Apostolic Succession of the Catholic Church

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

CATHOLIC TEACHING ON APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION*

(1973)

This study sets out to throw light on the concept of apostolic succession, on the one
hand, because a clear presentation of the Catholic doctrine would seem to be useful to
the Catholic Church as a whole, and, on the other hand, because it is demanded by
ecumenical dialogue. For some time now ecumenical dialogue has been going on in
various parts of the world, and it has a promising future provided the Catholics taking
part in it remain faithful to their Catholic identity. So we propose to present the
Catholic teaching on apostolic succession in order to strengthen our brothers in the
Faith and to contribute to the mature development of ecumenical dialogue.

We begin by listing some of the difficulties that are frequently encountered:

1. What can be deduced, scientifically, from the witness of the New Testament? How
can one show the continuity between the New Testament and the Church’s Tradition?

2. What is the place of the imposition of hands in apostolic succession?

3. Is there not a tendency in some quarters to reduce apostolic succession to the

apostolicity that is common to the whole Church, or, conversely, to reduce the
apostolicity of the Church to apostolic succession?

4. How can one evaluate the ministry of other churches and Christian communities in
relation to apostolic succession?

Behind all these questions lies the problem of the relationship between Scripture,
Tradition, and the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church.

The dominant note in our thinking is provided by the vision of the Church as willed
by the Father, emerging from Christ’s Paschal mystery, animated by the Holy Spirit,
and organically structured. We hope to set the specific and essential function of
apostolic succession in the context of the whole Church, which confesses its apostolic
Faith and bears witness to its Lord.

We rely upon Scripture, which has for us a twofold value as a historical record and an
inspired document. Insofar as it is a historical record, Scripture recounts the most
important events in the mission of Jesus and the life of the Church of the first century;
insofar as it is an inspired document, it bears witness to certain facts and at the same
time interprets them and reveals their inner significance and dynamic coherence. As
an expression of the thought of God in the words of men, Scripture has a normative
value for the thinking of Christ’s Church in every age.

But any interpretation of Scripture that regards it as inspired and therefore normative
for all ages is necessarily an interpretation that takes place within the Church’s
Tradition, which recognizes Scripture as inspired and normative. The recognition of
the normative character of Scripture fundamentally implies a recognition of that
Tradition within which Scripture itself was formed and came to be considered and
accepted as inspired. The normative status of Scripture and its relationship to
Tradition go hand in hand. The result is that any theological considerations about
Scripture are at the same time ecclesial considerations.

This, then, is the methodological starting point of the document: any attempt to
reconstitute the past by selecting isolated phrases from the New Testament Tradition
and separating them from the way they were received in the living Tradition of the
Church is contradictory

The theological approach that sees Scripture as an indivisible whole and that links it
with the life and thought of the early community that acknowledges and "recognizes"
it as Scripture certainly does not mean that properly historical judgments are
eliminated in advance by an ecclesiological a priori, which would make impossible an
interpretation in conformity with the demands of historical method.

The method adopted here enables one to grasp the limitations of pure historicism: it
admits that the purely historical analysis of a book in isolation from its effects and
influence cannot show with certainty that the way Faith actually developed in history
was the only possible way But these limits to historical proof, which one cannot
doubt, do not destroy the value and weight of historical knowledge. On the contrary,
the fact that the early Church accepted Scripture as constitutive is something to be
constantly meditated upon: that is, we have to think out again and again the
relationship, the differences, and the unity between the different elements.

That also means that one cannot dissolve Scripture into a series of unrelated sketches,
each one of which would be an attempt to express a lifestyle founded on Jesus of
Nazareth, but rather that one must understand it as the expression of a historical
unfolding path that reveals the unity and the catholicity of the Church. There are three
broad stages along this path: the time before Easter, the apostolic period, and the
subapostolic period, and each period has its own specific value; it is significant that
what the dogmatic constitution "On Divine Revelation", Dei Verbum (18), calls "viri
apostolici" should be responsible for some of the New Testament writings.

This helps one to see clearly how the community of Jesus Christ solved the problem
of remaining apostolic even though it had become subapostolic. This explains why the
subapostolic part of the New Testament has a normative character for the Church at a
later period, for it must build on the apostles, who themselves have Christ as their
foundation. In the subapostolic writings, Scripture itself bears witness to Tradition and
gives evidence of the Magisterium in that it recalls the teaching of the apostles (see
Acts 2:42; 2 Pet 1:20). This Magisterium really begins to develop in the second
century, at the time when the idea of apostolic succession is made fully explicit.

Scripture and Tradition taken together, pondered upon and authentically interpreted
by the Magisterium, faithfully transmit to us the teaching of Christ our Lord and
Savior and determine the doctrine that it is the Church’s mission to proclaim to all
peoples and to apply to each generation until the end of the world. It is in this
theological perspective — fully in accord with the doctrine of Vatican II — that we
have written this document on apostolic succession and evaluated the ministries that
exist in churches and communities not yet in full communion with the Catholic
Church.

I. THE APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH AND THE COMMON

PRIESTHOOD

1. The creeds confess their Faith in the apostolicity of the Church. That means not
simply that the Church continues to hold the apostolic Faith but that it is determined
to live according to the norm of the primitive Church, which derived from the first
witnesses of Christ and was guided by the Holy Spirit, who was given to the Church
by Christ after his Resurrection. The Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles show how
effective was this presence of the Spirit in the whole Church, and that he ensured not
only its diffusion but also and more importantly the transformation of hearts: the
Spirit assimilates them to Christ and his feelings. Stephen, the first martyr, repeats the
words of forgiveness of his dying Lord; Peter and John are beaten and rejoice that
they should be found worthy to suffer with him; Paul bears in his body the marks of
Christ (Gal 6:17), wants to be conformed to the death of Christ (Phil 3:10), to know
nothing save the crucified One (1 Cor 1:23; 2:2), and he considers his whole life as an
assimilation to the expiating sacrifice of the Cross (Phil 2:17; Col 1:24).

