebted to my 15yo for this observation:) In vv.17-19 Jesus tells Peter that what he has said has come from God (v.17) and makes a play on his name, speaking of the rock as a foundation stone upon which the church is built (v. 18). In vv. 21-23, Jesus tells Peter that what he has said comes from Satan and again plays on his name, this time calling him a stumbling block (v. 23). The contrast between these two passages, juxtaposed as they are, is so marked that I do not see how we can take the one literally without taking the other in the same manner.

There is an interesting connection here to Revelation as well in which we are told that the foundations of the New Jerusalem are written with the names of the apostles:

 And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Rev. 21:14)

It is hard to know just how literally to take this since, with Paul, there are not 12 but 13 apostles, but to me it would seem to argue that all the apostles might be considered foundational, not just Peter.

We turn then to the second half of the passage in which Jesus tells Peter, “‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven’” (Matt. 16:19). I take this to be one idea — that Peter is being given authority, symbolized by keys, and that that authority is to bind and loose. Though Jesus is addressing Peter here, he uses the same wording regarding binding and loosing in Matthew 18:15-20. It is worth looking at that passage as well:

“’If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.’”

As you can see, the same language of binding and loosing is used here, but the audience seems to be all the apostles (or perhaps even a larger group of Jesus’ followers). The context is discipline within the church and the instructions seem to be for the church (“two or three”) rather than the individual.

These are the main passages which are used to support the primacy of Peter. There are  a few others of lesser impact. For example, when Peter is listed first in the list of apostles this is taken to indicate his primacy. However, tis alone does not seem to be terribly significant.

My opinion would be that while Jesus may well be calling Peter himself the rock in Matthew 16:18 that he is making a play on words which is of no more lasting import than the similar (but negative) pun he makes in Matthew 16:23. The authority he seems to give Peter in Matthew 16:19 does not seem to be exclusively for him but for the church in Matthew 18. I think if all we had were these passages, one could make  a reasonable (but not conclusive) argument for Peter’s primacy, but when we include also the evidence from the rest of the New Testament which seems to show that Peter, while a leader, had no greater authority than the other apostles, that there is not a very strong case for the doctrine of the primacy of Peter.

The authority of the popes (and through them also of the Catholic Church itself) rests not just on the primacy of Peter but also on the primacy of his successors, the bishops of Rome. For this I find no biblical evidence. We are told that the apostles appointed elders (or bishops) and it seems clear that these also appointed successors and that they carried on the work of the church. But nowhere does there seem to be a one-to-one correspondence between an apostle and his successor. Instead, multiple successors are appointed as the church grows. In fact, Peter is not even associated with Rome in the New Testament; only later traditions place him there.

Conclusions

I’ve gotten through 4 of the 9 questions I began this post with, and those four the most fundamental I think for all that follows. As frequently happens, one post leads to another, so I will call this “part 1” and continue the topic in my next post.

To sum up what I have found thus far:

  • There are people termed apostles in the NT who have special authority. The two qualifications seem to be that they have seen Crist in the flesh and are appointed directly by God. There are probably 13 of them (including Matthias who replaced Judas and Paul) with Paul being the last to become an apostle though occasionally others, notably Barnabas are referred to as apostles.
  • The apostle appoint elders who succeed them. They take on most of the tasks of an apostle though they are not associated with signs and wonders. They are not themselves apostles but whether they constitute and “apostolic succession” is not (yet?) clear.
  • Peter appears to be a leader among the apostles after Jesus ascension though his prominence wanes after Paul comes on the scene. There is no indication that he had authority over and beyond that of the other apostles, however. Nor is there evidence that he appointed specific successors who would inherit his primacy (if he had any).

Until next time

Nebby

 

 

 

 

Apostolic Authority in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism

Dear Reader,

This is the second in a two-part series on the sources of authority in Christianity. In the first part, I looked at Apostolic Tradition in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and asked how each of those three major branches of Christianity views the concept — Do they believe there is any Sacred or Holy Tradition apart from the Bible? If so, what does it consist of and how does it relate to the Scriptures?

