I’ve been reading all the comments over at Called to Communion’s most recent article, which demonstrates that sola Scriptura necessarily reduces to solo Scriptura, the latter phrase being a recent invention that is intended to describe the doctrine of many modern Protestants toward the Bible. Thus far no Protestant has stepped forward to refute the article’s main point and the (100+) comments have been spent trying to justify the objection that Catholics are in no better a boat epistemically.
Apostolic Succession has come up in the comments constantly, and so the Called to Communion guys are going to do an article 
just on it, which is great. Apostolic Succession is the Catholic (and Orthodox) doctrine that authority was given by Christ to his Apostles and subsequently from the Apostles to their successors, the bishops of Christ’s Church, and then from bishop to bishop throughout the centuries such that this divine authority remains with the legitimate successors today. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the only ones with credible claims to having Apostolic Succession, and each recognizes that the other possesses it, whereas Protestant Communities both do not have it and also repudiate any claim that it matters.
So what am I ‘fessing up to?
One problem that we Christians have is that we know almost no history. The history we all learned in school is almost uniformly worthless (note that this should not be inferred to denigrate the hard-working teachers who teach history). So when we as Christians of different traditions come to dialogue with each other, we are usually vastly ignorant of even the fundamental events of relevant historical time periods or the overall narrative of history as it pertains to Christianity.
No one admits this, or only rarely. Instead, we go forward as if we have studied these subjects and know a lot about them, spouting off half-truths, falsehoods, opinions, and skewed ideas as truth. I am here to admit that, as one who has been atheist, Protestant, and Catholic, my knowledge of history amounts to some volume about equal to a smidgeon.
That being said, I do not think we have to be historical geniuses or Ph.Ds to ever say that we can understand something that occurred in the past–far from it–but we have to be honest with ourselves and with others as to how much we have actually learned, and if we haven’t even tried to learn and are engaging in such discussions, it is incumbent upon us to make the effort.
How does this connect with the article and Apostolic Succession?
Most Protestants would deny that there is any “unbroken succession” of bishops that can be traced all the way back to the Apostles. What a joke, right? And anyway, who could really know that the chain wasn’t broken “oh, somewhere in that millennia from 400 to 1400 AD where who-knows-what happened?” For most Protestants, the only thing trustworthy that can be learned from things that old is the Bible. It alone is true because God preserved it from error, and we know through textual criticism that it has been kept (with minor differences) unchanged from the originals (which we do not possess).
Most Protestants understand Christian history as such:
1. Jesus and the Apostles and the Church of the 1st century: Awesome truth, uncorrupted, untainted, apostolic
2. 2nd century: Don’t know what happened but stuff started getting weird by the end of it
3. 3rd century: Definitely apostate/corrupt “Church Fathers” writing about all manner of Romish falsehoods
4. 4th century: Council of Nicaea/Nicene Creed good, the rest bad
5. 5th century through 15th century: Christianity corrupted in many ways, truth all but lost, Church leaders corrupt mostly
6. 16th century Protestant Reformation: The glorious 1st century of apostolic truth is regained!
7. 17th century through 19th century: Not sure what happened or how their particular Protestant tradition developed
8. 20th and 21st centuries: Modern faithful writers whose books can be bought at the local Christian bookstore.
The skepticism toward history is particularly an Evangelical Protestant proclivity, but it seems to be shared generally amongst Protestants.
What can be done? I would say, start by reading the Church Fathers, not everything all of them wrote, but a decent bit that several wrote. Start with the first ones: St. Ignatius of Antioch who died around the time the Apostle John did. St. Irenaeus. St. Justin Martyr.
Read Warren Carroll’s History of Christendom series. These books are excellent, and as I have been reading them, I realized that if I were Protestant, reading them would definitely fuel much of my arguments against the Catholic Church (there were some corrupt priests and bishops and scandals and executions, etc.)–Carroll doesn’t whitewash it or hide it, but he does put it in historical perspective–and this confirms my hunch that he is giving a good account of history.
