Claims About What "All Of The Apostolic Churches" And "The Protestant Reformers" Believed

When it's shown that there are significant historical problems with something like the perpetual virginity of Mary, her assumption, or praying to saints (e.g., the early absence of the belief, early sources contradicting it, sources being agnostic about it as late as the medieval era), a common response is to say that all apostolic churches accept the belief in question. Or we'll be told that some or all of the foremost leaders of the Reformation accepted it, that early Protestants in general did, or something else along those lines. We'll be told about how all of the apostolic churches practice prayer to the saints, how high of a Mariology the leaders of the Reformation had, and so on.

Several things need to be kept in mind when that sort of response comes up:

Historical pedigree

I'm going to comment on the first half of Horn's response to Winger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3AxxFNcxRY

I don't care about commenting on the second half. 

1. Horn says: We can either believe that an apostolic tradition Jesus gave the apostles was faithfully preserved throughout all church history or else it was lost right after the apostolic age, and wasn't found until the Reformation or later–like Mormons say. Everyone is going to talk about where it lies. You either have bona fide historical pedigrees going back to the apostles or you have your interpretation of the Bible–which apparently people don't figure out for 1500 years or even 1900 years (19C Restorationist movements). God left us a church which preserves his word written and unwritten. 

In response:

i) Horn is evidently referring to oral traditions. The "unwritten word" of Christ. 

There's nothing conspiratorial or far-fetched about the possibility or high probability that unwritten traditions can and will be forgotten. There might be some lingering oral apostolic tradition, but how is that verified? How do we sift that from ecclesiastical legends or heresies masquerading as apostolic traditions? 

ii) Knowledge can be lost. The original understanding of a passage or ceremony can be lost, obscured, or distorted. 

Take biblical archeology. The discovery of texts and inscriptions from the ancient Near East that clarify the meaning of a Bible reference. Historical and geographical references. People and places. Kings. Battles. Improving our knowledge of biblical chronology or Classical Hebrew. 

iii) Horn is fixated on historical pedigree, but truth is independent of whether it's traceable through a continuous chain of testimony. Once again, consider biblical archeology. That recovers long-lost information. Millennia elapsed. There's no continuous chain of testimony. To the contrary, there's been a break in the record for centuries or millennia before that's retrieved.

iv) Because human beings social creatures, we are prone to cultural inertia. That's reinforced by sanctions against those who buck the system. We see that in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. That's what makes the work of Christian missionaries so challenging. Likewise, secularism becomes culturally entrenched in some countries.

v) Apropos (v), conditioning can blind people to other interpretations. Alternatives may not even occur to them due to the myopic power of conditioning. 

That's true for theological traditions generally. If you're indoctrinated in a particular faith-tradition, if that's all you've ever been exposed to, that's your filter. That may be all you see in the text. A different interpretations may not even occur to you. 

Consider how many Jews fail to recognize Jesus in messianic prophecy and the Gospels. Consider Paul before his epiphany. It took the a Christophany to shock him out of his hidebound perspective.

vi) It's not that Catholics are unable to perceive Protestant interpretations in Scripture. It's that Catholics are committed to belief that the text can't mean that, because it runs counter to Catholic dogma. The impediment is not that Protestant interpretations can't be found or discerned in the text of Scripture, but that prior commitment to Catholic dogma automatically screens that out of consideration. 

vii) There's also a gap between how Catholic apologists read the Bible and how professional Catholic commentators read the Bible. Modern Catholic Bible scholars are often far more open to  interpretations that question or deny traditional Catholic constructions. They recognize other exegetical options in the text. Superior options. 

2. Horn's appeal to patristic endorsements or the Roman church suffers from anachronism. Institutions change over time. Institutions may become unrecognizable with the passage of time. Institutions may abandon their original vision. Institutions may become the antithesis of what they originally represented. 

The church fathers aren't prophets. They are remarking on the state of the church in their own time and place. They aren't vouching for medieval Catholicism or the Roman Catholic church in the 21C. 

3. Horn appeals to Heb 13:17. But that backfires:

i) At a time when, as he himself belabors, the NT wasn't widespread, Christians were naturally more reliant on eyewitnesses to the ministry of Christ. 

ii) Appealing to church leaders only pushes the question back a step: which leader should you obey? Consider false teachers in the early church. Church fathers and heretics were frequently contemporaries, viz. Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Valentinus, Arius, Sebellius, Theodotus of Byzantium. Some heretics are as early or earlier than most church fathers. Does this carry the presumption that they transmit authentic apostolic traditions? 

And we can take it back another step. Consider false teachers in NT times. The Hyperpreterism of Hymenaeus and Philetus (1-2 Timothy) Docetists (1 John). Judaizers (Galatians). Antinomians (Jude). The Colossian heresy. Dual-covenant theology (Hebrews). Hyperspirituality (1 Corinthians). 

