Both the East, Rome, and most Anglo-Catholics claim that apostolic succession is necessary to have valid sacraments. That the bishops of their churches, having had hands laid on them in ordination by men who can trace their own tactile ordination all the way back to an Apostle, is the sine qua non of a true Church. That if you don’t have a bishop in Apostolic succession you are not part of the Church in its fullest sense or not part of the Church at all depending on who you’re reading or talking to.

Most of the Early Fathers certainly argued that Apostolic succession, in terms of tactile ordination, distinguished them from certain heretics. And so there is a long historical pedigree which uses this aspect to legitimate authority and authentic the true Church. And this is okay to argue as long as other things are present, like Apostolic faith, doctrine, and morals. If these things are missing, tactile ordination doesn’t really matter. My argument here is that it can be useful, but it isn’t essential.

When those in tactile succession begin to depart from Apostolic faith, doctrine, and morals, as written in Scripture, what is a Christian supposed to do? Even if Apostolic tactile ordination was true, it would be necessary to break fellowship with an elder in that succession if they were egregiously unfaithful to the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. So, ultimately this goes back to the issue of authority which we discussed in Part I of this series. Departure from the Apostolic faith is seen most obviously concerning divorce and remarriage in both the Roman and Eastern churches. And it is the case with a number of other issues like some of the Marian dogmas, Papal supremacy, and icons, which I will discuss in further articles. So, even if Apostolic succession validates a true church, which I don’t believe it does, one has to decide which takes priority. The teachings of Jesus, the Apostles and Prophets, or the teachings of elders in Apostolic succession.

Prioritizing Apostolic Faith

The law of Christ has a hierarchy. Some laws have more weight than others. And one has to be able to prioritize them. Jesus teaches this to a Pharisee in Matthew 22: 35-40, “Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Jesus says loving God with all your being is the first and great commandment, and loving your neighbor is similar, but is secondary. And in the parallel passage of Mark 12:31, Jesus says, “There is no other commandment greater than these.” So, some commandments are greater than others. Certain commandments are prioritized over others.

In Matthew 12, the Pharisees are trying to condemn Jesus and His disciples for picking heads of grain on the Sabbath, and for healing on the Sabbath. And Jesus responds to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him:how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” Again, Jesus is showing a prioritization of different laws, of mercy over sacrifice.

In Matthew 3, John the Baptist excoriates the Pharisees who think that because they are sons of Abraham they are the true Church. Their claims to Abrahamic succession are similar to Roman and Eastern claims of Apostolic succession. But what does John say to them?

“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” (Matthew 3:7-12)

Of course, this mainly foretells of the kingdom being taken from the Jews and given to believing Jews and Gentiles. But the principle corrects a posture of disobedience which overly relies on historic pedigree rather than allegiance to Christ and bearing fruits worthy of repentance. We can say to our Roman brothers, “Do not say, ‘We have Peter as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Peter from these stones.” God is not bound to biological succession, or tactile ordination. He can raise up stones which will bear good fruit and will be stored as wheat into the barn, while those in Apostolic succession are not exempt from being thrown out as chaff to unquenchable fire.

So, even if there was something of truth to the Apostolic succession claims, we would need to prioritize the teachings of the actual Apostles above men in their succession. Namely, that Paul tells us multiple times not to fellowship with false teachers and immoral brothers. And so we would remain separate until they repented of their aberrant doctrine and then be reunited. Now, this is the most charitable scenario I can give to those claiming Apostolic succession. But I do not believe Apostolic succession is necessary for a true Church.

Apostolic Succession of Faith from Abel to Aquinas

This is not a Protestant innovation. We see this in the Scriptures going back to Abel all the way to Aquinas. Here are some Biblical and historical considerations which prefer the principles of Apostolic faith over the principles of Apostolic manual succession. Not exhaustive. Just a brief survey to point out some difficulties with the Roman, Eastern, and Anglo-Catholic claims of valid sacraments.

Abraham, whose children we are, and whose faith we have received, worshiped in a priestly way by sacrificing at an altar himself. Abel, Noah, and all the Patriarchs prior to Sinai also offered unmediated and acceptable sacrifices to God. This principle continues in the New Covenant era with all those who have the faith of Abraham, as we offer thanksgiving, praise, and our lives as sacrifices.

