Program / Course 11: Church, Sacraments, and Authority / Lesson 2.3
What you will learn
- Distinguish three meanings of apostolic succession: a line of ordaining bishops, continuity of teaching, and continuity of mission.
- Explain which meaning each tradition emphasizes and how they combine them.
- State the Catholic and Orthodox teaching on the validity of orders.
- Describe the Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed approaches and the main objections to each view.
The big idea
Apostolic succession can mean three things. It can mean an unbroken line of bishops, each ordained by bishops before him, reaching back to the apostles. It can mean continuity in the apostles’ teaching, as the church preserves what they taught. It can mean continuity of mission, as the church carries on the work they began. Catholic and Orthodox Christians hold all three and insist on the first. Many Protestants hold the second and third and see the first as helpful, optional or mistaken. Much confusion comes from using one word for three ideas.
Key terms
- Apostolic succession
- The idea that the church’s ministry and teaching continue from the apostles. Traditions differ on how.
- Tactile succession
- A descriptive phrase for succession by the laying on of hands in an unbroken line of ordaining bishops.
- Episcopate
- The office of bishop, or the body of bishops as a whole.
- Valid orders
- In Catholic and Orthodox use, an ordination that truly confers the office, because it is done by a bishop in the apostolic line with the right intention and form.
- Historic episcopate
- The ministry of bishops as it has continued from the early church. Anglican ecumenical statements use the phrase.
- Magisterium
- In Catholic teaching, the church’s authority to interpret the word of God, exercised by the pope and the bishops.
- Anglican Communion
- A worldwide family of churches that come from the Church of England and keep bishops, priests and deacons.
Background
The previous lessons showed that early Christians cared about continuity with the apostles. Irenaeus and Tertullian both argued that true teaching can be traced to the churches that the apostles founded. Over time this idea took several shapes. In the third century Cyprian of Carthage taught that the bishop is the center of unity and that the church is in the bishop. In the fourth and fifth centuries, in disputes like the Donatist controversy, the validity of sacraments given by a bishop became a major question.
In the sixteenth century the Reformation raised the question again. Several Reformers held that the church had departed from the apostles’ teaching and needed reform. Some kept bishops, and some did not. The traditions have since developed their own vocabularies. A student will do well to ask each time the phrase is used which of three meanings is intended.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Meaning one, a line of bishops
In this meaning, apostolic succession refers to bishops who were ordained by other bishops, in a chain going back to the apostles. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches teach this. For them, ordination by a bishop in the line is the means by which a person receives the office, and the bishop acts as a successor to the apostles in oversight of the church. The Council of Trent taught that bishops have succeeded the apostles and are placed by the Holy Spirit to govern the church of God.
This chain is not seen as a mechanical device that guarantees good behavior or sound doctrine. A bishop may be a sinner or a heretic. The point is that the chain expresses the church’s belonging to the apostolic community across time. The Catholic and Orthodox churches also differ on what happens when a bishop falls into heresy and how one regards the validity of ordinations outside their communion.
Step 2: Meaning two, continuity of teaching
Succession in the second sense means that the church teaches what the apostles taught. Paul tells Timothy to hold fast the form of sound words (2 Timothy 1:13) and to commit the teaching to faithful men (2 Timothy 2:2). Many Protestant churches take this as the heart of apostolicity. A church is apostolic if its preaching and its confession agree with the apostles’ witness in the New Testament.
Catholic and Orthodox teaching includes this meaning too. In their view, the line of bishops is the means by which the teaching is guarded, and a bishop who teaches against the apostolic faith is not a true successor in the fullest sense. The difference with many Protestants lies in what counts as the test, and who judges. Protestants appeal to Scripture as the norm. Catholics appeal to the bishops with the pope. Orthodox appeal to the councils and the life of the whole church.
Step 3: Meaning three, continuity of mission
A third meaning stresses that the whole church is sent as the apostles were sent. The apostolicity of the church lies in its being a community of witnesses who carry the gospel into the world. Twentieth-century ecumenical conversations, including the work of the World Council of Churches, have favored this broader meaning and have tried to put the three meanings together.
