succession from a Catholic

[wendit]

My question is: Why couldn't any other church lay claim to apostolic succession. What if Luther had claimed to be the first bishop of the universal "catholic" church and hence continued apostolic succession through the Lutheran church? Would the Lutheran church then be more legitimate? Does apostolic succession really exist, in the context that only Peter's successor has legitimate power over the church. We both believe that scripture has authority so why should the pope have authority over God's written word?

 

[MrPolo]

My question is: Why couldn't any other church lay claim to apostolic succession. What if Luther had claimed to be the first bishop of the universal "catholic" church and hence continued apostolic succession through the Lutheran church? Would the Lutheran church then be more legitimate? Does apostolic succession really exist, in the context that only Peter's successor has legitimate power over the church. We both believe that scripture has authority so why should the pope have authority over God's written word?

The Pope does not have authority over God's written word, so no problems there. Neither does "only Peter's successor" have any authority in the Church, so no problems there either.

If Luther claimed to have original apostolic succession, it would help his position to give some demonstrable account of how that is so. If I said I went to Mars and had a picnic, what would you care if I could produce no evidence of my claim. However, if I was able to produce 100s of witnesses, video, Martian samples, etc... my case would have credence.

So obviously, the writings of historical Christians would not back up such a claim if Luther claimed to be first universal bishop. And I think a fair assessment of history and even Scripture points only to Catholics and Orthodox as legitimate successors.

 

[St_Worm2]

The Pope does not have authority over God's written word, so no problems there. Neither does "only Peter's successor" have any authority in the Church, so no problems there either.

If Luther claimed to have original apostolic succession, it would help his position to give some demonstrable account of how that is so. If I said I went to Mars and had a picnic, what would you care if I could produce no evidence of my claim. However, if I was able to produce 100s of witnesses, video, Martian samples, etc... my case would have credence.

So obviously, the writings of historical Christians would not back up such a claim if Luther claimed to be first universal bishop. And I think a fair assessment of history and even Scripture points only to Catholics and Orthodox as legitimate successors.

Oh I see, so it's "Martian" Luther now. OK, I get it. That explains a LOT!!

.............................................................................

 

[St_Worm2]

The Pope does not have authority over God's written word, so no problems there.

Hi MrPolo, on a slightly more serious note, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 1, Chpt. 2, Article 2 we read:

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it.
​

While I do understand what you (in accord with the CCC's #86 above) are saying, he upon whom final authority rests as to the "interpretation" of God's Word does have authority over it, in a very real sense.

--David

 

[wendit]

The Pope does not have authority over God's written word, so no problems there. Neither does "only Peter's successor" have any authority in the Church, so no problems there either.

Thanks DaLeKo for your post. MrPolo I believe you are incorrect in that the catholic church does teach only Peter's successor, which the pope claims for himself, is the only person in authority in the church. #85 seems to make this quite clear.

You somewhat missed my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear. If an organization was to teach today, exactly as the apostles themselves did, exactly as Jesus did, in perfect accordance to God's written word, couldn't that organization claim to be the succession of the apostles based on truth? Not for the purpose of authority over the written word of God, but to prove legitimacy to those who believe they are the true successors, but who continue to teach false doctrine.

 

[MrPolo]

Thanks DaLeKo for your post. MrPolo I believe you are incorrect in that the catholic church does teach only Peter's successor, which the pope claims for himself, is the only person in authority in the church. #85 seems to make this quite clear.

#85 does not teach Peter alone has authority. It defines the Magisterium as the bishops in communion with the Roman bishop. He is a source of unity, but obviously, the very text therein gives authority to the bishops that it mentions. It doesn't say a thing about "only Peter's successor" having authority.

CCC#85 The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.​

You'll see other paragraphs like #553 that mention "a particular" charism given to Peter, but the other apostles are also mentioned as having authority. Ad nauseum the Catechism cites the authority of "councils." Etc.. It's simply false to say the Church teaches "only Peter" to have authority.

You somewhat missed my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear. If an organization was to teach today, exactly as the apostles themselves did, exactly as Jesus did, in perfect accordance to God's written word, couldn't that organization claim to be the succession of the apostles based on truth? Not for the purpose of authority over the written word of God, but to prove legitimacy to those who believe they are the true successors, but who continue to teach false doctrine.

Succession is a matter of lineage passed on by way of ordination. In the Old Testament, this took place via a physical lineage in the tribe of Levi. This is a type of the New Testament ministerial clergy. In the NT, succession takes place via spiritual lineage, by rite of ordination (e.g. Acts 13:3, 2 Tim 1:6, etc...)

