I'd like to expand on an illustration I sometimes use to compare and contrast Catholic and Protestant paradigms. Take those dystopian scenarios in which 99% of the human race is wiped out by some catastrophe. But a sample of the human race survives in subterranean cities. They may be there for generations until it's safe to come outside.
If, during that interruption in normal human life, all the popes, priests, and bishops died, that's the end of the road for Catholicism. The Catholic faith can't restart if there's a break in apostolic succession. Even if some of the original survivors were Catholic, when they surface, generations later, Catholicism can't make a comeback.
By contrast, the Protestant faith operates with a Word and Spirit paradigm. It can reinitialize anytime, anywhere. All that's needed is knowledge of Scripture and the direct, independent action of the Spirit to engender faith. Protestant faith could be forgotten for centuries or millennia, but come back to live in a flash. When the survivors emerge, they can pick up where their ancestors left off.
I've made a similar point in the past. It's not impossible that God could providentially allow a Muslim Dark Ages or an Atheistic one where all the Catholic leaders with apostolic succession are executed. Along with other communions that Catholics technically acknowledge as having apostolic succession (e.g. Orthodoxy).
ReplyDeleteAlso, there's the potential problem of not enough priests to minister the sacraments. If the numbers of men entering the priesthood continue to dwindle, then that becomes a real possibility. Could Catholicism handle the mass conversions in a great awakening/revival towards the Catholic faith?
Or imagine a nuclear bomb detonating in the Vatican when many of its bishops and priests are gathered there for some reason (e.g. to replace a dead Pope or a council). That would cripple Catholicism.
Whereas given Protestantism a bunch of shipwrecked atheists on a deserted island [or planet in space] could all come to faith by reading a Bible and leaders would naturally arise among them to offer coconut meat and milk communion [or Romulan ale and mapa bread].
Interesting because a lot of people think Revelation chapter 17. Mystery Babylon is about the nuking of Rome.
ReplyDeleteI think you do not need a dystopian scenario for this to happen. In fact this scenario has already happened. Apostolic succession is unverifiable. Catholics can not know who are the legitimate successors of the Apostles, there is no evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe "survivors" successors of the apostles today are only by convention, is impossible to verify that their succession was not broken somewhere between Peter and Francis for instance.
Yes, that's a good point.
DeleteWhat is the formal and full definition of "apostolic succession"? (according to Roman Catholicism)
ReplyDeleteIs it? - that presbyters-bishops (later developing into bishop over all bishops, the one in Rome, the Pope) after Peter and other apostles not only had local church ecclesiastical authority (to teach apostolic doctrine and do church discipline), but also ability and protection to always teach doctrine properly, pass down sound doctrine, and interpret everything infallibility into the future and develop doctrine? (so that unanimous consent of past doctrines = generally unanimous ?)
I remember debating Dave Armstrong years ago and he claimed that "unanimous consent" meant "almost unanimous" or "generally unanimous". ha ha
Yeah, Michael D. O'Brien does dystopian scenarios just like this in his novels. What he always does is to salvage a few priests and at least one bishop. Then his righteous remnant of mankind just carries on in a hidden valley or on a planet circling Alpha Centauri (literally) without the pope, but as long as a bishop survived and ordained a successor, they have the succession.
ReplyDeleteIs there anyone here who reads this who can point me to a definition of "apostolic succession"?
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons I ask is because Irenaeus' and Tertullian and arguably Origen and Athanasius' use of it or something close to the idea, is, IMO a lot different than what Roman Catholics read back into the concept, especially from Trent onward in history.
Irenaeus uses a concept of it that is only saying to the Gnostics and other heretics - we believe in sound doctrine which has been passed down to us in the written Scriptures and also, until now, from the apostolic churches & bishops that affirmed the OT God as the same as the NT God, and the basics of Trinitarian doctrine, etc. They say nothing about the ability of the links of the historical chain to interpret infallibly into the future.
Modern Roman Catholics are reading the authority and ability to interpret infallibly / protection from heresy in the line of succession of Roman bishops in all history - into that (ancient lists of bishops, etc. apostolic succession, whenever "the church" comes up, in both Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and even Athanasius - about the rule of faith and tradition of the apostles) in an anachronistic way.
According to the Catechism:
Delete77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
Thanks -
Deletethe inspired books preserve the truth for us.
however, in the teachers/elders/bishops/pastors themselves -
"preserved", "teaching authority" (but not infallibly) and "until the end of time" are key elements that are different than, say, what we as Protestants would accept.
It should have been the passing down of sound doctrine to the next generation of elders (see Acts 14:21-23; Titus 1:5-7), but there is no guarantee that future bishops/pastors/elders would be able to preserve, protect, always teach right, etc. nor not fall into serious sin, etc.
Irenaeus speaks of the apostolic tradition being passed down through the bishops up until his time, but that says nothing about the future. He was right as far as sound doctrine against Gnosticism goes; but, on the issues of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, it seems from the Council of Orange (529 AD) until Trent, semi-Pelagianism crept back in, even though Orange condemned it.