The Catholic and Orthodox teachings do not deny the mission meaning. They say that it is carried out by the whole people of God under the guidance of the bishops. Many Protestants say that it is carried out by all believers, with ministers set apart to teach and serve. The difference is in how mission relates to ordained office.
Step 4: Different kinds of Protestant response
Anglicans keep the historic episcopate and generally say that it is a gift and an expression of continuity, while differing among themselves on whether it is essential to the church’s being or to its fullness. The Church of England in the Thirty-Nine Articles describes the church as a congregation of faithful men where the pure word is preached and the sacraments are duly administered (Article 19), and in the Preface to the Ordinal it states an intention to continue the three orders.
Lutherans hold that the ministry of Word and sacrament is instituted by Christ and, in the Augsburg Confession, are willing to keep bishops where possible. Some Lutheran churches, in Sweden and Finland, have kept the historic succession. Reformed churches hold that Christ gives his church elders and teachers and that apostolic faithfulness is shown in faithful doctrine and order. Baptists and many others hold that the local congregation calls and recognizes its pastors, with no requirement of a bishop.
Step 5: The main objections
Protestant objection: the New Testament does not require a line of ordinations, and history shows that bishops sometimes taught error. Faithfulness to the apostles’ word matters more than a chain. The Reformers also argued that the medieval church had broken the apostolic teaching despite having the line.
Catholic and Orthodox reply: the New Testament and the earliest writers show ministry handed on by appointment, and the church needs a visible link to the apostles, not only a book. They add that Scripture itself was received through the church. They also ask on what authority a congregation can ordain itself.
Historical objection: the surviving evidence for early succession lists is limited, and the earliest names, especially in Rome, are debated. Catholic and Orthodox scholars grant limits in the evidence but say it is sufficient to show the principle was in place by the second century.
- Which of the three meanings is meant when this writer uses the phrase?
- Does this tradition see succession as necessary for the church to exist, or for its fullness?
- What does it say about ministers who are not in the line?
- Who judges whether the teaching is apostolic, and by what standard?
- What happens if a bishop in the line teaches error?
- Which early text does this tradition cite, and what exactly does it say?
Examples
A chain of hands
A Catholic bishop traces his ordination through the bishops who ordained him, and they through those who ordained them, back through the centuries. The tradition holds that the chain expresses belonging to the apostolic community. The Orthodox have a parallel understanding with their own lines of bishops.
Faithful but without bishops
A Presbyterian congregation in Scotland says its ministers are ordained by presbyters and that their preaching is faithful to the apostles’ gospel. They claim apostolic succession in the sense of teaching and mission. A Catholic or Orthodox observer would say that the first meaning is missing, and the Presbyterians would say that it is not required.
Succession and error
In the fourth century, bishops in the line held views the councils later called heretical. Both Catholic and Orthodox writers say this shows that succession is not a magical guarantee and that the whole church tests teaching. Protestants cite such cases as evidence that the chain alone is insufficient.
Different perspectives
Catholic
The Catechism teaches that the church is apostolic in three ways: she is founded on the apostles, she guards and transmits their teaching, and she continues to be taught and guided by them through their successors, the college of bishops. The pope and the bishops in communion with him hold this succession. The Catholic Church recognizes the orders of the Orthodox Churches as valid, and, in its judgment, does not recognize most Protestant ordinations as sacramental.
Orthodox
The Orthodox Church holds that the bishop in each local church stands in the apostolic succession and that all bishops share one episcopate. Succession is tied to communion in the same faith and Eucharist. Orthodox practice about receiving clergy from other churches varies, and the Orthodox do not agree on one official rule for the validity of non-Orthodox sacraments.
Protestant
Anglicans, and some Lutherans, keep the historic episcopate. Reformed and many other churches hold that apostolic succession means faithful doctrine, and that the ministers are called and recognized by the church. Calvin held that a church departing from the gospel does not keep true succession merely by having a line of bishops.