So you can't just blindly pick a leader to follow. You need some criterion to distinguish false teachers from true teaching. Appealing to church fathers begs the question. Are they orthodox because they're church fathers–or church fathers because they're orthodox? There has to be a source and standard of orthodoxy independent of the church fathers to evaluate and validate their legitimacy as doctrinal guides. 

4. Is baptism the rite of church membership? Depends. Suppose a spy infiltrates a foreign intelligence agency. Technically, he becomes a foreign agent. He belongs to the agency of a hostile state. He has an official position in the organization. An official rank. Official ID. But in reality he has no allegiance to the agency. To the contrary, his formal membership is just a subterfuge. Likewise, people can be baptized without having any ultimate loyalty to the Christian faith. 

Baptism is a sign of membership. Sometimes it corresponds to reality. But the rite is not in itself constitutive, beyond certain duties and privileges that come with public reception. Of course, Horn operates with a Catholic paradigm of baptism. That's an argument for another day. 

5. There's development in Catholic and Protestant theology alike. That's not the issue. The issue is a matter of consistency, especially when Rome claims special divine guidance and protection from error.

THE HISTORICAL UNTENABILITY OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

https://calvinistinternational.com/2020/02/05/the-historical-untenability-of-apostolic-succession/

Sedevacantism

I'm not a Catholic canon lawyer, so I might be mistaken, but I had a question about the coherence of sedevacantism. In my experience, sedevacantists think there's been a string of antipopes from John XXIII to Francis. John XXIII became pope in 1958. 

To my knowledge, a valid priest must be ordained by a valid bishop, and (diocesan) bishops must be appointed by the pope. If, however, the papal office has been vacant for over 60 years, doesn't that rupture apostolic succession? There's a chain reaction down the line: popes appoint bishops while bishops ordain priests. If there's too great an interval, then there ceases to be any living bishops to ordain priests. At that point there's a break in apostolic succession, and once broken, the rift can be restored. 

Nuclear winter

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. 

Judean succession

One of the oddities of Catholic apologetics is the appeal to Matthias to replace Judas. That's their major prooftext for apostolic success. But did Judas ordain bishops? Are contemporary Catholic bishops lineal successors to Judas? Did they inherit his teaching authority? If so, that would explain their character and behavior. They received the charism of Judas. 

For that matter, is there any evidence (besides etiological legends) that Thaddeus or Bartholomew ordained bishops? Are some contemporary Catholic bishops lineal successors to Thaddeus and Bartholomew? 

Prooftexting apostolic succession

Acts 1:12-26 is a traditional prooftext for apostolic succession. I recently had an impromptu debate with a Catholic apologist over that appeal:

There is succession in the Apostolic offices (Acts 1:12-26).

That's about maintaining the symbolism of the Twelve after Judas defected. Which disproves your argument, since that means there can't be more or less than Twelve at a time. 

Whether the transfer of office was motivated, in part, by symbolism, this no way diminishes the fact that transfers of office occurred, and that the Apostles went on to install bishops. You know the history of the early Church, for goodness sake.

You're trying to ride two horses at once.

i) The Twelve is a closed number. Judas was replaced to maintain the symbolism. By definition, you can't extrapolate from a closed number (the Twelve) to an indefinite number beyond twelve at a time. The Twelve constitute a self-contained unit. There can only be changes within that unit. 

ii) You then play a shell game by switching from that to apostles appointing elders, as if that flows out of the appointment of Mathias. But that's categorically different.

Never claimed that 12 is a closed number, just that it had symbolic significance, which I grant may have motivated the transfer of office.

No transfer of office. To the contrary, the Twelve is, in the nature of the case, a self-enclosed numerical unit. You can't legitimately expand from that to more than twelve at a time. So your prooftext disproves your contention.

Pretty clear from the New Testament that 12 is more symbolic than a strict number.

Pretty clear that there were originally 12 disciples, corresponding to the 12 tribes of Israel, and when Judas defected, he was replaced to maintain that numerically closed unit.

Also, clearly Paul was an apostle, so no evidence 12 was a contained number.

A category error. The Twelve is not synonymous with the Apostolate. The fact that each of the Twelve might be classified as an apostle doesn't imply that all apostles are disciples in the exclusive sense of the Twelve. 

You can't even read your prooftext. Look at the qualifications for candidates to replace the seat vacated by Judas: "21 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 men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."

That's a very restrictive pool to choose from. And that generation died out. So you can't very well use that as a paradigm for apostolic succession, since that disqualifies virtually member member of the Roman episcopate! But I do appreciate you unwittingly disproving the Roman episcopate.

There is no category error here. Paul was an apostle and not a member of the 12.

Which proves my point: the Twelve and the Apostolate are not equivalent. Keep in mind that "apostle" is a term of art in NT usage. Sometimes it has a more specialized meaning, sometimes a more generic meaning. 

The issue was whether an office could be transferred, and I substantiated that claim. We also know, historically, the apostles took as their mission to establish new Churches and ordain bishops, etc. So this idea that offices were not transferred, created, or established through the original 12 is just bizarre, frankly.