Now let's say Joe Schmoe teaches true doctrine all day and every day. That is a good thing, but it does not make him a "successor" of the Apostles if he is not ordained. If we are going to use the term succession in its historical context, then proper lineage must be demonstrated.

I'm going to forgo addressing what I perceive as an insinuation that those Churches who claim succession teach "false doctrine."

 

[MrPolo]

he upon whom final authority rests as to the "interpretation" of God's Word does have authority over it, in a very real sense.[/SIZE][/FONT]

I think you must include in your understanding of Catholic theology the section header immediately preceding CCC#109:

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE​

Also, I remember hearing John MacArthur use the argument that if the Church claims to be able to authentically interpret Scripture that they are somehow placing themselves "above" Scripture. The idea is nonsensical to me. After all, MacArthur claims to interpret Scripture over and above the people he claims have placed themselves over and above Scripture. Where does that put him, then?

 

[St_Worm2]

I think you must include in your understanding of Catholic theology the section header immediately preceding CCC#109:

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
​

Also, I remember hearing John MacArthur use the argument that if the Church claims to be able to authentically interpret Scripture that they are somehow placing themselves "above" Scripture. The idea is nonsensical to me. After all, MacArthur claims to interpret Scripture over and above the people he claims have placed themselves over and above Scripture. Where does that put him, then?

Like I said, I get where you and the CC are coming from, and it's a great argument, if you also hold to the whole succession ... which then breeds ... authority thing.

As for Dr. MacArthur, unlike the Pope/Magisterium, he will boldly proclaim what he believes concerning the Scriptures, but he will never claim to be the sole interpreter of them or require that anyone else accept his understanding of them as if it was God Himself talking.

Whoa, gotta go. Back w/more later (St. Peter in Galatians comes to mind).

--David

 

[wendit]

Thanks MrPolo, but I wasn't clear apparently, As you demonstrated that other people/councils have authority in the church, isn't it true that the pope is the only man with claim to be Peter's successor, giving him authority over all other bishops? The CC believes that he is infallible when speaking as Peter's successor, while proclaiming Christian doctrine according to the CC. I am not so sure that you Acts and 2 Timothy passages established any type of ordination. It sounds like the CC has logic-ed its ways into the churches ends. Paul in now way told Timothy that he now has authority over all the church to create doctrine as the pope does today.

 

[Albion]

My question is: Why couldn't any other church lay claim to apostolic succession. What if Luther had claimed to be the first bishop of the universal "catholic" church and hence continued apostolic succession through the Lutheran church? Would the Lutheran church then be more legitimate? Does apostolic succession really exist, in the context that only Peter's successor has legitimate power over the church. We both believe that scripture has authority so why should the pope have authority over God's written word?

Luther, had he believed in the necessity for Apostolic Succession, might have found a bishop to consecrate him a bishop also. In that case, he would have been in succession. Luther did not feel any need for AS, but he wasn't hung up on the form of church government, such that the Lutheran churches in Scandinavia retained their bishops from pre-Reformation days and still have AS. Whether or not this would have enhanced the standing of Lutheran churches, well, yes...in the eyes of other churches that have AS, such as the Church of England. Luther could not, however, merely have proclaimed himself a bishop or anything like that. Because he considered the Pope or the Papal Office to be the anti-Christ of scripture, the rest of your hypothetical scenario wouldn't be worth speculating on.

 

[wendit]

I wasn't aware that there were any Lutheran churches that claim apostolic succession. Does anyone know which group/s?

I find it quite interesting that apostolic succession could continue in any organization as long as a bishop was to ordain them.

 

[Albion]

I wasn't aware that there were any Lutheran churches that claim apostolic succession. Does anyone know which group/s?

The Church of Norway, the Church of Sweden, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and one of the Finnish churches (I think).

I find it quite interesting that apostolic succession could continue in any organization as long as a bishop was to ordain them.

Well, that IS what Apostolic Succession is--a line of bishops dating in unbroken succession from one of the Apostles to the present day.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"My question is: Why couldn't any other church lay claim to apostolic succession.

Simple - that which became the "Catholic Church", and is now a collection of denominational groups encompassing the "Orthodox" and Roman Catholic Denominations was simply there first, and their THEORY of "Apostolic succession" Is one of the "Traditions" that they guard closely (even though it's easily demonstrated to be false). For somebody else to try Selling that concept would be silly, and useless anyway.