2. This assimilation to the "thoughts" of Christ and above all to his sacrificial death
for the world gives ultimate meaning to the lives of those who want to lead a
Christian, spiritual, and apostolic life.
That is why the early Church adapted the priestly vocabulary of the Old Testament to
Christ, the Paschal Lamb of the New Covenant (1 Cor 5:7), and then to Christians
whose lives are defined in relation to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Converted by the
preaching of the Gospel, they are convinced that they are living out a holy and royal
priesthood that is a spiritual transposition of the priesthood of the Old Testament (1
Pet 2:5-9; see Ex 19:6; Is 61:6) and that was made possible by the sacrificial offering
of him who recapitulates in himself all the sacrifices of the Old Law and opens the
way for the complete and eschatological sacrifice of the Church (see St.
Augustine, De civitate Dei 10, 6).

Christians as living stones in the new building that is the Church founded on Christ
offer to God worship in the Spirit who has made them new; their cult is both personal,
since they have to "present their bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to
God" (Rom 12:1; see 1 Pet 2:5), and communal, since together they make up the
"spiritual house", the "royal priesthood" and "holy nation" (1 Pet 2:9), whose purpose
is to offer "spiritual sacrifices that Jesus Christ has made acceptable to God", (1 Pet
2:8).

This priesthood has a moral dimension—since it must be exercised every day and in
ordinary situations—and an eschatological dimension, since it is, in eternity to come
that Christ has promised to make of us "a line of kings, priests to serve his God and
Father" (Rev 1:6; see 5:10; 20:6); but it has also a cultural dimension, since the
Eucharist by which they live is compared by Saint Paul to the sacrifices of the Old
Law and even - though only to make a sharp contrast - to pagan sacrifices (1 Cor
10:16-21).

3. Now Christ instituted a ministry for the establishment, animation, and maintenance
of this priesthood of Christians. This ministry was to be the sign and the instrument by
which he would communicate to his people in the course of history the fruits of his
life, death, and Resurrection. The first foundations of this ministry were laid when he
called the Twelve, who at the same time represent the new Israel as a whole and, after
Easter, will be the privileged eyewitnesses sent out to proclaim the Gospel of
salvation and the leaders of the new people, "fellow workers with God for the building
of his temple" (see 1 Cor 3:9). This ministry has an essential function to fulfill toward
each generation of Christians. It must therefore be transmitted from the apostles by an
unbroken line of succession. If one can say that the Church as a whole is established
upon the foundation of the apostles (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14), one has to add that this
apostolicity, which is common to the whole Church, is linked with the ministerial
apostolic succession, and that this is an inalienable ecclesial structure at the service of
all Christians.
II. THE ORIGINALITY OF THE APOSTOLIC FOUNDATION OF THE
CHURCH

The apostolic foundation has this special characteristic: it is both historical and
spiritual.

It is historical in the sense that it comes into being through an act of Christ during his
earthly existence: the call of the Twelve at the start of his public ministry, their
commission to represent the new Israel and to be involved ever more closely with his
Paschal journey, which is consummated in the Cross and Resurrection (Mk 1:17;
3:14; Lk 22:28; Jn 15:16). Far from destroying the pre-Easter structure, the
Resurrection confirms it. In a special manner Christ makes the Twelve the witnesses
of his Resurrection, and they head the list that he had ordered before his death: the
earliest confession of Faith in the Risen One includes Peter and the Twelve as the
privileged witnesses of his Resurrection (1 Cor).

Those who had been associated with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to the
eve of his Paschal death are able to bear public witness to the fact that it is the same
Jesus who is risen (Jn 15:27). After Judas’ defection and even before Pentecost, the
first concern of the Eleven is to replace him in their apostolic ministry with one of the
disciples who had been with Jesus since his baptism, so that with them he could be a
witness of his Resurrection (Acts 1:17-22). Moreover Paul, who was called to the
apostolate by the risen Lord himself and thus became part of the Church’s foundation,
is aware of the need to be in communion with the Twelve.

This foundation is not only historical; it is also spiritual. Christ’s pass-over,

anticipated at the Last Supper, establishes the New Covenant and thus embraces the
whole of human history. The mission and task of preaching the Gospel, governing,
reconciling, and sanctifying that are entrusted to the first witnesses cannot be
restricted to their lifetime. As far as the Eucharist is concerned, Tradition—whose
broad lines are already laid down from the first century (see Lk and Jn)—declares that
the apostles’ participation in the Last Supper conferred on them the power to preside
at the eucharistic celebration.

Thus the apostolic ministry is an eschatological institution. Its spiritual origins appear
in Christ’s prayer, inspired by the Holy Spirit, in which he discerns, as in all the great
moments of his life, the will of the Father (Lk 6:12). The spiritual participation of the
apostles in the mystery of Christ is completed fully by the gift of the Holy Spirit after
Easter (Jn 20:22; Lk 24:44-49). The Spirit brings to their minds all that Jesus had said
(Jn 14:26) and leads them to a fuller understanding of his mystery (Jn 16:13-15).
The kerygma, if it is to be properly understood, must not be separated or treated in
abstraction from the Faith to which the Twelve and Paul came by their conversion to
the Lord Jesus or from the witness to him manifested in their lives.

III. THE APOSTLES AND APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION IN HISTORY

The documents of the New Testament show that in the early days of the Church and in
the lifetime of the apostles there was diversity in the way communities were
organized, but also that there was, in the period immediately following, a tendency to
assert and strengthen the ministry of teaching and leadership.

Those who directed communities in the lifetime of the apostles or after their death
have different names in the New Testament texts: the presbyteroi-episkopoi are
described as poimenes, hegoumenoi, proistamenoi, kyberneseis. In comparison with
the rest of the Church, the feature of the presbyteroi-episkopoi is their apostolic
ministry of teaching and governing. Whatever the method by which they are chosen,
whether through the authority of the Twelve or Paul or some link with them, they
share in the authority of the apostles who were instituted by Christ and who maintain
for all time their unique character.