You're so blinded by traditional Catholic prooftexting that you can't even think straight. You prooftext is counterproductive to your thesis. At best, the appointment of Mathias would be an example of one apostle replacing another apostle. 

But Catholics don't think there's a permanent apostolic office with successive incumbents. They don't think apostolic succession means one apostle succeeding another apostle. Rather, they think bishops in union with the pope are the true successors to the Apostolate. Therefore, Daniel's prooftext either proves too much or too little. 

Acts 1 involves replacement of the same kind whereas apostolic succession involves a shift from apostles to bishops. Different principle.

It is the replacement of an apostle that is the matter here.

Replacing one apostle with another apostle isn't any kind of precedent for replacing an apostle with a bishop. You persist in your fallacious inference.

Ben and Barrett on apostolic succession

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2017/01/10/quote-day-ckb-apostolic-succession/

This begins with a quote from C. K. Barrett. A Catholic then challenges BW3 in the combox. A brief exchange ensues. BW3 talks circles around the Catholic disputant, who's no match for BW3 on 1C ecclesiology. 

Debunking an over-used Irenaeus quote on “Papal Succession”

In this definitive work on Irenaeus
the city of Rome is not even mentioned.

Someone posted this quote from Irenaeus in response to Jerry Walls’s comment on Facebook about the Roman Catholic Church having claimed to have “compiled the Bible” (and by the way, Jerry agrees it is "Simplistic, self-serving hubris":

The great early Father, St. Irenaeus in the mid-100’s felt a little differently (Against Heresies III, 2-4):

[T]hat tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles....

Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

Jerry referred them to Peter Lampe; someone else commented that “if you don’t have a succinct answer, you probably don’t have an answer”. Here is a succinct response that I posted:

Roman mojo

Let's consider the concept of church office. Before we do that, let's consider the concept of office. An office is a permanent position with temporary incumbents. Officeholders come and go but the office remains. There are many political examples of this, viz. kings, queens, presidents, prime ministers, senators, governors, mayors, generals.

Succession, in this sense, is to take over the same duties and responsibilities. 

There's a difference between succession within that official framework, and instituting that framework in the first place. Take the founder of a company. He may create administrators who will run the company after he dies or retires. But they don't succeed him in the sense of doing the same thing he did. He was the only founder. And he may have greater authority than they did, since he started the operation from scratch. He makes the rules.

Or take the transition from monarchy to democracy. Say revolutionaries abolish the monarchy and establish a representative form of government based on elective office. Before that, you had royal succession. Now you have officeholders. Within each system, processors and successors are comparable to each other, but members of one system aren't comparable to members of another system. Kings aren't comparable to elected officials. There's a paradigm shift between the role of a founder and the custodial role of officeholders. Successive officeholders didn't create the office. Their duties and responsibilities are determined by the office, whereas the founder determines the official duties and responsibilities in the first place. As the founder, his own prerogatives may be different, and more extensive, then the offices he institutes. He isn't bound by those constraints. Rather, he functions outside the system he instituted. Within the system, it's the same kind of relationship, from one incumbent to the next. But the relationship between a founder and his initial appointees or deputies is not the same kind of thing. His constitutive role is unique, including the constitutive prerogatives. 

The fact that the apostles chose elders to carry on their work doesn't amount to "apostolic succession" in the sense of transferring their teaching authority to elders. That's not a logical implication of church office. That's like saying the first president is the successor to the last king. But that's equivocal. The position of president is very different from the position of an absolute monarch. 

Moreover, nothing in the concept of church office requires a continuous line of succession. If, for some reason, church office was interrupted for a century, it could restart. The concept of office can be operative whether or not you have any officeholders. 

Consider a hypothetical situation in which Christianity is systematically persecuted to the point where Christians die out. There are no Christians for a century. Then the brutal regime implodes. People rediscover the Bible, become Christians, and reinitialize the system of elders and deacons. It can start up at any time or place. Indeed, that happens on the mission field. It's just a question of observing the job description in the Pastorals. 

Here's what the Catholic catechism says about apostolic succession:

77 "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
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38
79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

Problem is, you can't infer that from what the NT says about elders. The Catholic paradigm is analogous to witchdoctor to transfers his mojo to his apprentice. There's this "power" that must be transmitted from one person to the next by direct contact, like an electrical current. If the flow of energy is stopped, it can't jump over the circuit breaker and resume on the other side. The Catholic paradigm is a pagan paradigm, based on magic. A magician conveys his magical powers to a successor. If he dies before transfing his mojo, it dies with him. He's the vessel of the mojo. Unless he touches someone, and empties his mojo into a new vessel, it ends with him. 

A Refresher on “Apostolic Succession”

Thomas Hobbes said “The Papacy is not other than the Ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof”.

History has borne out this statement. The question of “authority” is at the heart of every discussion between Protestants and Roman Catholics since the time of the Reformation, and yet the Church of Rome (“Roman Catholicism”) bases all of its claims to authority upon “apostolic succession” … the notion that there was an unbroken succession of “successors” from the time of the Apostles till now.