But many, if not most, Christians believe that Christ not only passed along a body of knowledge to His closest followers but that he also gave them special authority to act and to teach in his name. In this post I would like to look at the concept of apostolic authority in each of these three branches. The questions I would like to answer for each are:

  • Did Christ give special authority to the Apostles?
  • Do they pass this authority on to others in subsequent generations? That is, is there such a thing as Apostolic Succession?
  • Did Peter have authority even above the other Apostles and does this position of greater authority also continue through the generations?
  • What is the nature of Apostolic authority? In other words, the authority to do what?

The Roman Catholic Church

I’d like to begin this time by looking at apostolic authority in the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is all the way on one end of the spectrum — they say that yes, there was special authority given to the Apostles and that it has been passed down through the centuries and continues today in the bishops of the Church. They also believe that Peter was given even greater authority which he also passed down to each subsequent bishop of Rome (the Pope is the bishop of Rome). This is called the primacy of Peter and I’ll return to it in a minute.

Apostolic authority in the Catholic Church resides with anyone bishop and above (bishop, archbishop, cardinal, pope) but not with the ordinary clergy like your local priest. It is very important for bit Catholics and Orthodox to be able to trace the historical line, that is to be able to say “so-and-so” ordained “so-and-so” all down through the generations. Apostolic Succession is all about the particular people and the transfer of authority from one to another. I do not know if Catholics can actually trace all these lines for each bishop but they can (or claim they can) for the Popes. In Catholicism (in contrast to Orhtodoxy as we will disuss below) there doesn’t seem to be any way to break this line. That is, there is nothing that disqualifies one if they have been thus ordained and made part of the Succession.

It is not my object in this post to discuss the merits of the concept of Apostolic Succession or of the primacy of Peter. I hope to be able to do so in a future post. In case you are interested, however, here are some of the passages which are usually cited to support these concepts:

  • in support of Apostolic Succession:
  • in support of the primacy of Peter: I have done one post on Matthew 16 which seems to be the major passage in support of Peter as foremost among the Apostles; you can read it here.

What then is the purpose of Apostolic authority in the Catholic Church? Authority to do what exactly? In my previous post, you will hopefully remember, I said that the Catholic and Orthodox churches maintain that there is a continuing oral Tradition (big “T”) which has been handed down from the Apostles. So the first purpose of the position of apostle is to maintain and pass on Sacred Tradition. I don’t really see how it would be possible to claim such a Tradition exists if one does not also believe that there is a line of people charged with perpetuating it.

Beyond this, there is a perceived need to provide accurate interpretation of both the Sacred Tradition and the Scriptures. Though both the Orthodox and Catholics speak against new “traditions,” they also both allow for some progression in the church’s knowledge and understanding.

“This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop [sic] in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.  For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.” (Dei Verbum 8)

Lest one think this a democratic process, however, the Catholic Church makes clear that it is the successors of the Apostles alone who have the true authority to teach right doctrine:

But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them “the authority to teach in their own place” (Dei Verbum 7

And again:

“It devolves on sacred bishops ‘who have the apostolic teaching’ to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books, especially the New Testament and above all the Gospels. This can be done through translations of the sacred texts, which are to be provided with the necessary and really adequate explanations so that the children of the Church may safely and profitably become conversant with the Sacred Scriptures and be penetrated with their spirit.” (Dei Verbum 25)

The key point here being that the ordinary believer is not able to “safely” interpret the Scriptures without the guidance of the church leaders.

Papal infallibility is a concept not well understood by Protestants and probably merits another post in its own right (and I may get to that too) but I do want to just touch on it here. The flip side of “What authority do the bishops of the Church have?” is “What is required of the members of the Church?” Despite Protestant misconceptions, Catholics do not believe the Pope is always right in whatever he says. Nor is the concept of infallibility limited to the Pope. There are times at which the bishops also are infallible. The best explanation I have found of this idea is in the chart found in the section entitled “Levels” in the Wikipedia entry ion the Magisterium. You can see that chart here. If you examine it, you will find that there are certain matters in which Catholics are required to accept completely what the Church leaders say, to give “the full assent of faith.” In other matters, they are required to submit as to the wisdom of those who have been put in charge of them. But when it comes to what ones local priest says, there is no inherent authority.