"Does apostolic succession really exist"

Nope it's just another "Tradition based on nothing". The AUTHORITY in the Church resides in the WORD OF GOD and is communicated by the Holy Spirit moving in the children of God - regardless of what Religious paradigmatic group they're found in.

The Pope's authority is nothing more that that of a CEO of a major religious corporation, and has no effect of anybody that doesn't claim membership in that corporation.

 

[wkmt2819]

Apostolic Succession is not something invented but comes from the Jewish roots of our faith, started by Moses when God instructed Moses to "transfer [his] authority" to Joshua. (Numbers 27:19f) According to the Jewish interpretation of the Torah, these ordained men had the authority to "bind and loose" and those so ordained were given the authority to interpret the Torah. (an interesting article can be found by searching for "semikhah" in wiki (sorry - I can't post links yet)) This is the same language the "New Moses" uses when he ordains his Apostles and gives them the authority to "bind and loose", first to Peter (Mt 16:19) and then to the rest of the Apostles (Mt 18:18). This is why the Church from its very inception recognized its ordained leaders as having the authority to interpret scripture (Acts 15).

Peace

 

[Albion]

Apostolic Succession is not something invented but comes from the Jewish roots of our faith, started by Moses when God instructed Moses to "transfer [his] authority" to Joshua. (Numbers 27:19f) According to the Jewish interpretation of the Torah, these ordained men had the authority to "bind and loose" and those so ordained were given the authority to interpret the Torah. (an interesting article can be found by searching for "semikhah" in wiki (sorry - I can't post links yet)) This is the same language the "New Moses" uses when he ordains his Apostles and gives them the authority to "bind and loose", first to Peter (Mt 16:19) and then to the rest of the Apostles (Mt 18:18). This is why the Church from its very inception recognized its ordained leaders as having the authority to interpret scripture (Acts 15).

Peace

All that you are referring to there is a general idea about passing along a responsibility. That's not enough to answer the question about Apostolic Succession because Apostolic Succession is a particular theory of a certain and very specific kind of "passing." It authenticates church leadership and teaching. It validates the administration of sacraments. It is very narrowly defined and has very precise requirements. If it were not so, any church that doesn't have Apostolc Succession could say that it hands off its leadership to new people though some orderly process that spans the generations, i.e. de facto Apostolic Succession. No one views Apostolic Succession that way.

The Christian idea of Apostolic Succession arose in the mid to late first century AD when various bishops were spreading the faith and the people wondered whom they could trust...almost like the circuit riders of American history who preached and moved along, only to be replaced by the next guy preaching in the area the next week. Whom to trust? The idea grew that the bishop who could claim to have learned his theology from an actual Apostle...or at least from a disciple of one...had more credentials than the preacher/bishop/elder who couldn't claim as close an association to the ones whom Jesus taught and commissioned personally.

 

[wkmt2819]

All that you are referring to there is a general idea about passing along a responsibility.

The responsibility was to interpret the Torah. In order for a Jew to sit on the court in the Temple (where they interpreted the understanding and application of the Torah), they had to have this authority and it was always passed on. It required the recipient to sit at the feet of his mentor and when sufficiently trained in the Torah (both written and oral) he was granted “semikhah” – the authority to “bind and loose”. Likewise, the Apostles sat at the feet of Rabbi Yeshua for several years and were granted by him the authority to “bind and loose”.

That's not enough to answer the question about Apostolic Succession because Apostolic Succession is a particular theory of a certain and very specific kind of "passing." It authenticates church leadership and teaching. It validates the administration of sacraments. It is very narrowly defined and has very precise requirements.

I think this is perfectly in line with Jesus granting authority to the Apostles and they in turn appointing leaders in the local churches they established.

If it were not so, any church that doesn't have Apostolc Succession could say that it hands off its leadership to new people though some orderly process that spans the generations, i.e. de facto Apostolic Succession. No one views Apostolic Succession that way.

I agree and I think this agrees with what I said. The Jewish tradition states that this transfer of authority among the Jewish leaders who had “semikhah” traces back to Moses because only a person validly ordained could ordain another. This would keep just anyone from establishing themselves as authority. This is the same with Apostolic Succession. A person cannot appoint themselves authority, pass it on, and then claim Apostolic Succession.

