Since there still seems to be questions/comments about Apostolic Succession and whether or not the Bishop of Antioch could also be the "Pope" since he, too, is a Petrine Successor, I will now post my aforementioned longer explanation (see post 80 for the shorter version).
First we need to backtrack and recall Acts 1 when Matthias was made an Apostle to replace Judas (and yes - I will "connect the dots" and circle back to Peter/Papacy so bear with me for a moment). Now this event is often pointed to by Catholic apologists as an example of Apostolic Succession. HOWEVER, I do not think it is as good of a proof-text as my fellow Catholics often think it is. It does illustrate what we are trying to illustrate --that the ministries of the Apostles were "offices" / "bishoprics." But, if you base Apostolic succession (as we have it in the Church today) on the selection of a successor for Judas, then you have a problem ...on four counts: First, someone can reasonably point out that there were only twelve "offices" available --only twelve "openings" created by Jesus; and if Apostolic succession is succession to those "offices," then we should only have twelve bishops in the Catholic Church today. Secondly, if a replacement had to be selected every time an Apostle died, then who today is the successor of James bar-Zebedee, who was killed in Act 12? The Bible doesn't speak about them choosing a successor for him. ...And who is the successor of Matthew, or Philip, or John, etc.? We say that the present Pope is the successor of Peter. So, who is the present successor of these other Apostles? Surely, when we speak of the Pope as Peter's successor, this is not what we mean. Thirdly, the criterion given in Acts 1 for a replacement for Judas was that the candidate had to have been a witness to everything from the time of John's Baptism to the Resurrection of Christ. So, if this is how Apostolic succession works, then no one today would be qualified for such an "office" or "bishopric." And, fourthly, when Matthias was selected to take the "office" or "bishopric" of Judas, he was not merely being made a "bishop," or succeeding Judas in the sense that Linus succeeded Peter, but Matthias was made a full Apostle, with equal authority to all the other Apostles, and so the ability to be a primary witness of Christ and to present new revelation. Clearly, our bishops today are not full Apostles, and not primary witnesses of Christ, and cannot introduce new revelation, as the Apostles could.
So, how should we understand and deal with the points above? First off, we need to understand what was really going on in Acts 1. Here, as I said, Matthias was being made a full Apostle in Judas' place. And the reason that this was necessary was because Peter and the others realized that they were to be the New Israel - the Church; and, like the old Israel, they were to be headed by twelve patriarchs --twelve fathers, who would be the spiritual heads of this New Covenant People. This is illustrated very clearly in the opening chapters of Revelation, which presents us with 24 presbyters (elders) - that is, the 12 OT patriarchs and the 12 Apostles of the Lamb; and later in Revelation, where the foundation walls of the New Jerusalem (the Church / the New Israel) are inscribed with the names of these same 12 Apostles of the Lamb. And this use of 12 Apostles illustrates, in and of itself, that a form of succession was intended - that is, a patriarchal succession within the Covenant People; for, just as each Jew could claim that he belonged to the tribe of a particular Israelite patriarch - i.e., that of Judah, or Simon, or Levi, Benjamin, or Ephraim, etc., so can each Christian claim to be the spiritual son of one of the Twelve Apostles. We Roman Catholics, for example, claim our Christian heritage through the Apostle Peter. ...and also through Paul, which presents another dynamic that I'll address in a moment. Likewise, the Malabar Christians of India claim their heritage through the Apostle Thomas; or those of Asia Minor through the Apostle John, etc. So, in Acts 1, Matthias is selected to replace Judas in order to establish the principal of the Covenant - a Covenant based on the fatherly authority of 12 new patriarchs, who represent the New Israel. Knowing that they would soon be called to go out into the world to represent this New Israel, Peter calls for a replacement for Judas so that the Christ-created sign of 12 Apostles (to indicate the Church's nature as the New Israel) will be restored and visible. And so, Acts 1 is not presenting us with an illustration of Apostolic succession as we presently have it; but merely the principal behind Apostolic succession as we presently have it. This is important to appreciate.
Secondly, it must be understood that the Apostles essentially failed to establish the Church in the form that they originally intended it to take. The primary mission of the Apostles was the wholesale conversion and restoration of Judaism - to have a Church that was primarily Jewish, and in which the sign of the 12 patriarchs would have deeper meaning, and would probably have been maintained in some form today. But, since the vast majority of Jews ended up rejecting Jesus Christ, the sign of the 12 patriarchs became less "formal" and more "nominal," as the Church became dominated by Gentiles. This is where Paul also comes in, since he was not one of the Twelve, but an additional Apostle appointed to evangelize the Gentiles and to be the head of the Gentile ministry - a ministry in which Peter would also have a share; and which, in a certain sense, drew part of its authority from the ministry of Peter (i.e., Paul receiving confirmation of his Christ-given ministry to the Gentiles from Peter, who was also the first to bring Gentiles into the Church: Gal 1:18, Acts 15:7-11, etc.). This relationship will complicate things a bit, as I'll explain below.