However, they also present history that can be truly known. The succession of bishops of Rome is woven throughout all volumes, including depictions of the anti-popes that sprang up at various times and how it was known who the true Pope was. Reading it as a Catholic has been greatly informative–these volumes alone were better by a magnitude than all the history I learned in all my schooling even through college. Reading it as a Protestant would help you realize that the Church’s history bears little resemblance to what you thought it did.
So, about 10 years as a Christian and 8 or 9 as a Catholic, I feel I am just beginning to learn about these things. By no means do I think I am Mr. Smartypants, but I do pray that every Christian would take Christ’s call to unity seriously and endeavor to devote time to learning the history of their Faith so that they could come to realize where its fullness lies. I believe it is in the Catholic Church, but the only way to know is to actually look.
Devin,
The skepticism toward history is particularly an Evangelical Protestant proclivity, but it seems to be shared generally amongst Protestants.
I agree. The less we know history, the less we think can be known by history. Good post.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
This is good and all. But, what about those babies?
I’m not skeptical about “history” in general, or whether a succession occurred. What I’m skeptical about is whether God transferred some degree of divine authority to each and every bishop/pope after the apostles.
Thanks Bryan.
Sue, your comment made me laugh! I will post an update about Adele soon–promise!
Jonathan, your position is the other one that many Protestants believe: You could grant from history that this material succession occurred, but did God’s authority transmit from one to another?
I would first ask: Do you believe Christ gave his authority to the Apostles?
If yes, then do you believe that the successors of the Apostles via the laying on of hands (e.g. Paul -> Timothy as recorded in the Bible) received that divine authority or did God not transmit it?
If yes, then when and with which successor of the Apostles did God stop this transmittal and remove his divine authority from all of them?
I think those are the first questions to ask yourself. If you think that divine authority was revoked due to unfaithfulness of one or more bishops, how does that avoid Donatism?
It’s not clear to me that the very same authority that Jesus gave to the apostles was transferred in its entirety to the men they ordained. Or even that the essence of that authority was transferred.
What is God’s promise when it comes to the ordained successors of the apostles, and how do we know what that promise is?
When I say that I’m “skeptical”, I’m saying that I haven’t seen a clear rationale presented. I would like to understand the conclusion. I can’t with good conscience believe it just because someone suggests it or because it feels right.
I can see the need that if we are to know the truth about the gospel, then God has to transmit it in some way. I’m just not convinced that infallibility transmitted through apostolic succession is the only way that we can know the essential truths God wants us to know.
In Acts 1:21-26, the Apostles choose a successor for Judas. How could it be any more clear? The successors of the successors of the successors are the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. There is no legitimate debate about whether Apostolic succession is Biblical. It’s just a silly argument made by heretics who have cut themselves off from the Church founded by Jesus but still want to draft off the reputation of the Church and call themselves Christians, without all the obedience. Don’t stand next to a Protestant preacher, or his Mercedes, on Judgment Day.
Jonathan, I plan to respond more perhaps tomorrow.
Freddy, thanks for your comment–I hadn’t even thought of the replacing of Judas at the beginning of Acts.
I would recommend moderating the tone of the last part of your comment when talking with Protestants as it comes across pretty harshly. (A Catholic priest at a parish I was once a member of drove a Mercedes, too.)
That being said, I look forward to your insights and comments on the blog.
Hi Jonathan,
You raise good questions.
It’s not clear to me that the very same authority that Jesus gave to the apostles was transferred in its entirety to the men they ordained. Or even that the essence of that authority was transferred.
What is God’s promise when it comes to the ordained successors of the apostles, and how do we know what that promise is?
There are no biblical proof-text verses that explain the exact nature of the authority the Apostles were given by Jesus, nor whether and to what degree that authority was transmitted to others, nor exactly how this transmittal was to be done, nor upon what conditions that authority could be revoked.
