Pauline: Hi Joseph, your conversations with Martha have been very interesting, but the truth is that her comprehension of the nature of the Church is really peculiar and most of us evangelical Christians don’t share it. We believe neither in the succession of churches, as she holds as a Baptist, nor in the apostolic succession, as you Catholics hold.
Michael: I agree with Pauline.
Joseph: Ok, let’s talk about it. Why do you think that way?
Pauline: To start, nowhere in the Scriptures does Jesus, the apostles or any other author of the New Testament, mention the idea of an “apostolic succession”. Moreover, not even Peter is presented as someone “supreme” over the other apostles.[1]
Joseph: The theme of the apostle Peter’s primacy can be treated another time, but first let’s clarify what we Catholics understand as apostolic succession.
Pauline: Go ahead.
Joseph: We believe that the apostles, aware that they would not live forever, and for the Lord’s will, were destined to have successors to continue their ministry, with the same authority that they receive from Christ[2], and these successors are found in the bishops that were ordered in direct line until they arrived to the apostles.
Michael: We understand, but when does this appear in the Bible?
Joseph: In the Bible, from very early on, we see how the apostles intended that their ministry should not remain vacant. In the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we see Saint Peter saying to the rest of the apostles that it was necessary to replace the Judas Iscariot. Let’s read what it says: “Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: Who was numbered with us, and had obtained PART of this MINISTRY.[3] And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. Wherefore of these men who have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the heart of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, to take the place of this MINISTRY and APOSTLESHIP from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1,16-17.21-26)
Pauline: We recognize that certainly Matthias “succeeded” Judas as an apostle, but we do not believe that it is a precedent to continue with the apostolic succession. Matthias’ election to replace Judas is just an argument for the Church to replace the bad leaders or unfaithful (as Judas) with good and loyal leaders (as Matthias).
Joseph: I believe that you overlook a key point in this event. See that Saint Peter talks about the “Apostleship Ministry” in which Judas had a “seat”. Don’t forget that the ministries of the Church are offices permanently instituted by Christ by himself in order to build the Church. Saint Paul tells us that it was Christ himself who “gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors: For the perfecting of the saints, FOR THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph4,11-12). These ministries were not thought to end when the people initially in charge of them died, so I think you are simplifying it too much by saying that it is only to replace bad leaders with good ones. There, they don’t talk about leaders but ministries, and they’re replaced, not only because the people occupying them are bad, but because they got empty, independently the cause.
Michael: But nowhere in the New Testament is there any registry of the twelve apostles passing their apostolic authority to any successors. Nowhere has any apostle predicted that they should delegate their apostolic authority to other people.
Joseph: We just read the registry of the first apostolic succession, but remember that whoever wrote the scriptures of the New Testament did not intend to keep a rigorous record of the people occupying the functions of the ministries of the different churches, because this in the end is not the important thing. The important thing is the existence itself of the ministry of the Church and its scope.
So, even if it is not frequent to find someone who exercised the different ministries in every church (it would be an endless list), we do find the apostles and their successors organizing the churches and placing people in the different ministries. The book of Acts tells how “And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.” (Acts 14,23).
Notice that the priestly ministry was always given through the imposition of hands in the direct line of an apostle. That is why Saint Paul exhorts Timothy: “For which cause, I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands.” (2 Tim 1,6), “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.” (1 Tim 4,14), and warns him to be careful not to ordain someone not worthy for the ministry: “Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste.” (1 Tim 5,22). There are other similar texts: “For this cause, I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee.” (Titus 1,5)
Pauline: I still cannot find in the Bible the passing of the authority of the apostles to any successors, except for Judas and Matthias.
Joseph: Remember that even if Matthias was the first one, that does not mean that other people performed the same ministry after that, and if you examine the Bible closely, you will realize that it is that way. Saint Paul, for example, mentions Andronicus and Junia as two “illustrious apostles” that came to Christ before he did: “Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” (Rom 16,7), and they were not part of the group of the twelve apostles. Saint Paul himself admits to being an apostle as well, and to performing the same ministry as the twelve (1 Cor 15,9; 2 Cor 1,1; Gal 1,1). Later on, we see that the functions of the apostle fall upon the bishops. (1 Tim 3, 1-10).