In the course of time this ministry underwent a development. This development

happened by internal necessity. It was encouraged by external factors, and above all
by the need to maintain unity in communities and to defend them against errors. When
communities were deprived of the actual presence of apostles and yet still wanted to
refer to the authority, there had to be some way of continuing to exercise adequately
the functions that the apostles had exercised in and in relation to them.

Already in the New Testament texts there are echoes of the transition from the
apostolic period to the subapostolic age, and one begins to see signs of the
development that in the second century led to the stabilization and general recognition
of the episcopal ministry. The stages of this development can be glimpsed in the last
writings of the Pauline Tradition and in other texts linked with the authority of the
apostles.

The significance of the apostles at the time of the foundation of the earliest Christian
communities was held to be essential for the structure of the Church and local
communities in the thinking of the subapostolic period. The principle of the
apostolicity of the Church elaborated in this reflection led to the recognition of the
ministry of teaching and governing as an institution derived from Christ by and
through the mediation of the apostles. The Church lived in the certain conviction that
Jesus, before he left this world, sent the Twelve on a universal mission and promised
that he would be with them at all times until the end of the world (Mt 28:18-20).
The time of the Church, which is the time of this universal mission, is therefore
contained within the presence of Christ, which is the same in the apostolic period and
later and which takes the form of a single apostolic ministry.

As one can see from the New Testament writings, conflicts could not always be
avoided between individuals and communities and the authority of the ministry. Paul,
on the one hand, strove to understand the Gospel with and in the community and so to
work out with them norms for Christian life, but, on the other hand, he appealed to his
apostolic authority whenever it was a matter of the truth of the Gospel (see Gal) or
unyielding principles of Christian life (see 1 Cor 7 and so on).

Likewise, the ministry of governing should never be separated from the community in
such a way as to place itself above it: its role is one of service in and for the
community. But when the New Testament communities accept apostolic government,
whether from the apostles themselves or their successors, then they obey and relate
the authority of the ministry to that of Christ himself.

The absence of documents makes it difficult to say precisely how these transitions
came about. By the end of the first century the situation was that the apostles or their
closest helpers or eventually their successors directed the local colleges
of episkopoi and presbyteroi. By the beginning of the second century the figure of a
single bishop who is the head of the communities appears very clearly in the letters of
Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who further claims that this institution is established "unto
the ends of the earth" (Ad Epk. 3, 2).

During the second century and after the Letter of Clement this institution is explicitly
acknowledged to carry with it the apostolic succession. Ordination with imposition of
hands, already witnessed to in the pastoral Epistles, appears in the process of
clarification to be an important step in preserving the apostolic Tradition and
guaranteeing succession in the ministry. The documents of the third century
(Tradition of Hippolytus) show that this conviction was arrived at peacefully and was
considered to be a necessary institution.

Clement and Irenaeus develop a doctrine on pastoral government and on the word in
which they derive the idea of apostolic succession from the unity of the word, the
unity of the mission, and the unity of the ministry of the Church; thus apostolic
succession became the permanent ground from which the Catholic Church understood
its own nature.
IV. THE SPIRITUAL ASPECT OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

If after this historic survey we try to understand the spiritual dimensions of apostolic
succession, we will have to stress first of all that the ordained ministry, although it
represents the Gospel with authority and is essentially a service toward the whole
Church, nevertheless demands that the minister should make Christ present in his
humility (2 Cor 4:5) and make present Christ crucified (see Gal 2:19ff.; 16:14; 1 Cor
4:9ff.).

The Church that it serves is informed and moved by the Spirit, and "Church" here
means the Church as a whole and in its members, for everyone who is baptized is
"taught by the Spirit" (1 Thess 4:9; see Heb 8:11; Jer 31:33ff.; 1 Jn 2:20; Jn 6:45). The
role of the priestly ministry is therefore to bring to mind authoritatively what is
already embryonically included in baptismal Faith but can never be fully realized here
below. Likewise the believer should nourish his Faith and his Christian life through
the sacramental mediation of the divine life. The norm of Faith - which is formally
known as the regula fidei - becomes immanent in Christian life thanks to the Spirit
while it remains transcendent in relation to men, since it can never be purely an
individual matter but is rather by its very nature ecclesial and catholic.

Thus in the rule of Faith the immediacy of the divine Spirit in each individual is
necessarily linked to the communitarian form of this Faith. Paul’s statement is still
valid: "No one can say ‘Jesus is the Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor 2:3)—
without the conversion that the Spirit is always ready to grant to human hearts, no one
can recognize Jesus as the Son of God, and only those who know him as the Son will
know the one whom Jesus calls "Father" (see Jn 14:7; 8:19; and so on). Since,
therefore, it is the Spirit who brings us knowledge of the Father through Jesus,
Christian Faith is trinitarian: its pneumatic or spiritual form necessarily implies
the content that is realized sacramentally in baptism in the name of Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit.

The regula fidei, that is, the sort of baptismal catechesis in which the trinitarian
content of Faith is developed, constitutes in its form and content the permanent basis
for the apostolicity and catholicity of the Church. It realizes apostolicity because it
binds those who preach the Faith to the christopneumatological norm: they do not
speak in their own name but bear witness to what they have heard (see Jn 7:18;
16:13ff.).

Jesus Christ shows that he is the Son in that he proclaims that he comes from the
Father. The Spirit shows that he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, because he
does not devise something of his own but reveals and recalls what comes from the
Son (Jn 16:13). This prolongation of the work of Christ and of his Spirit gives
apostolic succession its distinctive character and makes the Church’s Magisterium
distinct from both the teaching authority of scholars and the rule of authoritarian
power.

If the teaching authority were to fall into the hands of professors, Faith would depend
upon the lights of individuals and would be thereby exposed to influence from
the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age. And where Faith depends upon the despotic power
of certain individuals or groups, who themselves would decide what the norm was,
then truth is replaced by arbitrary power. The true Magisterium, on the contrary, is
bound by the word of the Lord and thus ushers those who listen to it into the realm of
liberty.