The Passover lamb in Exodus was sacrificed and administered as a meal by the heads of households within Israel. The Eucharist being a fulfillment of this likewise is able to be offered as a sacrifice of thanksgiving (which is what Eucharist means) and administered by the head of a household to their household, though the New Testament does instruct us to appoint elders for this administration. We also see there were priests in Israel (Exodus 19:22) before the established Levitical priesthood. (Exodus 28)

Consider the Levitical priesthood. They were objectively ordained, in a way analogous to the pastors in Apostolic tactile succession, but the Levitical priesthood was not above reproach when they became unfaithful. In Malachi 2, the sacrificial offerings of the Levitical priesthood were no longer acceptable to God because of their faithlessness. Interestingly enough the issue of unfaithfulness in this passage pertains to divorce and remarriage. The Levitical covenant, in some sense, was perpetuated through the faithful Gentiles in the new covenant as seen in Isaiah 66:18-21 where God takes Levites and priests from among the nations, which I believe is an allusion to ministers of the gospel, since Paul makes that comparison in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14. So, the guiding principle we find in Scripture is about faithfulness to God above having the right tactile pedigree.

In John 6, Jesus compares his flesh and blood to the heavenly manna that came down directly from God and was gathered directly by the people without needing to receive it from a mediatorial priesthood.

The entire book of Hebrews places all who are in Christ to be part of the order of Melchizedek. And gives all of us in Christ the ability to have direct access to God.

Peter also confers the priesthood to all those who are in Christ.

“As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ…you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2)

In Revelation, Jesus warns the bishops of various churches in Asia Minor that if they did not repent of their sinfulness, he would take away their lampstands. Such is an impossibility for the claimants of Apostolic succession.

Revelation 1:6 “To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” Again, the priestliness and kingliness of all believers on fully display here.

The Didache says, “Appoint therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, meek men, and not lovers of money, and truthful and approved, for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers.” (The Didache, XV)

The appointment of bishops and deacons here is from the laity. And the Didache also assumes they would be celebrating the Eucharist even without those ordained. However, once ordained those appointed would administer.

 “Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].” (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans)

Ignatius, it would seem, if apostolic succession was the indispensable way of guarding the authority of the Church, would have appointed a successor himself before leaving. But he did not and in the interim was happy to say that Christ alone would oversee his church.

Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho does not speak of those who are in apostolic succession leading the worship of the Church, but those he calls the president or overseeing brother.

Cyprian encourages separation from immoral ministers. He even locates the authority of choosing prelates in the people who are obedient to the Lord’s commands.

“In the ordinations of priests, we should choose no one but unstained and upright ministers. In that way, the ministers who offer sacrifices to God with holy and worthy hands may be heard in the prayers that they make for the safety of the Lord’s people. . . . On this account, a people obedient to the Lord’s commandments, and fearing God, should separate themselves from a sinful prelate. They should not associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest. This is especially so since they themselves have the power of either choosing worthy priests or of rejecting unworthy ones.” (Cyprian, c. 250, Epistle 67)

I acknowledge that the early Fathers used manual apostolic succession as one of many arguments against heretics. However, it was not their sole argument. And it worked because those in that succession were orthodox at the time. However, Tertullian acknowledges that churches not founded through Apostolic succession, yet who have Apostolic doctrine are no less Apostolic.

In his Against Heretics, chapter 32, he writes:

“To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.”

Augustine, in his On the Unity of the Church, writes, “No one agrees with the catholic bishops if they are anywhere by chance mistaken in holding any opinion contrary against the canonical Scriptures of God.”

St. Symeon the New Theologian, writing around the late 10th and early 11th century argues for something similar.

“The possibility of making our confession to a monk who has not received the order of priesthood, ever since the vesture and clothing which is the mark of repentance was given by God to his inheritance and they were called ‘monks’, this you will find to have been open to everybody, as is written in the divinely inspired writings of the fathers. If you study them you will find that what I am saying is true. Before there were monks, bishops alone used to receive the authority to bind and loose, by right of succession, as coming from the divine apostles. But with the passing of time and with the bishops becoming good for nothing, this awe-inspiring function was extended to priests of blameless life and accounted worthy of divine grace. And when these also were infected with disorder, priests and bishops together becoming like the rest of the people, and many of them, as is also the case now, falling foul of spirits of deceit and idle chatter, and perishing, then this function was transferred, as I said, to the elect people of Christ, I mean the monks. It was not withdrawn from the priests or bishops, but they deprived themselves of it.