Pauline: I think Jesus ordered the apostles to build the foundations of the Church (Eph 2,20). What was the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the registry of the facts and teachings. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings from them to be accurately registered and preserved. And that is exactly what God provided on His word: “In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation), in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise.” (Ephesians 1,13); “For the hope that is laid up for you in heaven, which you have heard in the word of the truth of the gospel” (Colossians 1,5); “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2,15)
Joseph: Jesus ordered the apostles to “teach ye all nations” (Matt 28,19). Reducing Jesus’ orders to his apostles just to write the New Testament for everyone to interpret it individually is distorting Christ’s orders. That is why, as Jesus leaves us a Revelation, He also institutes authorities and ministers that are able to authentically teach this Revelation. Saint Paul, talking as an apostle, recognized that he had been instituted as an administrator of God’s mysteries: “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.” (1 Cor 4,1), and Jesus talking to His apostles says to them: “He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” (Luke 10, 16). In the Bible, we also clearly find the intention for this ministry to be transmitted in succession: “…and the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also” (2 Tim 2,1-2). Precisely this is what allows the apostolic teachings to be trustfully preserved: a continuous apostolic succession[4], which, together with the Scriptures and the Tradition, can avoid that misinterpretations can be confused with the real ones, as there is an uninterrupted teaching line that allows transmitting how they understood the Revelation for those Christians before them.
Pauline: It is not necessary to be an uninterrupted succession, but to be loyal to what is said in the Bible, that is what the Catholic Church does not do.[5] In our churches, there are people that perform those ministries, but they are chosen, not by any succession, but because of their loyalty to the Word.
Joseph: To get the second thing, you need the first one. Nobody denies that the minister has the duty to be loyal to the teachings that Jesus and His apostles left us, but precisely to be loyal, he must know what the original and authentic sense and interpretation of those teachings was. Hence, throughout the Bible we see that presbyters and bishops were always instituted in a direct line back to the apostles. Nobody was self-named an apostle or priest, as happens now in some evangelical churches. Otherwise the members excommunicated like Hymenaeus, Philetus, Alexander (1 Tim 1,20; 2 Tim 2,17) would simply have gone off to found another church. Sadly, this is what happens to the evangelical churches, divided into thousands of denominations, without an authority instituted by Christ that can authentically interpret the Revelation and distinguish false doctrines from the true ones.
Pauline: It is unfortunately true (and the apostles knew about it) that false teachers would emerge in the Church (2 Pet 2,1). We acknowledge that the lack of a “supreme authority” among the evangelical churches leads to many different interpretations. However, these differences in the interpretation are not the result of the Scripture not being clear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians following the Catholic tradition of interpreting the Scripture according to their own traditions. If the Scripture is entirely studied within its own context, the truth can be easily determined. The doctrinal differences and the denominational conflicts are the consequence of some Christians refusing to accept what the Scripture says — not a consequence of there not being a “supreme authority” to interpret the Scripture.
Joseph: But who authentically interprets what the Scripture really says? In practice, what you’re saying is that the rest of the Christians who do not interpret the Bible as you do, do so because they refuse to accept what it says, but they say precisely the same about you. There is the problem: you can’t have doctrinal unity because you do not count on an authority instituted by Christ, which originated in the Church that Christ founded, to say the last word, to “tie” and “untie”. That is why Saint Peter noticed in the Scriptures “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Pet 3,16) and for that he warns “understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. ” (2 Pet 1,20). See that he is talking to Christians that have received the Holy Spirit, so he is inviting them to not interpret the Scriptures out of the Church’s authority. If we want to be frank, nothing in the Bible supports the model where each believer defines the doctrine on his own, isolated from the ecclesial body; rather, it is the legitimate authorities who, in communion, resolve the difficult questions (like in the Council of Jerusalem, whose result was accepted by all Christians who wanted to stay loyal to the Church unity).
Notes
- The Protestant arguments for this conversation were taken from the Protestant website, www.GotQuestions.org, from their article named “Is apostolic succession biblical?” ↩
- On the Bible it is told how first Jesus institutes twelve apostles (Luke 6,13-16) and then he gives them authority: “Then calling together the twelve apostles, he gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases” (Luke 9,1); “He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20,21-23) ↩
- The word “ministry”, in Greek diakonía (διακονία), implies a service, a task, an office. Throughout the New Testament it is used to designate offices established in the Church for its proper functioning. See, for example, Acts 6,1-7; 21,19-20; Romans 12,3.7; 1 Corinthians 16,13.15; Ephesians 4,12-13; 1 Timothy 1,12-14; 2 Tim 4,5-7. ↩
- The first explicit testimony of apostolic succession we have is thanks to Saint Clement of Rome, who was ordained priest by the apostle Peter and subsequently was the fourth bishop of Rome, according to the unanimous testimony of all the primitive Christian tradition. In the appendix of this book, an extract of his letter is reproduced to the Corinthians where he explains the apostolic succession from the primitive Christian view of the first century (year 96). ↩
- It is generally very hard for the Protestant brothers to understand the difference between what really teaches the Bible and their own interpretation of it. By not understanding this, they immediately assume that who does not interpret the Bible as they, it is not loyal to the God’s Word, and that criteria they do not only apply just for the Catholic Church, but the denominations that are different to them in important points of the doctrine. ↩