The Eastern Orthodox View

The position of the Eastern Orthodox Church on Apostolic Succession is very similar to the Catholic one but there are a couple of notable differences.

Like the Catholics, the Orthodox subscribe to the idea of Apostolic Succession and believe it is very important to be able to trace the historical line of this succession from person to person. The purpose of the continuing office is also similar. It is to pass on the Holy Tradition:

“Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.”(“Holy Tradition” from Orthodoxwiki.org)

And to perpetuate the correct understanding of this Tradition (which if you have read my earlier post, you will know includes the Scriptures):

“Likewise, the Orthodox Church has always recognized the gradual development in the complexity of the articulation of the Church’s teachings. It does not, however, believe that truth changes and therefore always supports its previous beliefs all the way back to what it holds to be the direct teachings from the Apostles. The Church also understands that not everything is perfectly clear; therefore, it has always accepted a fair amount of contention about certain issues, arguments about certain points, as something that will always be present within the Church. It is this contention which, through time, clarifies the truth. The Church sees this as the action of the Holy Spirit on history to manifest truth to man.” (“Eastern Orthodox Christian Theology” from Wikipedia.org)

And again:

“If the Apostles didn’t say it, it isn’t true. The teaching of the Apostles is the teaching of the Church.” (“How does the doctrine of apostolic succession work in the Orthodox Church?” from Christianity.yoexpert.com)

The Orthodox do not, however, have a doctrine of infallibility of any individual though there is authority in church councils:

“Orthodoxy does not believe in the infallibility of the Pope of Rome, nor of any other individual.

Orthodoxy upholds the reality that the Church, gathered together in Council under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is guided in making correct decisions and in enunciating truth.” (“Infallibility” from the Orthodox Church in America oca.org)

 But there is room for the individual believer to have his or her own personal theology on matters on which the Church has taken no specific position:

Likewise, the Orthodox Church has always recognized the gradual development in the complexity of the articulation of the Church’s teachings. It does not, however, believe that truth changes and therefore always supports its previous beliefs all the way back to what it holds to be the direct teachings from the Apostles. The Church also understands that not everything is perfectly clear; therefore, it has always accepted a fair amount of contention about certain issues, arguments about certain points, as something that will always be present within the Church. It is this contention which, through time, clarifies the truth. The Church sees this as the action of the Holy Spirit on history to manifest truth to man.

The Church is unwavering in upholding its dogmatic teachings, but does not insist upon those matters of faith which have not been specifically defined. The Orthodox believe that there must always be room for mystery when speaking of God. Individuals are permitted to hold theologoumena (private theological opinions) so long as they do not contradict traditional Orthodox teaching. Sometimes, various Holy Fathers may have contradictory opinions about a certain question, and where no consensus exists, the individual is free to follow his or her conscience.” (“Eastern Orthodox Christian Theology” from Wikipedia.org)

As I said earlier, the Orthodox do not accept the primacy of Peter. Though they recognize that the current Pope is the historical successor of Peter they do not view him as a legitimate bearer of Apostolic authority. This is because, unlike the Catholics for whom the historical connection is sufficient, the Orthodox also  have other criteria by which they determine legitimate succession. For them one in the apostolic line can sacrifice their position by not adhering to right doctrine or by not remaining in communion with their fellow bishops:

“To be within Apostolic Succession, bishops must not only be traced historically, but they must also conform to Orthodox doctrine and be in communion with the rest of the Holy Episcopacy descended from the Apostles that conform to these standards. This is different than the understanding given in Latin theology, which heavily influences all of Western Christianity, teaching that Apostolic Succession in simply an historical matter. In this way, Romans may accept other churches Apostolic Succession as “valid”, meaning that they also accept their sacraments/mysteries as valid. Somehow, under this line of thinking, one can be “valid” but at the same time considered “illicit” because, for the Latins, any bishop not ultimately under the Roman Pontiff is outside of the Church.