Bryan Cross has said “The Church always had the concept of apostolic succession.”, but that is an equivocation of terms, and it is based upon another, older, different equivocation of terms.

For a long time, Roman Catholicism claimed a direct succession from Peter, through a line of popes. However, the study of history has turned that “direct succession” story into a puff of smoke. More recently, the doctrine suggests that “the Apostles were a ‘college’, and this ‘college’ had unnamed successors – but the real authority of the Apostles”. That, too, is bankrupt.

We actually have a speech from Paul, in his address to the elders in Acts 20, that describes what the earliest church understood “succession”. Does he say, as the CCC says, “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”?

There is not a hint of “continuous line of succession until the end of time” in Acts 20. Instead, what we have are admonitions to “pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock ...” This is an admonition that is set aside any time a Roman Catholic makes an appeal to suggest that Protestants are “Donatists”...

Paul continues “fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, and from your own selves [‘those of you “within”, who have positions of teaching’]” will arise men speaking twisted things.”

The “twisted things” are clearly shown over and over again among Roman Catholic doctrine and practice.

“The word of his grace” is able to “build you up” -- but this is not a guarantee of “a continuous line of succession until the end of time”. It is a warning to be diligent, for ministers to “work with their hands” ...

This shift of both concept and language from “pay careful attention to yourselves” to “continuous line of succession for all time” has its foundations in the Gnostic concept of “διαδοχἡ” (“succession”). That is not a biblical word, and Ratzinger equivocates by first equating the non-biblical “διαδοχἡ” with the biblical “παράδοσιν” (“paradosis” or “tradition”).

In truth, the concept of “διαδοχἡ” (“succession”) becomes swapped for “παράδοσεις” (“tradition”) in the Roman Catholic view – it is an unexplained and unexplainable (from extant sources) swap that merely duplicates the method that the Gnostics of the day were already using.

As Hans Von Campenhausen pointed out, “it is the Gnostic Ptolemaeus (who died prior to the time Irenaeus wrote) who provides the earliest evidence known to us of this new, theologically oriented usage. In the Letter to Flora he speaks explicitly of the secret and apostolic tradition (παράδοσεις) which supplements the canonical collection of Jesus’s words, and which by being handed on through a succession (διαδοχἡ) of teachers and instructors has now come to “us”, that is, to him or to his community. Here the concept of “tradition” is plainly used in a technical sense, as is shown particularly by the collocation with the corresponding concept of “succession”.

That is an illegitimate way to twist the language. The apostles gave no concept of “succession of persons” to the early church – especially not “a continuous line of succession until the end of time”.

But that illegitimate illusion is the focal point of the only explanation that Rome has for its own claims to authority today.

Inventing apostolic succession

They began to be concerned with their own history…The Marcionite church had is beginning with Marcion…The Montanists went back to Montanus…All of these bore the names of founders whom people knew, while the Christian churches normally went back beyond the turn of the first century into the time of the apostles. Only that which can trace its history back into the earliest time, either directly or through fellowship with churches which are able to document it directly, can be genuine. In this way the concept of apostolic tradition developed and along with it, apostolic succession. 

In this context people sometimes proceeded quite liberally in building the chain of tradition...Then, as now, historical thinking was overlaid with wishes.  

The idea that both of them [Peter & Paul] first came to Rome after the church had already existed there for a longer time had no place in early Christian thinking, which in this case wanted to forge a connection between something they knew and the earliest and best-known men whose names they knew.  

In the first century and the beginning of the second, the Roman church was led by a college of presbyters, as we learn reliably from 1 Clement which we have frequently mentioned. We can no more speak about an apostolic succession, by which Peter passed on the episcopal office by a laying on of hands, than we can about many other things. This idea was a product of the second century when the idea of apostolic succession inevitably developed from the concept or requirement of apostolic tradition. Both existed only after the second half of the second century. K. Aland, A History of Christianity (Fortress 1985), 1:118-120. 

Picking the wrong pope

...outgoing pope, Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked on Bavarian television in 1997 if the Holy Spirit is responsible for who gets elected. This was his response:

I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. ... I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit's role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.

Then the clincher:

There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked! 

http://ncronline.org/print/blogs/all-things-catholic/quick-course-conclave-101

But if that's the case, then where does that leave apostolic succession?

“Apostolic Succession” a very late “development” for “Churches of the East”

Distorting the history of “the Great Schism”

Over at CTC, David Anders has put up an article entitled “The Witness of ‘Lost Christianities’” – he makes such claims as that these churches ultimately are a “witness” to such things as “the development of Catholic doctrine” and “the importance of the Papacy”. I took issue with one particular claim of his:

David Anders: From your original blog post:

Apostolic Succession in the First Generation

Bryan Cross said

The whole idea that Jesus must give up His claim to infallibility in order to have a ‘fair’ discussion with men presupposes that there can be no fair or just discussions between an infallible God and a fallible man. In other words, it presupposes atheism. But that’s not something a theist should concede in the first place, because it is a question-begging presupposition against the theist. So likewise, and for the same reason, the notion that one cannot have a ‘fair’ or ‘just’ discussion with a Church that claims to be infallible under certain conditions, is also a question-begging presupposition against the Catholic.