Nothing in the Church can forego this need to refer to the apostles. Pastors and their
flocks cannot avoid it; statements of Faith and moral precepts must be measured by it.
The ordained ministry is bound to this apostolic mediation in a double way, since on
the one hand it must submit to the norm of Christian origins and on the other hand it
has the duty of learning from the community of believers, who themselves have the
duty to instruct it.

We draw two conclusions from what has just been said:

1. No preacher of the Gospel has the right to proclaim the Gospel according to
personal theories he may happen to have. He proclaims the Faith of the apostolic
Church and not his own personality or his own religious experience.

This implies that we must add a third element to those we have already mentioned as
belonging to the rule of Faith - form and content: the rule of Faith presupposes
a witness who has been entrusted with a mission, who does not authorize him to
speak, and that no individual community can authorize him to speak; and this comes
about in virtue of the transcendence of the word. Authorization can only be given
sacramentally through those who have already received the mission. It is true that the
Spirit can freely arouse in the Church various charisms of evangelization and service
and inspire all Christians to bear witness to their Faith, but these activities should be
exercised with reference to the three elements mentioned in the regula
fidei (see LG 12).

2. This mission (trinitarian in its basis) enters into the rule of Faith and implies a
reference to the catholicity of Faith, which is at once a consequence of apostolicity
and a condition of its permanence. For no individual and no community by itself has
this power to send on a mission. It is only in relation with the whole - kath’holon,
catholicity in time and in space - that permanence in mission can be guaranteed. In
this way catholicity explains why the believer, as a member of the Church, is
introduced into an immediate participation in the trinitarian life through the mediation
not only of the God-Man but of the Church who is intimately associated with him.

Because of the catholic dimension of its truth and its life, the mediation of the Church
has to be achieved in an ordered way, through a ministry that is given to the Church as
one of its constitutive elements. This ministry does not have as its only point of
reference a historical period that is now no more (and that is represented by a series of
documents); given this reference back, it must be endowed with the power of
representing in itself its Source, the living Christ, through an officially authorized
proclamation of the Gospel and by authoritative celebration of sacramental acts, above
all the Eucharist.

V. APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION AND ITS TRANSMISSION

Just as the divine Word made Flesh is itself both proclamation and the communicating
principle of the divine life into which it brings us, so the ministry of the word in its
fullness and the sacraments of Faith, especially the Eucharist, are the means by which
Christ continues to be for mankind the ever-present event of salvation. Pastoral
authority is simply the responsibility that the apostolic ministry has for the unity of the
Church and its development, while the word is the source of salvation and the
sacraments are both the manifestation and the locus of its realization.

Thus apostolic succession is that aspect of the nature and life of the Church that shows
the dependence of our present-day community on Christ through those whom he has
sent. The apostolic ministry is, therefore, the sacrament of the effective presence of
Christ and of his Spirit in the midst of the people of God, and this view in no way
underestimates the immediate influence of Christ and his Spirit on each believer.

The charism of apostolic succession is received in the visible community of the

Church. It presupposes that someone who is to enter the ministry has the Faith of the
Church. The gift of ministry is granted in an act that is the visible and efficacious
symbol of the gift of the Spirit, and this act has as its instrument one or several of
those ministers who have themselves entered the apostolic succession.

Thus the transmission of the apostolic ministry is achieved through ordination,

including a rite with a visible sign and the invocation of God (epiklesis) to grant to the
ordinand the gift of his Holy Spirit and the powers that are needed for the
accomplishment of his task. This visible sign, from the New Testament onward, is the
imposition of hands (see LG 21). The rite of ordination expresses the truth that what
happens to the ordinand does not come from human origin and that the Church cannot
do what it likes with the gift of the Spirit.
The Church is fully aware that its nature is bound up with apostolicity and that the
ministry handed on by ordination establishes the one who has been ordained in the
apostolic confession of the truth of the Father. The Church, therefore, has judged that
ordination, given and received in the understanding she herself has of it, is necessary
to apostolic succession in the strict sense of the word.

The apostolic succession of the ministry concerns the whole Church, but it is not
something that derives from the Church taken as a whole but rather from Christ to the
apostles and from the apostles to all bishops to the end of time.

VI. TOWARD AN EVALUATION OF NON-CATHOLIC MINISTRIES

The preceding sketch of the Catholic understanding of apostolic succession now

enables us to give in broad outline an evaluation of non-Catholic ministries. In this
context it is indispensable to keep firmly in mind the differences that have existed in
the origins and in the subsequent development of these churches and communities, as
also their own self-understanding.

1. In spite of a difference in their appreciation of the office of Peter, the Catholic

Church, the Orthodox church, and the other churches that have retained the reality of
apostolic succession are at one in sharing a basic understanding of the sacramentality
of the Church, which developed from the New Testament and through the Fathers,
notably through Irenaeus. These churches hold that the sacramental entry into the
ministry comes about through the imposition of hands with the invocation of the Holy
Spirit, and that this is the indispensable form for the transmission of the apostolic
succession, which alone enables the Church to remain constant in its doctrine and
communion. It is this unanimity concerning the unbroken coherence of Scripture,
Tradition, and sacrament that explains why communion between these churches and
the Catholic Church has never completely ceased and could today be revived.

2. Fruitful dialogues have taken place with Anglican communions, which have
retained the imposition of hands, the interpretation of which has varied. We cannot
here anticipate the eventual results of this dialogue, which has as its object to inquire
how far factors constitutive of unity are included in the maintenance of the imposition
of hands and accompanying prayers.

3. The communities that emerged from the sixteenth-century Reformation differ

among themselves to such an extent that a description of their relationship to the
Catholic Church has to take account of the many individual cases. However, some
general lines are beginning to emerge. In general it was a feature of the Reformation
to deny the link between Scripture and Tradition and to advocate the view that
Scripture alone was normative. Even if later on some sort of place for Tradition is
recognized, it is never given the same position and dignity as in the ancient Church.
But since the sacrament of orders is the indispensable sacramental expression of
communion in the Tradition, the proclamation of sola scriptura led inevitably to an
obscuring of the older idea of the Church and its priesthood.