Orthodoxy does not allow for such conditions. To be within Apostolic Succession means not only to hold historical ties back to the Apostles, but also to hold spiritual ties through agreement in doctrine with the other Orthodox bishops. It is because of this mystical understanding that all bishops outside of Orthodoxy, even with historical claims, are outside of Apostolic Succession. The Pope of Rome, for example, may have a legitimate claim as the successor of St. Peter. Actually, the Orthodox Church would readily admit that this is a simple historical fact. However, when the Roman Patriarch broke in doctrine from the other Orthodox bishops, he removed himself from that Apostolic Succession, deviating from the Faith and therefore breaking the spiritual succession of the Orthodox Faith that was originally transmitted by St. Peter. Essentially, either a bishop is Orthodox…or he is not.” ( “How does the doctrine of apostolic succession work in the Orthodox Church?” from Christianity.yoexpert.com)

My understanding of this is that the Roman Catholic Church would acknowledge that the Orthodox bishops stand in the line of Apostolic Succession but that the favor is not returned and that the Orthodox deny that the current Pope retains his Apostolic authority.

The Protestant View

It is always hard to generalize with Protestants since they are such a varied group. When it comes to Apostolic Tradition and Succession the Anglicans are the most notable exception. They, like the Orthodox accept both Tradition and Succession though they reject the primacy of Peter. In general, however while Protestants accept the special position of the Apostles who were eye-witnesses to Jesus’ ministry (except for Paul who nonetheless also saw Christ face-to-face on the road to Damascus),  they deny that this established permanent positions which were to be passed on to others. Rather, they speak of the Apostolic age which came to a close with the writing of the New Testament as it was then, in their view, no longer necessary since the written Word was available and thenceforth took precedence. There is a lot more that could be said about where authority comes from in Protestantism and this is a subject I would like to pursue. But since the topic of this post is Apostolic Succession I will just leave it for now with saying that Apostolic authority does not continue for most Protestants.

To sum up this post as well as the previous one, here is how the various branches stand on these issues of authority within the church: All agree that there were Apostles who had special authority given them by virtue of their close relationship with Christ who were also entrusted with His teachings. They also all accept the Scriptures of the New Testament as an accurate, truthful and inerrant record of at least some portion of those teachings.

Protestantism says that:

  • The New Testament is all we have remaining of the apostolic teaching. It alone is authoritative in the church and there is no Tradition (big “T”) apart from the Bible to which believers must adhere.
  • There is no apostolic succession in the sense that there are positions which are handed down from person to person. The apostolic age ended with the writing of the New Testament. The unique apostolic authority was no longer needed after the written word was available.
  • The Bible itself is the final arbiter of right doctrine.

The Roman Catholic Church says that:

  • There are two pillars of the church: Scripture and Sacred Tradition. These two together constitute the authoritative teaching of the church.
  • There is an apostolic succession in which the authority delivered from Christ to the first apostles is handed down through the generations to the present day. This line is unbroken and cannot be abrogated. The purpose of the Apostolic Succession is both to preserve Sacred Tradition and to provide right interpretations of Tradition and Scripture.
  • Among the first apostles, Peter held a place of preeminence and this position has been passed down to every succeeding bishop of Rome, each one in turn standing as the one head of the church and the “vicar of Christ.”

The Orthodox churches say that:

  • The Scriptures are a part of the Holy Tradition which was delivered to the apostles. They were written down because they were the most important parts of Tradition. They must be interpreted in the context of the Tradition of which they are a part.
  • There is an apostolic succession in which the authority given by Christ to the first generation of apostles is passed down through the ages. While the historical line must be unbroken for a bishop’s authority to be established, the place of a given bishop (and any who would then claim descent from him) can be lost through a failure to adhere to right doctrine or to continue in unity with the rest of the bishops.
  • No special place was given to Peter among the apostles and the bishops of Rome have lost their legitimacy long ago.
  • Those in the line of apostolic succession hold the Holy Tradition of the church and determine what qualifies as right doctrine though there is a certain amount of leeway given for personal theologies on matters on which dogma has not been established.

Nebby