Scholarly view
Scholars agree that the idea of succession was used in the second century as an argument for correct teaching, and that by the third century the bishop’s role in ordination was settled in most churches. They disagree on how far back a line of individual bishops can be documented in Rome and other churches. Ecumenical agreed statements, such as the Lima document of 1982, treat the three meanings together.
Why it matters
Whether a minister is validly ordained decides whether Catholics and Orthodox will recognize his sacraments. It also decides whether churches can share communion or exchange ministers. For Protestants, the claim of succession raises the question of how a church knows it is faithful to the apostles. Learning to separate the three meanings clears away misunderstanding and lets each tradition’s real argument be seen.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Apostolic succession means a bishop can never be wrong.
Correction: The Catholic and Orthodox churches both teach that individual bishops can err and sin. The line expresses continuity of office and communion, and each church has its own account of how teaching is protected.
Misunderstanding: Protestants reject apostolic succession entirely.
Correction: Many accept it in the sense of teaching and mission. Anglicans and some Lutherans accept the historic episcopate. What most Protestants reject is the claim that a chain of ordinations is necessary to the existence of the church.
Misunderstanding: Catholics and Orthodox mean exactly the same thing by succession.
Correction: They share the teaching of an episcopal succession but differ on how the bishops are related to a universal head, and on the status of the bishop of Rome.
Misunderstanding: The early church wrote one definition of apostolic succession.
Correction: Early writers used the idea in various ways: as evidence of true teaching in Irenaeus, as a ground of order in Clement, and as a principle of unity in Cyprian. The developed doctrines are later.
Knowledge check
State the three meanings of apostolic succession given in this lesson.
First, a line of bishops each ordained by bishops going back to the apostles. Second, continuity of the apostles’ teaching in the church. Third, continuity of the apostles’ mission as the church is sent into the world. Traditions combine these in different ways.
How do Catholic and Orthodox Christians understand a line of bishops?
They see it as an expression of the church’s belonging to the apostolic community and the way in which the office is handed on by ordination. It does not guarantee the personal holiness of a bishop. Catholic and Orthodox churches each have their own account of how teaching is protected.
Why do many Protestants say faithful teaching matters more than a chain of ordinations?
They hold that the New Testament does not require a fixed chain, that bishops in the line have sometimes taught error, and that the church is apostolic when it holds the apostles’ teaching as found in Scripture. The Reformers argued that the medieval church had the line but had lost the gospel.
Name two Protestant bodies that keep the historic episcopate and one that does not.
Anglican churches and some Lutheran churches, such as those in Sweden and Finland, keep the historic episcopate. Reformed, Presbyterian, Baptist and many other churches do not require it. Other correct examples can be given.
Think it through
- Is it possible to hold all three meanings together, and if so how?
- What would count as evidence that a church has lost apostolic faith despite having a line of bishops?
- Why might a tradition insist on a visible sign of continuity as well as agreement in doctrine?
- How does your own tradition, if you have one, use the phrase apostolic succession?
Independent assignment
Which meaning is it?
In your notebook, find five sentences from different sources (the Catechism, an Orthodox author, Calvin, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and one other) that use apostolic or succession. For each, state which of the three meanings is in view, and why. Then write 250 to 350 words on how the confusion of meanings can produce unfair arguments among Christians. Keep the work in your notebook.
Further study
- Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies Book 3 chapters 2 to 4 give the argument from succession and the rule of faith.
- Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics Compare Tertullian’s argument from apostolic churches with Irenaeus.
- Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church See the section on the apostolic church.
- Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3: The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches Read the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Augsburg Confession on the church and the ministry.
- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 4 chapter 2 discusses true and false churches and succession.
- 2 Timothy 2:2 Entrust to faithful people who can teach others.
- 2 Timothy 1:13 Hold the pattern of sound words.
- Ephesians 2:20 Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.