Thus through the centuries, the imposition of hands either by men already ordained or
by others was often in practice abandoned. Where it did take place, it did not have the
same meaning as in the Church of Tradition. This divergence in the mode of entry into
the ministry and its interpretation is only the most noteworthy symptom of the
different understandings of Church and Tradition. There have already been a number
of promising contacts that have sought to reestablish links with the Tradition,
although the break has so far not been successfully overcome.

In such circumstances, intercommunion remains impossible for the time being,

because sacramental continuity in apostolic succession from the beginning is an
indispensable element of ecclesial communion for both the Catholic Church and the
Orthodox churches.

To say this is not to say that the ecclesial and spiritual qualities of the Protestant
ministers and communities are thereby negligible. Their ministers have edified and
nourished their communities. By baptism, by the study and the preaching of the word,
by their prayer together and celebration of the Last Supper, and by their zeal they have
guided men toward faith in the Lord and thus helped them to find the way of
salvation. There are thus in such communities elements that certainly belong to the
apostolicity of the unique Church of Christ.

* This document was approved by the Commission "in forma specifica" (Reprinted
from the Tablet, 27 July, 3 August, and 10 August 1974).
Apostolic Succession
In 2007, when I was prayerfully thinking about returning to the Catholic Church, there were four
theological issues that were deal breakers for me: justification, penance, transubstantiation, and
apostolic succession. I have already discussed penance, transubstantiation, and justification. Here, I
offer a brief account of how I became convinced that the Catholic Church is also right about
apostolic succession.
Catholicism holds that if a Church claims to be Christian it must be able to show that its
leaders – its bishops and its presbyters (or priests) – are successors of the Apostles. This is why the
Catholic Church accepts Eastern Orthodox sacraments as legitimate even though the Orthodox are
not in full communion with Rome.

What amazed me is how uncontroversial apostolic succession was in the Early Church, as
Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelley points out in his book Early Christian Doctrines. I expected to
find factions of Christians, including respected Church Fathers, who resisted episcopal ecclesiology.
There aren’t any. In fact, a leading argument in the Early Church against heretics was their lack of
episcopal lineage and continuity and thus their absence of communion with the visible and universal
Church. In his famous apologetic treatise, Against Heresies (A.D. 182-188), St. Irenaeus (c. A.D.
140-202) makes that very point in several places. Tertullian (A.D. c. 160-220) offers the same sort of
apologetic as well.
Of course, the very early Christians did not have the elaborate hierarchy and canon law of
today’s Catholic Church. But they also lacked a secure and officially closed New Testament canon,
conciliar approved creeds, a global Church with a global reach, and detailed and sophisticated
articulations of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and justification. An infant Church is like a human infant.
In its earliest stages it possesses in its essence properties that when fully mature are exemplified
differently but are nevertheless rooted in the nature of the being itself.

So, the same human being who says, “Mama, me pooh-pooh,” may someday practice internal
medicine. Thus, as the Church grows and develops, its intrinsic properties mature in order to
accommodate its increasing membership as well as meet new theological, political, geographic, and
pastoral challenges unanticipated by its younger incarnation.

For example, because of the challenge of Arianism, the First Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325)
convened and produced a creed that all members of the Church were required to embrace. Such
conciliar resolutions only make sense if such bodies have real authority. And, as I came to learn, the
only authority recognized in the Early Church for settling doctrinal disputes was apostolic, whether
original or received.
 By the time the earliest Church Fathers are writing their epistles, an ecclesial infrastructure is
already and uncontroversially in place, albeit in primitive form. Although we can see early clues of
this development in the New Testament, suggesting a particular pattern of leadership and authority,
they remain only clues when isolated from how the early readers of Scripture, including the
Apostles’ disciples and their successors, understood them.

First, it is clear that the New Testament Church was an apostolic church. Its leadership
consisted of the apostles, who were given this authority by Our Lord that included the powers to bind
and loose (Mt 16:9; Mt. 18:8), forgive sins (Jn 20:21-23), baptize (Mt 28:18-20), and make disciples
(Mt 28:18-20). We see it exhibited in numerous ways throughout the New Testament, including
teaching that the Church is built on Christ and his apostles (Eph 2:19-22), deliberating and
pronouncing within an episcopal structure about a theological controversy (Acts 15:1-30),
proclaiming what constitutes an appropriate reception of true doctrine (1 Cor 15:3-11), rebuking and
excommunicating (Acts 5:1-11;Acts 8:14-24; 1 Cor 5; 1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:10-11),
judging the adequacy of a believer’s penance or penitent state (2 Cor 2:5-11; 1 Cor 11:27), the
ordaining and appointing of ministers (Acts 14:23; I Tim 4:14), choosing successors (Acts 1:20-26),
and entrusting the apostolic tradition to the next generation (2 Thess 2:15; I Tim 2:2). The Catholic
properties were all in place, albeit in embryonic form.

Second, the full meaning of these “clues” found in the practices of the nascent church are
unambiguously answered by the second generation of Christians and their successors. In addition to
the testimonies of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, as noted above, there are others, including St. Clement
of Rome, St. Cyprian of Carthage, and St. Augustine of Hippo.
The Catholic Church also embraces the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the doctrine of
papal infallibility. I do not have room to address that aspect of apostolic succession. Suffice it to say,
once I had found apostolic succession to be a legitimate Christian doctrine both historically and
biblically, Petrine primacy seemed to fall into place. I discovered that the case for Petrine primacy
was pretty strong (as Adrian Fortescue persuasively argues), and so much so that even the Orthodox
who reject the modern papacy nevertheless maintain that Rome has some sort of ecclesial primacy
(as Olivier Clément documents. Some say more modestly, “a primacy of honor.”)  And because, as
an ex-Catholic, I was in schism with Rome and not Constantinople, Orthodoxy was not a real option
for me.
It became clear to me that apostolic succession was for the entirety of Christian history
uncontroversially embraced by the Churches of the East and the West until the sixteenth century
Reformation. Thus, I concluded that it was at least a legitimate position within the confines of
acceptable Christian belief. In that case, I could no longer legitimately remain in schism from the
Church of my Baptism unless I had a good reason to do so. And I had no good reason.