That being said, we have much biblical evidence that the Apostles received some kind of authority from Christ, as we see when he tells them he gives them authority to bind and loose, cure the sick, cast out demons, forgive sins, preach in his name, etc. Further, we see how they understood this authority in Acts 15 in the Council of Jerusalem, the precedent for all Ecumenical Councils.
We also read about Paul laying hands on Timothy, and this action certainly seems to be authorizing Timothy to act with authority over his church(es) as well.
From history, we read the Christians writings in the 100s and learn that the early Church had bishops which were to be obeyed (St. Ignatius of Antioch) and the importance of these bishops having succession from the Apostles (St. Irenaeus). This evidence increases in the 3rd and 4th centuries with many other early Christian writings being extant.
Without this authority, it immediately becomes questionable whether those men deemed “heretics” by the Church’s leaders were indeed really heretics–maybe the Ebionites, Marcionites, Novatians, and Sabellians really had more of the truth than the “orthodox” bishops of the Church. How would we know? This is the argument made by many people today, including Bart Ehrmann, the Jesus Seminar, and several others.
Also, how do we know that what “the Church” decided was true in these first centuries really was true? That would include the canon of Scripture. Without authority being given in a known and orderly way, we suddenly run into all manner of problem with how we can have any certainty at all in what the Christian Faith is, who Jesus was, etc.
When I say that I’m “skeptical”, I’m saying that I haven’t seen a clear rationale presented. I would like to understand the conclusion. I can’t with good conscience believe it just because someone suggests it or because it feels right.
I can see the need that if we are to know the truth about the gospel, then God has to transmit it in some way. I’m just not convinced that infallibility transmitted through apostolic succession is the only way that we can know the essential truths God wants us to know.
Well, I would say that there could be a hundred ways for God to transmit “the essential truths” of the Gospel. He could just shout it out from Heaven every five years such that everyone could hear and know them. He could send angels to tell people individually. But the question really is: What is the way that God himself decided to transmit his truth to us?
I would also say that it is a bit inaccurate to say that “infallibility is transmitted through Apostolic Succession” though they do go hand-in-hand because one without the other wouldn’t preserve God’s truth from error. Authority is transmitted through succession of already-authorized bishops, ultimately reaching back to the source of authority: Christ and the Apostles he chose and ordained. It is also the case that Christ has protected the authorized leaders of his Church from error (as a group, meeting in Councils, etc.) and the bishop of Rome in particular from error when proclaiming teachings on faith and morals to the universal Church. The Called to Communion guys addressed this relation between Apostolic Succession and infallibility in this comment: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/#comment-4674
Protestantism would say that God preserved his truth by having the “essentials” recorded in the Bible, and people can read the Bible and learn the truth; that is the way God did it, and the Holy Spirit helps people interpret it correctly. In practice, we see that this way doesn’t work well, with Protestant churches differing on almost every aspect of the Faith (even the Trinity). God could have done it this way, but it doesn’t seem like he would. For example, most people couldn’t even read for the first 1600 years of his Church’s existence. Why would he only preserve his truth in a form (the Bible) that lay people couldn’t even access except through literate leaders?
Gotta run–let me know what you think!
OK, well I’ll stop looking for a Biblical proof since you say it doesn’t exist. It would be really nice if this was spelled out more clearly. But I like even better your idea that God could proclaim the truth from the sky every five minutes.
Can you imagine witnessing God’s voice proclaiming “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!” ??? How wonderful for the apostles to have heard it!
I have to believe God wants us to know Him with certainty.
You make a good point about the insufficiency of conveying the truth only in a written way. The epistles clearly say that God gave some the gift to teach.
Please pray for us Protestants!
Jonathan, we will. And thank you for your prayers us Catholics as well.
Ah… the Lord smiles when he sees the likes of you and Devon wrestling to understand his mysteries. He must truly enjoy it, and that thought brings me great peace.
Pingback: St. Joseph’s Vanguard And Our Lady’s Train » Blog Archive » Why Isn’t the Bible Clear on Authority?