Bryan has back-handedly equated “a Church that claims to be infallible under certain conditions” with Jesus himself. This is a huge stretch, and it assumes very many things that ought not to be assumed.

No notion of a “successor of Peter” anywhere in the Old Testament

In fact, in the proof text that Roman Catholics use, one Old Testament figure of Peter is cut off; the other is “unstable as water” and “shall not have preeminence”.

Andrew Presslar 784:

Some here have asked for a summary of the case for the institution of the papacy, understood as the Petrine ministry perpetuated in the Church by means of an office established by Christ: The biblical basis for this understanding is quite clear: Our Lord’s words recorded in Matthew 16:18-19, like so much of his teaching, draws from the Scriptures of the Old Covenant, in this case Isaiah 22:15-25, in which a faithless minister is deposed, and a new steward is established as a “peg in a sure place.”

You cite all of this as if it were quite self-evident, but there are terrible flaws merely in this portion of what you cite.

You cite Isaiah 22:15-25, in which it is “quite clear” that Peter is the “peg in a sure place”, but you fail to mention the very important conclusion of that passage: “In that day, declares the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way, and it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken.”

If you want to suggest that Old Testament prophecies point to the Roman Catholic Church, your “Tradition” surely has an odd way of leaving out the most important things.

The subsequent historical record demonstrates (after the manner of historical demonstration) that from Jerusalem and Antioch Peter went to Rome and fulfilled his ministry there, to the point of martyrdom.

In reality, (and Luke recognizes this reality), Peter is “cut off”, and quite abruptly in Acts. He is never seen again after Acts 15.

But if you are looking for a more apt Old Testament parallel to Peter, see Reuben (Gen 49:2-3). The CCC says “Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him.”

This is no mere “typological” identification of Peter with Reuben. The parallel is very clear. The clear implication is that the 12 tribes of Israel were the “foundation” of Israel, and the twelve Apostles were the foundation of the Church. They are placed together in Rev 4:10, “the twenty-four elders”. These are clearly (and not merely implicitly) being equated.

But just as the “peg in the secure place” gives way, is cut down, and falls, so too, Reuben, according to Jacob, “my firstborn, my might, and the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power” he is “Unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence”.

These biblical prophecies, some of which you cite favorably, actually speak very strongly against any notions of “perpetuation” or “office” or “succession”, especially with respect to Peter.

Choosing apostolic successors

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1775198/posts

Three quick points:

i) If you compare this tendentious summary with what Acts 1:15-26 actually says, the Catholic apologist is clearly getting out of the text what he is putting into the text. Stuffing the ballot box.

ii) It’s noteworthy that Matthias disappears without a trace.

iii) But let’s assume for the sake of argument that choosing Matthias is the exemplar of apostolic succession. Compare Acts 1:15-26 with Universi Dominici Gregis (subsequently amended by Benedict XVI) and ask yourself if the rules for papal election match the alleged exemplar:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html

If the case of Matthias is the yardstick, then papal elections don’t measure up.

John Jewell on ‘Apostolic Succession’

Among those who consider themselves to be “Continuing Anglicans”, that is, those who eschew the liberalism of “The Episcopal Church” but still wishing themselves to “continue” in the long-standing traditions of the Church of England (which has independent roots back into the fourth and fifth centuries), there is still a question of “apostolic succession”:

The question that hangs out there in Anglican circles is as follows: Is the church born of the gospel, i.e. the Word of God rightly preached, and thus legitimized by sound doctrine or does the church itself through the official succession of its ministers effect legitimacy upon herself? The one option raises right doctrine as taught in Scripture as the primary and necessary mark of a true church. The other puts forth the continuation of a physical lineage of ministerial successors from the Apostles as the esse of a true church. It is one or the other. It can't be both.

Such questions have been going on for hundreds of years. John Jewell of Oxford (1522 – 1571) saw himself as a “low-church” reformer during the English Reformation, “strongly committed to the Elizabethan reforms” and an a “literary apologist of the Elizabethan Settlement”, which was:

Elizabeth I’s response to the religious divisions created over the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary I. This response, described as “The Revolution of 1559”, was set out in two Acts of the Parliament of England. The Act of Supremacy of 1559 re-established the Church of England’s independence from Rome, with Parliament conferring on giving Elizabeth the title Supreme Governor of the Church of England, while the Act of Uniformity of 1559 set out the form the English church would now take, including the re-establishment of the Book of Common Prayer.

Jewell was a disciple of Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), himself an Italian theologian within the Reformed tradition, who later came to England and taught theology at Oxford.