What is the biblical support for apostolic

succession?
Question:
Why do Catholics cling so tightly to the tradition of apostolic succession when there's
no biblical support for it? All you can point to are dubious opinions of a few early
Christian writers.
Answer:
We cling tightly to this tradition because it’s true, for starters, and because all
Christians are commanded to do so by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians
2:15. For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you’ll see the apostles,
immediately after Jesus’ Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant
by Judas’s suicide.

They prayed for guidance, asking God to show them which candidate was “chosen to
take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away.” After
choosing Matthias they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority.

Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of
bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1
Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to
others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges
him to act decisively in this leadership role.

Lastly, please do better homework on early Christian writings. The testimony of the
early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic
succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that
the apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and
vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity.
Apostolic succession is the method whereby the ministry of the Christian Church is held to be
derived from the apostles by a continuous succession, which has usually been associated with a
claim that the succession is through a series of bishops.[1] Christians of the Roman Catholic, Eastern
Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholic, Anglican, Church of the East, Moravian, and
Scandinavian Lutheran traditions maintain that "a bishop cannot have regular or valid orders unless
he has been consecrated in this apostolic succession."[2] Each of these groups does not necessarily
consider consecration of the other groups as valid.[3]
This series was seen originally as that of the bishops of a particular see founded by one or more of
the apostles. According to historian Justo L. González, apostolic succession is generally understood
today as meaning a series of bishops, regardless of see, each consecrated by other bishops,
themselves consecrated similarly in a succession going back to the apostles.[4] According to the Joint
International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox
Church, "apostolic succession" means more than a mere transmission of powers. It is succession in
a church which witnesses to the apostolic faith, in communion with the other churches, witnesses of
the same apostolic faith. The "see (cathedra) plays an important role in inserting the bishop into the
heart of ecclesial apostolicity", but, once ordained, the bishop becomes in his church the guarantor
of apostolicity and becomes a successor of the apostles.[5][6]
Those who hold for the importance of apostolic succession via episcopal laying on of hands appeal
to the New Testament, which, they say, implies a personal apostolic succession
(from Paul to Timothy and Titus, for example). They appeal as well to other documents of the early
Church, especially the Epistle of Clement.[7] In this context, Clement explicitly states that the apostles
appointed bishops as successors and directed that these bishops should in turn appoint their own
successors; given this, such leaders of the Church were not to be removed without cause and not in
this way. Further, proponents of the necessity of the personal apostolic succession of bishops within
the Church point to the universal practice of the undivided early Church (up to AD 431), before it was
divided into the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Eastern Orthodox Church and
the Roman Catholic Church.
However, some Protestants deny the need for this type of continuity,[1][8] and the historical claims
involved have been severely questioned by them; Eric G. Jay comments that the account given of
the emergence of the episcopate in chapter III of the encyclical Lumen Gentium (1964) "is very
sketchy, and many ambiguities in the early history of the Christian ministry are passed over".[9]

Catholic Church
In Catholic theology, the doctrine of apostolic succession is that the apostolic tradition - including
apostolic teaching, preaching, and authority - is handed down from the college of apostles to the
college of bishops through the laying on of hands, as a permanent office in the Church.
[66]
 Historically, this has been understood as a succession in office, a succession of valid ordinations,
or a succession of the entire college. It is understood as a sign and guarantee that the Church, both
local and universal, is in diachronic continuity with the apostles; a necessary but insufficient
guarantor thereof.[6][18]