The Christian idea of Apostolic Succession arose in the mid to late first century AD when various bishops were spreading the faith and the people wondered whom they could trust...almost like the circuit riders of American history who preached and moved along, only to be replaced by the next guy preaching in the area the next week. Whom to trust? The idea grew that the bishop who could claim to have learned his theology from an actual Apostle...or at least from a disciple of one...had more credentials than the preacher/bishop/elder who couldn't claim as close an association to the ones whom Jesus taught and commissioned personally.

I agree fully with the analogy but I disagree that the idea arose out of nothing. We can see it being practiced in the court-like setting of Acts 15 where those Jesus granted the authority to “bind and loose” are gathered together to settle a doctrinal dispute. We also see the appointment by the Apostles of elders to other local churches, often times by laying on of hands. Paul even speaks to the local churches about avoiding the teachings of those that do not have authority.

Peace

 

[Albion]

The responsibility was to interpret the Torah. In order for a Jew to sit on the court in the Temple (where they interpreted the understanding and application of the Torah), they had to have this authority and it was always passed on. It required the recipient to sit at the feet of his mentor and when sufficiently trained in the Torah."

Very well. As I was saying, this has only the most remote connection to the origin of Apostolic Succession (and binding and loosing doesn't relate to it, either).

I think this is perfectly in line with Jesus granting authority to the Apostles and they in turn appointing leaders in the local churches they established.

There is that lineage, but it's not actually where Apostolic Succession came from. It seems as though it would be, but historically speaking, it's not.

I agree and I think this agrees with what I said. The Jewish tradition states that this transfer of authority among the Jewish leaders who had “semikhah” traces back to Moses because only a person validly ordained could ordain another. This would keep just anyone from establishing themselves as authority. This is the same with Apostolic Succession. A person cannot appoint themselves authority, pass it on, and then claim Apostolic Succession.

True.

I agree fully with the analogy but I disagree that the idea arose out of nothing.

Well, it's not nothing. It was a quite understandable development, but it was a practical need that gave rise to the concept, not a deliberate intention to perpetuate some preceeding Jewish practice, etc.

 

[now faith]

The claim to Peters ministry

 

[wkmt2819]

Very well. As I was saying, this has only the most remote connection to the origin of Apostolic Succession (and binding and loosing doesn't relate to it, either).

I’m not sure what you mean by this comment. “bind and loose” is a Jewish idiom that expresses appointed authority. Jesus’ use of this idiom is an expression of his authority being granted to the Apostles.

There is that lineage, but it's not actually where Apostolic Succession came from. It seems as though it would be, but historically speaking, it's not.

I don’t believe this can be proven. In the early stages of the Church, we can see from God’s Word that appointment to leadership positions in the local churches was done by the Apostles. I know of no instance in scripture where a leader is self-appointed. We even see immediately in scripture that unauthorized teachers entered into the fold. The Apostles warned the local churches about these people teaching and not having apostolic authority.

Well, it's not nothing. It was a quite understandable development, but it was a practical need that gave rise to the concept, not a deliberate intention to perpetuate some preceeding Jewish practice, etc.

I agree that there was a practical need but I don’t know if we can really say one way or another if there was a deliberate intention to perpetuate a Jewish practice. I believe this concept of authoritative teaching was ingrained in the Jewish people (especially the former Pharisee Saul) and it was a natural expectation among the very early predominantly Hebrew Christians. I would imagine that with the very rapid growth of Gentile believers, some of this understanding may have not been well known or accepted. However we can see in Acts 15 that both the Jewish and Gentile believers had no problem yielding to the apostolic authority in Jerusalem. But I think this might be like many Christian beliefs: in a very short time there was such an outpouring of revelation that it took a while for the universal Church to fully understand.

 

[Albion]

I’m not sure what you mean by this comment. “bind and loose” is a Jewish idiom that expresses appointed authority. Jesus’ use of this idiom is an expression of his authority being granted to the Apostles.

• I appreciate that. My point was the bigger one that Jesus was, in effect, starting a new church, such that comparisons to the Hebrew Church of the OT have to be seen in that light.

I don’t believe this can be proven. In the early stages of the Church, we can see from God’s Word that appointment to leadership positions in the local churches was done by the Apostles. I know of no instance in scripture where a leader is self-appointed. We even see immediately in scripture that unauthorized teachers entered into the fold. The Apostles warned the local churches about these people teaching and not having apostolic authority.

The principle is there, but the actual, unbroken, historical linkage/succession is not demonstrable, nor is it the case that the church itself always believed in this principle as it is now represented.