Richard Hooker spoke of him as the “worthiest divine that Christendom hath bred for some hundreds of years.” In his Apology Jewell touches upon the above question. But it remained to be more directly addressed in his Reply Unto M. Hardings Answer. Finally in his Homily for Whit-Sunday, Jewell states the confessional position of the Church of England regarding the marks of a true church. Needless to say, while Jewell clearly embraced episcopal polity and proper ordination of clergy, he steered clear of any strict interpretation of apostolic authority residing in bishops or presbyters due to physical succession (via laying on of hands) from the Apostles on down. Rather, he argues and teaches that what ensures the validity of the visible church before God is the retention and communication of sound Apostolic teaching, the faith once delivered.

Here are some further quotes on this:

"To be Peter's lawful successor, it is not sufficient to leap into Peter's stall. Lawful succession standeth not only in possession of place, but also, and much rather, in doctrine and diligence. Yet the bishops of Rome, as if there were nothing else required, evermore put us in mind and tell us many gay tales of their succession." [pg. 201]

"... But Christ's love passeth not by inheritance of succession of sees." [pg. 283]

"... But Christ saith: By order of succession, the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair..." [pg. 322]

"... This is M. Harding's holy succession - Though faith fall, yet succession must hold; for unto succession God hath bound the Holy Ghost." [pg. 347]

"... Now, M. Harding, if the pope and his Roman clergy, by his own friends confession, be fallen from God's grace, and departed from Christ to antichrist, what a miserable claim is it for them to hold only to bare succession! It is not sufficient to claim succession of place: it behooveth us rather to have regard to the succession of doctrine. St. Benard saith: What availeth it, if they be chosen in order, and live out of order." [pg. 349]

"... The faith of Christ, M. Harding, goeth not always by succession. The bishops of Rome have been Arians, Nestorians..." [pg.610]

"And for that cause they say, We are Peter's successors: even as the Pharisees sometime said, We be the children of Abraham. But John said unto them, Put not your affiance in such succession. For God is able even of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." [pg. 439]

The author here says “Now the above quotes aren't intended as any kind of definitive case by Jewell. But his deemphasis and outright dismissal of physical succession as that which validates the ministry is evident.”

I think it’s important to look at how even historical Anglicans who believed in “succession” viewed “succession” – and it is curiously similar to the case made today by Reformed writers.

More about Ignatius and "Apostolic Succession"

Garrison (#392):

You begin your paragraph by assuming the doctrine of sola scriptura in arguing that the New Testament is a witness to all that the Apostles and the early Church believed. You can't have it both ways.

No, I (following Hurtado) begin by assuming that the New Testament writings are an accurate source of information concerning the events and beliefs of the New Testament period.

For you, either there was a succession of teachers teaching with an essentially oral tradition (by which the concept of grace was “misunderstood”) or there was no such thing and Irenaeus, Clement, Ignatius, etc. all had access to the books of the New Testament and knew exactly what they were writing.

Start from “the beginning”. In brief, the argument I am making is that the Apostles were commissioned by Christ in a unique position of “eyewitness”. These alone had the ability to report on the events and articulate the meaning of Christ's life, death, and resurrection.

Per Irenaeus (and Hurtado), this “unique message” was written down. This (in the form of the New Testament scriptures) had divine blessing. The “message ringing in their ears” also had “divine blessing”, but like the Glory of God on Moses’s face, this faded over time.

I’m not saying that what they had gave them “the ability to infallibly posit binding doctrines” in some well-defined (though located after-the-fact) instances. I would rather argue that the concept of “the ability to infallibly posit binding doctrines” is flawed.

I’m saying that what they had was “sufficient”. In God’s purpose, those who were in a position of church leadership during the years 100-150, Clement, Ignatius, Papias, Hermas, all had the living voice ringing in their ears, but that it had (a) faded and (b) become contaminated with other things (per Cullmann, in my comment above). This is why I am able to say they “misunderstood” some things – Grace, to be sure, and other things as well. This did not totally incapacitate them. What they had was sufficient to “turn and be healed” (Acts 28:27).

This is consonant with the history that we know.

Is it not exceedingly arrogant to assume you know better than the men who learned from the Apostles themselves (who were most certainly not heretics) what the concept of grace was?

Interesting that you put it this way. I would suggest that it was “exceedingly arrogant” of Rome to insert itself the way that it did upon the church. The “donum superadditum” comment above illustrates how I believe this happened, not in the case of Rome, but in the case of one particular Roman Catholic doctrine.

It has been repeatedly explained what is meant by development of doctrine as well as infallibility.

And I repeatedly explain why I reject those explanations.

do not keep saying apostolic succession did not exist for Clement or Ignatius without citing direct evidence of such.

I’m not denying that these men understood themselves to be in a position of church leadership. What they denied was that they had anything near the “authority” that the apostles had. Consider Ignatius:

“I do not command you as Peter and Paul: they [were] apostles. I [am] a condemned man; they [were] free, I (am) still a slave”.