Papal primacy is different though related to apostolic succession as described here. The Catholic
Church has traditionally claimed a unique leadership role for the Apostle Peter, believed to have
been named by Jesus as head of the Apostles and as a focus of their unity, who became the first
Bishop of Rome, and whose successors inherited the role and accordingly became the leaders of
the worldwide Church as well. Even so, Catholicism acknowledges the papacy is built on apostolic
succession, not the other way around. As such, apostolic succession is a foundational doctrine of
authority in the Catholic Church.[67][68]
Catholicism holds that Christ entrusted the Apostles with the leadership of the community of
believers, and the obligation to transmit and preserve the "deposit of faith" (the experience of Christ
and his teachings contained in the doctrinal "tradition" handed down from the time of the apostles
and the written portion, which is Scripture). The apostles then passed on this office and authority by
ordaining bishops to follow after them.[69]
Roman Catholic theology holds that the apostolic succession effects the power and authority to
administer the sacraments except for baptism and matrimony. (Baptism may be administered by
anyone and matrimony by the couple to each other.) Authority to so administer such sacraments is
passed on only through the sacrament of Holy Orders, a rite by which a priest is ordained (ordination
can be conferred only by bishop). The bishop, of course, must be from an unbroken line of bishops
stemming from the original apostles selected by Jesus Christ. Thus, apostolic succession is
necessary for the valid celebration of the sacraments.[18]
On 29 June 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explained why apostolic succession
is integral to, and indeed, "a constitutive element" of the Church. In response to the question why
the Second Vatican Council and other official statements of the Catholic Church do not call
Protestant Christian Communities "Churches", it stated that "according to Catholic doctrine, these
Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore,
deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically
because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral
substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'Churches' in
the proper sense".[70]
Views concerning other churches
In the Catholic Church, Pope Leo XIII stated in his 1896 bull Apostolicae curae that the Catholic
Church believes specifically that Anglican orders were to be considered "absolutely null and utterly
void".
His argument was as follows. First, the ordination rite of Edward VI had removed language of a
sacrificial priesthood. Ordinations using this new rite occurred for over a century and, because the
restoration of language of "priesthood" a century later in the ordination rite "was introduced too late,
as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal ... the Hierarchy had
become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining." With this extinction of validly ordained
bishops in England, "the true Sacrament of Order as instituted by Christ lapsed, and with it the
hierarchical succession." As a result, the pope's final judgment was that Anglican ordinations going
forward were to be considered "absolutely null and utterly void". Anglican clergy from then on were
from then on to be ordained as Catholic priests upon entry into the Catholic Church.[72]:105
A reply from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (1896) was issued to counter Pope Leo's
arguments: Saepius officio: Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Bull
Apostolicae Curae of H. H. Leo XIII.[73] They argued that if the Anglican orders were invalid, then the
Roman orders were as well since the Pope based his case on the fact that the Anglican ordinals
used did not contain certain essential elements but these were not found in the early Roman rites
either.[73] However, Catholics argue, this argument does not consider the sacramental intention
involved in validating Holy Orders. In other words, Catholics believe that the ordination rites were
reworded so as to invalidate the ordinations because the intention behind the alterations in the rite
was a fundamental change in Anglican understanding of the priesthood.[74]
It is Roman Catholic doctrine that the teaching of Apostolicae curae is a truth to be "held definitively,
but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed," as stated in a commentary by the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith.[75] Cardinal Basil Hume explained the conditional character of his
ordination of Graham Leonard, former Anglican bishop of the Diocese of London, to the priesthood
in the following way: "While firmly restating the judgement of Apostolicae Curae that Anglican
ordination is invalid, the Catholic Church takes account of the involvement, in some Anglican
episcopal ordinations, of bishops of the Old Catholic Church of the Union of Utrecht who are validly
ordained. In particular and probably rare cases the authorities in Rome may judge that there is a
'prudent doubt' concerning the invalidity of priestly ordination received by an individual Anglican
minister ordained in this line of succession."[76] At the same time, he stated: "Since the church must
be in no doubt of the validity of the sacraments celebrated for the Catholic community, it must ask all
who are chosen to exercise the priesthood in the Catholic Church to accept sacramental ordination
in order to fulfill their ministry and be integrated into the apostolic succession."[76] Since Apostolicae
curae was issued many Anglican jurisdictions have revised their ordinals, bringing them more in line
with ordinals of the early Church.
Timothy Dufort, writing in The Tablet in 1982, attempted to present an ecumenical solution to the
problem of how the Catholic Church might accept Anglican orders without needing to formally
repudiate Apostolicae curae at all. Dufort argued that by 1969 all Anglican bishops had acquired
apostolic succession fully recognized by Rome,[77] since from the 1930s Old Catholic bishops (the
validity of whose orders the Vatican has never questioned)[78] have acted as co-consecrators in the
ordination of Anglican bishops. This view has not yet been considered formally by the Holy See, but
after Anglican Bishop Graham Leonard converted to Roman Catholicism, he was only reordained in
1994 conditionally because of the presence of Old Catholic bishops at his ordination.
The question of the validity of Anglican orders has been further complicated by the Anglican
ordination of women.[79] In a document it published in July 1998, the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith stated that the Catholic Church's declaration on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations is a
teaching that the church has definitively propounded and that therefore every Catholic is required to
give "firm and definitive assent" to this matter.[75] This being said, in May 2017, Cardinal Francesco
Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, has asked whether the
current Catholic position on invalidity could be revised in the future.[80]

What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Succession

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church
and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the
apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the
world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the
apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do
not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible.
To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of
the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many
witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his
own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to
apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine.
This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre
ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an
ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in

practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious
answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been
handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of
the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to
their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in
the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is
guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally
to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the
message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit.
Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed
‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).

Here are examples of what early Christian writers had to say on the subject of
apostolic succession:

Pope Clement I
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their
earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future
believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a
long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there
would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received
perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and
afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men
should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D.
80]).

Hegesippus
“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And
after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession
and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the
prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22
[A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to
contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout
the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted
bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither
knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1
[A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions
of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether
through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion,
assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the
bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized
at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the
tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to
men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches
must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful
everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had
seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in
Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time,
and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed
this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and
which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the
Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to
the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).

“[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have
shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the
succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according
to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion
others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in
any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up
and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and
vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).

“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of
the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ
according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed
down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).

Tertullian
“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one
after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every
day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only
that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic
churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its
classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great,
comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all
[spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved
to be one in unity” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).
“[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here
likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches
which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly
themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all
doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources
of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the
churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God.
Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the
truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we
demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has
its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso
facto proceed from falsehood” (ibid., 21).

“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the
midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by
the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them
produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their
bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that
[their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of
the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the
apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their
registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by
John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like
manner by Peter” (ibid., 32).

“But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for
themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison
with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own
diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic
man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-
contradictory” (ibid.).

“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church,
offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they
neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are
they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any
way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic
because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith” (ibid.).

Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she
is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with
Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and
whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom,
Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to
no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For
he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church
in any way” (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

Augustine
“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic
Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority,
inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her
age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter,
to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John
21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here” (Against the Letter of Mani
Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials

presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827

permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Chapter III.—A refutation of the heretics, from the fact
that, in the various Churches, a perpetual succession of
bishops was kept up.
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to
see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested
throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were
by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the
succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of
anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known
hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart
and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to
whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous
that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they
were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of
government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly,
would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst
calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon
up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in
whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness
and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by
indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very
ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two
most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached
to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on
account of its pre-eminent authority,  that is, the faithful everywhere, 416inasmuch
3313
as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men]
who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church,
committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul
makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after
him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This
man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them,
might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and
their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still
remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this
Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the
Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting
them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately
received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of
heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called
Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth
the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels.
From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the
apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these
men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another
god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there
succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles,
Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then
Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded
Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the
inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the
ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come
down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same
vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until
now, and handed down in truth.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with
many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of
the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth]
a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering
martyrdom,  departed this life, having always taught the things which he had
3314

learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which
alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men
who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,—a man who was of much
greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion,
and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus
caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God,
proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,—that,
namely, which is handed down by the Church.  There are also those who heard
3315

from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and
perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing,
exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the
enemy of the truth, is within.” And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met
him on one occasion, and said, “Dost thou know me?” “I do know thee, the first-
born of Satan.” Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had
against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as
Paul also says, “A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition,
reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of
himself.”  There is also a very powerful  Epistle of Polycarp written to the
3316 3317

Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their
salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then,
again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among
them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the
apostles.

