The Roman Catholic Church stands or falls on the doctrine of apostolic succession. It is from this doctrine that the Church claims its supreme authority. Now, the Roman Church is not the only church to believe this doctrine, but they are the only church to claim unique and complete authority from it.
The Catholic apologetic website, Catholic Answers says that the Roman Church, unlike ‘separate’ churches, can lay claim to being the true church by means of apostolic succession.
What is apostolic succession?
Apostolic succession is the idea that bishops in the Roman Church are the successors of the apostles to whom Jesus gave the authority, to go into all the world and preach the gospel.
It presupposes that the original twelve apostles ordained others to be apostles through the laying on of hands. In doing this, they conferred upon them the same authority they had been given. These apostles (bishops) then ordained others, who in turn ordained others, who in turn… well you get the idea. So, the current bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, in communion with the Pope (who they claim is the Apostle Peter’s successor), believe themselves to be the successors of the original apostles, and they alone have authority to lead the Church founded by Jesus.
The Protestant response to the doctrine of apostolic succession is that it was not apostolic authority that was passed on – but rather apostolic teaching. There is no doubt that the apostles ordained men to lead the newly founded churches, but nowhere does Scripture speak about a kind of apostolic succession, where the apostolic authority of the twelve is conferred.
Apostolic Succession and The Bible
Looking for biblical support the Roman Catholic Church often point to Paul’s words to Timothy:
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. 1 Timothy 4:14
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands… 2 Timothy 1:6
Paul here speaks about Timothy having hands laid upon him and his subsequent gifting, but notice he says nothing at all about apostolic succession, as taught by the Roman Catholic Church.
Other verses they claim supports this errant doctrine is Acts 1:21-26:
So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 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.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Is this an example of the doctrine of apostolic succession?
These verses certainly show that the apostles appointed another to replace Judas. We are told they cast lots and Matthias was chosen ‘and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.’
Why did they replace Judas?
The context of these verses reveals that the Catholic use of these verses to support apostolic succession does not stand.
Firstly, the one who was to replace Judas had to have been an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection:
So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 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… Acts 1:21
I am pretty sure that neither the Pope, nor any of the current bishops of Rome were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Christ.
Secondly, the reason for replacing Judas was not done to inaugurate the doctrine of apostolic succession, rather it was to fulfil scripture. Luke records that Peter (the supposed first Pope) pointed to the Old Testament book of Psalms in his justification of replacing Judas. Acts 1:20:
“For it is written in the Book of Psalms,
“‘May his camp become desolate,
and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and “‘Let another take his office.’
Why Twelve?
There was a reason why Jesus chose twelve to be apostles and not some other number. Speaking of this, the Anglican scholar Richard Bauckham remarks:
“The significance of the group is undoubtedly related to the ideal constitution of Israel as comprising twelve tribes and the Jewish hopes for the restoration of all twelve tribes in the messianic age.”[1]
So, we see the replacing of Judas has absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine of apostolic succession and everything to do with Jewish expectation. The original twelve therefore had a foundational and unique ministry that has no need to be continued or built upon. (Ephesians 2:20)
Because the doctrine of apostolic succession is found nowhere explicitly in Scripture, and even the claim to implicit support fails miserably, the Roman Catholic Church leans heavily on what they claim to be the support of the Early Church Fathers.
Early Church
It can be rightly said that the Early Church Fathers did believe in and teach apostolic succession. But their reason for doing so was their belief that it was only ordained bishops that taught correct doctrine.
In this we see that their belief in apostolic succession was not about the bishops themselves, but rather in making sure that the church continued in correct doctrine.
Therefore, we can conclude that what was, and is, important is not the continuation of apostolic authority, but the continuation of apostolic teaching.
I, along with many protestants value the writings of the post-apostolic church, but they are at best a record of the life and teachings of the early church. As interesting and valuable as reading them are, their writings are not the inspired Word of God, they are not God-breathed, profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).
To determine correct doctrine, to determine truth, one must not go to the Fathers, we need to go back to the Word of God. The teachings of the early church and indeed any church must be tested against Scripture. (Acts 17:11).
Sola Scriptura
It was Cardinal John Henry Newman, a convert to the Roman Catholic Church, who said: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”
My response to the venerable Cardinal would be, ‘To be deep in Scripture is to cease to be a Catholic’.
[1] Bauckham, Richard. Jesus
and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitnesses. (WB. Eerdmans Publishing
Co.), 2006. P. 94.
Comments