But, in regard to the Twelve, what we can say with utmost certainty is that each Christian living today draws his heritage from one of the Twelve - that is, he belongs to (and is the product of) the evangelic ministry (i.e., "tribe") of one of the Apostles ...and this includes our bishops. For, if we regard Peter and his ministry (for example) as a particular "tribal" dimension in the Church, it therefore follows that any bishop who was ordained by Peter ...whether that be the bishop of Rome, or of Antioch, or of Alexandria, etc. is the "successor of Peter." ...that is, in the sense of "tribal succession" ...in the sense that, in OT times, the head of any clan in the tribe of Ephraim or Judah was considered to be a son and fatherly successor of the patriarch Ephraim or Judah. This, as I explained earlier in post 80, is what the Eastern Orthodox have in mind when they tell us that the Bishop of Antioch is "just as much Peter's successor" as the Bishop of Rome. And, that is essentially true. ...when looked at from this perspective of "tribal" succession: Both the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Antioch are episcopal heirs of Peter, drawing their episcopal authority from his Apostolic ministry. ...as oppose to that of John, or James, or Matthew, etc. However, we Catholics must then point out that the Bishop of Antioch, while he succeeds to Peter's place as bishop of Antioch, did not succeed to Peter's Christ-given ministry of Rock, Key-bearer, and Vicarious Head of the universal Church, since Peter himself continued to hold that ministry when he left Antioch for Rome, and it was in Rome that Peter laid down this ministry, passing it to a successor.
But, appreciating the Eastern Orthodox concern helps us to see how Apostolic succession really works, and to address the first concern above. For, when we speak about Apostolic succession from Peter, for example, we do not mean that only one "office" or "bishopric" succeeds from Peter, or that only one man (e.g. the Pope) is Peter's Apostolic successor. For, while the Pope happens to hold Peter's special ministry as Rock and Key-bearer, he is not the only bishop who succeeds from Peter. Rather, many bishops succeed from Peter - the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria among them. Again, if one keeps in mind that Peter (and the other members of the Twelve) were established as twelve patriarchal fathers / tribal leaders for the New Israel, and that the ministry of a particular Apostle corresponds to the dissemination and expansion of his own particular "tribe," it therefore follows that any "fatherly head" established within Peter's ministry (or that of John, or James, or Matthew) is the fatherly "tribal" successor of Peter (or John, or James, or Matthew). ...just as, in OT times, all of the sons of the Patriarch Judah, or Simon, or Ephraim became the heads of the various clans within those tribes, and all of these heads of the various clans were said to be the successors of whomever the patriarch was - the successor of Judah, or Simon, or Ephraim, etc. over that part of the tribe. This is how Apostolic succession works. It is not the direct replacement of 12 particular offices, but the shared dissemination of fatherhood within the tribe or nation of the Church from one of these original twelve fathers.
Now, as I mentioned before, in the Gentile world, it got a little complicated, since some bishops drew their successor directly from Paul, and not one of the Twelve. But, if we keep in mind that Paul himself received his episcopal office (his authority to appoint bishops) not from Christ Himself, but from the Church (see Acts 13:1-3), which in-turn received it from the Apostles, then we have to admit that even those bishops who succeed from Paul receive Apostolic successor from the Twelve. ...and, I would argue, from Peter in particular, who confirmed that Paul indeed received Apostolic authority from Christ.
But, if one understands the principal above, it is clear why there are not only 12 bishops in the Church today (i.e., since Peter, for example, in the course of his evangelic ministry, appointed fatherly heads in all the places he established a church; and all of these fatherly heads are his successors in the communities he founded). It is also clear why we do not speak of a singular successor today for other Apostles, such as James, or Matthew, or Thomas, or John. For, in this sense, there is no singular successor for Peter either! The Pope is not the only successor of Peter. Peter has many Apostolic successors. The Pope is only "Peter's successor" in the sense that he succeeds to Peter's special, Christ-given ministry of Rock and Key-bearer - a ministry that was exclusive to Peter, and not shared by the other Apostles. So, strictly speaking, the Pope's exclusive role as "successor of Peter" does not address the normal sense of Apostolic succession, but is built upon the principal of Apostolic succession and based on it. In other words, the Bishop of Rome is one of many Apostolic successors of Peter; but because he is the bishop of the church where Peter laid-down his earthly ministry as Rock and Key-bearer, this particular successor of Peter happens to succeed to that ministry too. And, since the Bishop of Rome is just one Apostolic successor of Peter among others, we do not recognize only one successor of the Apostle James, or John, or Matthew, or Thomas either. Rather, they too have many, many bishops who succeed from them.
And, lastly, we must again appreciate that Apostolic succession does not mean that our bishops are full Apostles today. They are not full Apostles - they do not succeed to the fullness of the Apostolic office. Not even the Pope can claim this. They are not primary witnesses of Jesus Christ, and they cannot introduce new revelation, as the Apostles could. Rather, when we speak of "Apostolic succession," what we mean is that our bishops succeed to the episcopal dimension of the Apostolic office, not to the full dimension of the Apostolic office. For, aside from being primary witnesses to Christ and inspired sources of revelation, the Apostles were also bishops who were responsible for shepherding the flock and preserving the teachings that they delivered to the churches. Our bishops succeed to the Apostles in this capacity; and in this capacity alone. This is what the term "Apostolic succession" really refers to. And we see it illustrated in several places in Scripture (e.g. 2 Tim 2:2, 2 Peter 1:13-15, etc.).
God's Peace,
NewMan
No need to apologize.. It is just bothersome to me is all.. For I know that Peter was a great Apostle due to the Fact of Christ in Him.. Same with Paul. For it is the grace of God and gave these men the Power to be Apostles.. The men themselves are nothing without the very Grace of God and His power..