[…]

As then I have already said, the holy apostles in succession passed on this authority to those who were also the occupants of their throne, while none of the rest dared even think of such a thing, thus did the Lord’s disciples scrupulously guard the right to this authority. But as we said, with the passing of time the unworthy were mixed and mingled with the worthy, and they strove for pre-eminence one against another. Indeed, after the occupants of the apostles’ thrones showed themselves to be carnal men, lovers of pleasure and glory, and after they fell away into heresies, the divine grace abandoned them as well, and this authority was withdrawn from such men. Accordingly, as they have given up everything else which those who perform sacred rites ought to have, what is demanded of them is merely this one thing, orthodoxy—and not even this, in my opinion, since someone who in modern times refrains from surreptitiously introducing a dogma into the Church of God is not thereby orthodox, but an orthodox is someone who has achieved a mode of life consistent with right doctrine.

[…]

As a result of this, then, the priests became good for nothing, and as the Lord said, they have become like the people. For they did not reprove, hold in, and restrain, but rather they excused and covered up one another’s passions, and the priests themselves became worse than the people, and the people worse than the priests.

[…]

But when only the clothing and vesture of the priesthood was left amongst men, the gift of the Spirit passed to monks and was disclosed by miraculous signs, because through what they did they were following the apostles’ mode of life. Yet there too the Devil again performed his characteristic work, for when he saw them, how they were proclaimed in the world as new disciples of Christ once more, and how they shone both through their mode of life and through their miracles, he mingled false brothers amongst them, his own tools. And having little by little increased in number, they became good for nothing, as you see, and they have come to be monks who are not really monks at all. So then the right to forgive sins has not been granted by God either to those who are monks in virtue of their habit, or to those who have been ordained and included in the order of priesthood, or to those honoured with episcopal rank—I mean patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops— simply in this way and by reason of their ordination and the dignity it confers. Far from it! For it is only the performance of sacred rites which has been conceded to them, and I think not even that to most of them, in order that thereby they may not be burnt up, being grass, but [the right to forgive belongs] only to those amongst priests, bishops, and monks who can be numbered with the companies of Christ’s disciples because of their purity.” (Epistle 1: FROM SYMEON THE NEW THEOLOGIAN, OUR FATHER AMONG THE SAINTS, A TREATISE WRITTEN TO A SPIRITUAL CHILD OF HIS ABOUT CONFESSION, AND WHO THEY ARE THAT HAVE RECEIVED AUTHORITY TO BIND AND LOOSE AS REGARDS SINS)

        I wouldn’t defend everything he says here, but it goes to show that the idea of authority only belonging to those who have received manual laying on of hands going back to the Apostles is not a guarantor of apostolic authority. Sound doctrine and faithful living are required. And I would argue that Roman Catholic Church and Eastern churches lack both of these things. So, they are not sole arbiters of apostolic authority.

Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Contra Gentiles, says, “The sole way to overcome an adversary of divine truth is from the authority of Scripture—an authority divinely confirmed by miracles. For that which is above the human reason we believe only because God has revealed it.” (Chapter 9)

Aquinas also defends submission to the bishop of Rome as Christ’s vice-regent on earth, but his statements here supplement the idea that Scripture is the “sole way” to overcome an adversary of divine truth – a very Protestant principle.

Of course, one can quote mine the church Fathers all day for their own purposes, but I only bring it up because it shows that these ideas have a continual thread throughout all of history going back to Abel. I don’t want to misrepresent the Fathers either. So, please, take the time to read these quotes in context and judge for yourself.

        I realize there are Roman and Eastern answers to all of these things. But I have found them to be wanting. The weight of Scripture and history do not lend itself to the absolute necessity of tactile ordination tracing back to the Apostles for a valid sacrament to be administered and received. I do not deny that Rome and East have valid sacraments. But I do not deny that Protestants have a valid sacrament, either. They are all valid, and God is clearly more concerned with holiness of life than the right tactile pedigree. There is so much in Scripture at odds with such a claim, and the Apostolic succession claims are only thinly derived from a handful of debatable texts. The arguments simply do not carry the day for me.

In the next installment, I will further discuss the post-Apostolic historical witness regarding Apostolic succession by looking at what they had to say about the Scriptures. And in another installment, I will further discuss the Biblical texts that are used to support claims of Apostolic tactile ordination in conjunction with Papal supremacy.

Audio version here.

Video version here.