You will point to this as some example of what a “bishop” is; you will use this as some kind of affirmation of “succession” in Ignatius.

You will say “this is not inconsistent” with what the Roman Catholic church says about the relationship of apostles and bishops today. Nevertheless, this is NOT a positive articulation of anything near to “the doctrine of succession” – and if you consider the level at which this statement locates bishops vis-à-vis the apostles, there is a huge gulf here, which you will not accept (and I will).

The Roman Catholic doctrine today is found in Lumen Gentium 19f:

calling to Himself those whom He desired, appointed twelve to be with Him, and these apostles … He formed after the manner of a college or a stable group, over which He placed Peter chosen from among them…That divine mission, entrusted by Christ to the apostles, will last until the end of the world …. since the Gospel they are to teach is for all time the source of all life for the Church. And for this reason the apostles, appointed as rulers in this society, took care to appoint successors…. They therefore appointed such men, and gave them the order that, when they should have died, other approved men would take up their ministry…

This is actually an equivocation on what, actually is “that divine mission, entrusted by Christ to the apostles”…

Ignatius has no concept of having this same mission – which Cullmann is careful to describe – how “apostles as the foundation” is completely unique and unrepeatable. Ignatius clearly recognizes this difference. He had no concept that he had been “appointed” as “a ruler” in this society. He knew of himself in a leadership position, to be sure, but also, something completely separate from what the apostles were.

And you are the one who must provide “direct evidence” that Ignatius, in fact, was a bishop in the sense that the modern Roman Catholic Church says that bishops are bishops. Otherwise, Ignatius does not support you in that, and “development”, in this case, is a smokescreen that enables you to avoid fulfilling that obligation on that burden of proof.

Why Irenaeus may be dismissed as an early source for “apostolic succession”

Roman Catholics point to a selection from Irenaeus’s “Against Heresies” as a key piece of evidence (a) for Roman primacy and (b) that the concept of “apostolic succession” was widely believed and practiced. Here is that text as cited by Sean Patrick:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

I gave a number of reasons why this selection might be discounted, notably the fact that Peter and Paul (and Paul especially) could not be said to have “founded and organized” the church at Rome. This notion was challenged, but it is not the only reason to dismiss this passage.

I described an account of the church historian Eusebius reporting as actual fact, what really was a fictional account of an exchange of letters between Jesus and the Edessan king Abgar.

Sean Patrick then (351) in response to a question of mine, made a comparison between these letters to and from Abgar and what Irenaeus supposedly wrote in the late second century:

Do you grant that there is a huge difference between Eusebius thinking the Agbar letters to be genuine and apostolic succession?

I mean, if the Agbar letter was foundational to the ecclesiology of the Church and repeated and relied upon for 2,000 years spanning the geography of the known world then maybe you would have an argument. If, in addition to what you call Augustine being hampered by his bad ecclesiology you could argue that he was hampered by accepting and relying upon the Agbar letter then maybe we'd have something to talk about.

Thus, that you can show that this father here or that father there held something that kind of sticks out as unreliable does not even compare to apostolic succession. In fact, that these things are aberrations prove that, to the fathers, apostolic succession was no aberration.

No, I do not grant that there is “a huge difference” between the Eusebius/Agbar fiction and Irenaeus’s account of “apostolic succession”. It is just as easy to dismiss Irenaeus’s account. Here’s why.

K. Doran (353) also refers to this passage “The earliest direct evidence we have”, and, if it is (to use Sean’s words) “foundational to the ecclesiology of the church” and “the earliest direct evidence we have”, then it is not very valuable as evidence, and indeed, should be challenged and dismissed.

Michael Kruger, in a recent blog post, pointed out that the number of manuscripts provide important physical evidence of relative use and popularity of certain works. Thus he says:

The physical remains of writings can give us an indication of their relative popularity. Such remains can tell us which books were used, read, and copied. [The notion here is that important works were copied and re-copied, whereas unpopular works were not.] When we examine the physical remains of Christian texts from the earliest centuries (second and third), we quickly discover that the New Testament writings were, far and away, the most popular. Currently we have over sixty extant manuscripts (in whole or in part) of the New Testament from this time period, with most of our copies coming from Matthew, John, Luke, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation. The gospel of John proves to be the most popular of all with eighteen manuscripts, a number of which derive from the second century (e.g., P52, P90, P66, P75). Matthew is not far behind with twelve manuscripts; and some of these also have been dated to the second century (e.g., P64-67, P77, P103, P104).

During the same time period, the second and third centuries, we possess approximately seventeen manuscripts of apocryphal writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Peter, the Protevangelium of James, and more. The Gospel of Thomas has the most manuscripts of all, with just three.

The implications of this numerical disparity has not been missed by modern scholars.

By comparison, a work such as “Shepherd of Hermas”, which appeared in some early canonical lists, and which was very highly regarded in some circles, “has not been well preserved”, according to Michael Holmes (“The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations”, Third Edition ©2007), notes that “Only four incomplete Greek manuscripts and several small fragments have been discovered.” In all, he lists about 22 different manuscript sources (many of which are Latin) in which this work appears.

On the other hand, Irenaeus, whose “Against Heresies” is claimed to be a superb piece of evidence, was not so highly regarded all, with only fragments of one Greek manuscript, and a late fourth century Latin translation as the only extant manuscript evidence prior to the tenth century. Note what Eric Osborn says in his study of Irenaeus:

The original Greek text of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies is found only in fragmentary form, while [only one] complete Latin translation prepared about the year 380 has survived (emphasis added). There are three early manuscripts of the Latin translation, the oldest of which (Clareomontanus) dates from the tenth or eleventh century. The others are later (Leydensys, Arundelianus). Erasmus’ edition princeps of Irenaeus (1526) contains some readings not represented by any of these three manuscripts and the sources from which his variants may dreive have since disappeared (pg 1).

No complete text exists, and only one manuscript source exists from prior to the 10th century. Thus, in a period (2nd-10th centuries) when literally thousands of New Testament manuscripts exist, including many complete manuscripts of both the OT and the NT, we have only three extant manuscripts of Against Heresies. Thus, Irenaeus’s account was neither “repeated and relied upon for 2,000 years” nor did it “span the geography of the known world” during that time.

The fact that only three manuscript sources existed is an important piece of evidence against the notion that Irenaeus’s beliefs were widespread. In fact, that’s a very important piece of evidence that actually quite provincial.

Moreover, in addition to the paucity of texts, what text we do have, as Chad Brewer (#356) noted, is “a highly debated Latin text”.

Especially debated (as J.N.D. Kelly notes) is the passage in question. He says:

To illustrate his argument Irenaeus singled out, in a famous and much debated passage, the Roman church; its greatness, its antiquity, its foundation by the apostles Peter and Paul, the fact too that it was universally known, made it an apt example.Ad hanc enim ecclesiam, so the surviving Latin translation runs, propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua simper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolic traditio. If convenire here means ‘agree with’ and principalitas refers to the Roman primacy (in whatever sense), the gist of the sentence may be taken to be that Christians of every other church are required, in view of its special position of leadership, to fall into line with the Roman church, inasmuch as the authentic apostolic tradition is always preserved by the faithful who are everywhere. This interpretation, or some variant of it, has been accepted by many, but it is awkward to refer in qua to hanc … ecclesiam, and [it is] anachronistic to attribute such thinking to Irenaeus (J.N.D. Kelly “Early Christian Doctrines”, pg 193).

The anachronism he speaks of here is more pronounced, given the date (380) of that Latin manuscript. This was during the papacy of “pope” Damasus, whose mission as a “pope” is widely regarded to have worked diligently to enhanced the status of the papacy. Eamon Duffy notes (“Saints and Sinners”, ©2001 edition), “The Romanization of the papacy was more than a matter of external decoration. Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state”.

However, whereas we may safely say that Eusebius’s “goof” regarding Agbar was a simple error, it is possible to attribute an active kind of tampering to this passage from Irenaeus (again, the Latin manuscript is dated 380).

Why do I say this? Roger Collins has noted, writing of the Symmachan forgeries”, describes these “pro-Roman” “enhancements” to history:

So too would the spurious historical texts written anonymously or ascribed to earlier authors that are known collectively as the Symmachan forgeries. This was the first occasion on which the Roman church had revisited its own history, in particular the third and fourth centuries, in search of precedents That these were largely invented does not negate the significance of the process. Forgery is an emotive word, and it should not necessarily be assumed that the documents, including the acts of two synods, were cynically concocted to justify a particular claim. Some of the periods in question, such as the pontificates of Sylvester and Liberius (352-366), were already being seen more through the prism of legend than that of history, and in the Middle Ages texts were often forged because their authors were convinced of the truth of what they contained. Their faked documents provided tangible evidence of what was already believed true.

Thus, he says, “It is no coincidence that the first systematic works of papal history appear at the very time the Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes.” (Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” pgs 80-82).

Thus it is “not inconsistent” with the facts as we know them, and in fact, it is possible to suggest that there is a high degree of probability, given that there is no complete Greek text, and a “translation” of the text dating to 380, during the time when Damasus was beginning to work to enhance Rome’s status vis-à-vis actual history, that this “controversial text” was doctored to enhance Rome’s status.

(The fact that it was a “known enhancement” would also speak to the fact that so few manuscript copies were produced early on).

So, in response to K. Doran’s list of stipulations about evidence (353), all of these things must temper the kind of, and the amount of enthusiasm we have, for regarding Irenaeus’s text as a “key piece of evidence”.

While it’s possible to say that this passage from Irenaeus is not quite so fictional as the letters between Jesus and Agbar, it is still very possible to challenge the authenticity of the passage on the basis of available manuscripts, the text itself, and the things we know of the Roman and papal cultures of the times.