    The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad
3313

hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est

omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have
here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with
certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem
principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that
the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to
think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It
would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a
candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to
this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is
necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side
faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every
side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the
apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious
that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from
all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here
orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to
others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at
end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap.
xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.
    Polycarp suffered about the year 167, in the reign of Marcus
3314

Aurelius. His great age of eighty-six years implies that he was

contemporary with St. John for nearly twenty years.
     So the Greek. The Latin reads: “which he also handed down
3315

to the Church.”
    Tit. iii. 10.
3316

    ἰκανωτάτη. Harvey translates this all-sufficient, and thus

3317

paraphrases: But his Epistle is all-sufficient, to teach those that

are desirous to learn.

APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND

SUCCESSION
Scripture
I. Ordained Leaders Share in Jesus’ Ministry and Authority
Matt. 10:1,40 – Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you,
receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.”
Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively
convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 – the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible
decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in
Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority
and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central
authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).

You are here: Home / The Church / APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND

SUCCESSION

APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND

SUCCESSION

Contents [hide]
 1 Scripture
o 1.1 I. Ordained Leaders Share in Jesus’ Ministry and Authority
o 1.2 II. Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination
o 1.3 III. Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authority
 2 Tradition / Church Fathers
o 2.1 I. The Church Has Apostolic Succession
o 2.2 II. Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination
Scripture
I. Ordained Leaders Share in Jesus’ Ministry and Authority
Matt. 10:1,40 – Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who
rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.” Jesus freely gives His authority to the
apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 – the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth
that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders
and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all.
Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).

Luke 9:1; 10:19 – Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural
(diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).

Luke 10:16 – Jesus tells His apostles, “he who hears you, hears Me.” When we hear the bishops’
teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.

Luke 22:29 – the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the
apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

Num 16:28 – the Father’s authority is transferred to Moses. Moses does not speak on his own.
This is a real transfer of authority.

You are here: Home / The Church / APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND

SUCCESSION

APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND

SUCCESSION
 Contents [hide]
 1 Scripture
o 1.1 I. Ordained Leaders Share in Jesus’ Ministry and Authority
o 1.2 II. Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination
o 1.3 III. Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authority
 2 Tradition / Church Fathers
o 2.1 I. The Church Has Apostolic Succession
o 2.2 II. Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination
Scripture
I. Ordained Leaders Share in Jesus’ Ministry and Authority
Matt. 10:1,40 – Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who
rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.” Jesus freely gives His authority to the
apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 – the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth
that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders
and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all.
Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).

Luke 9:1; 10:19 – Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural
(diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).

Luke 10:16 – Jesus tells His apostles, “he who hears you, hears Me.” When we hear the bishops’
teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.

Luke 22:29 – the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the
apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

Num 16:28 – the Father’s authority is transferred to Moses. Moses does not speak on his own.
This is a real transfer of authority.

John 5:30 – similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the
authority of the Father.
John 7:16-17 – Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. He will
transfer this authority to other men.

John 8:28 – Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Similarly, the apostles will do
nothing on their own authority. Their authority comes from God.

John 12:49 – The father’s authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on his own.
This is a transfer of divine authority.

John 13:20 – Jesus says, “he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me.” He who receives
the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects
Christ.

John 14:10 – Jesus says the Word He speaks is not His own authority, but from the Father. The
gift is from the Father to Jesus to the apostles.

John 16:14-15 – what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The
authority is not lessened or mitigated.

John 17:18; 20:21 – as the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the apostles. The apostles have
divinely appointed authority.

Acts 20:28 – the apostles are shepherds and guardians appointed by the Holy Spirit / 1 Peter 2:25
– Jesus is the Shepherd and Guardian. The apostles, by the power of the Spirit, share Christ’s
ministry and authority.

Jer. 23:1-8; Ezek. 34:1-10 – the shepherds must shepherd the sheep, or they will be held
accountable by God.

Eph. 2:20 – the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The word
“foundation” proves that it does not die with apostles, but carries on through succession.

Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:9,14 – the words “household,” “Bride of the Lamb,” the “new Jerusalem” are
all metaphors for the Church whose foundation is the apostles.

II. Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination

Acts 1:15-26 – the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic
succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can
demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the
sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 – a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is
respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order
for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with
authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 1:22 – literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection.
Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

Acts 6:6 – apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This
authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 – even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the
laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental
ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:3 – apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This
authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 – the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout
the Church.

Acts 15:22-27 – preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church.
We must trace this authority to the apostles.

2 Cor. 1:21-22 – Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the
Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

Col 1:25 – Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not
terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another
successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 – Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone
understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by
those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 – again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands
(ordination).
1 Tim. 5:22 – Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The
gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 1:6 – Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the
laying on of hands.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 – at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We
must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

2 Tim. 2:2 – this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to
Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 – the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His
children participate in Christ’s work.

1 John 4:6 – whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles).
This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for
ourselves).

Exodus 18:25-26 – Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a
transfer of authority and succession.

Exodus 40:15 – the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an
identifiable unbroken succession.

Numbers 3:3 – the sons of Aaron were formally “anointed” priests in “ordination” to minister in
the priests’ “office.”

Numbers 16:40 – shows God’s intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth.
Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.

Numbers 27:18-20 – shows God’s intention that, through the “laying on of hands,” one is
commissioned and has authority.

Deut. 34:9 – Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as
successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.

Sirach 45:15 – Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority
through formal ordination.
III. Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authority
Acts 5:13 – the people acknowledged the apostles’ special authority and did not dare take it upon
themselves.

Acts 15:6,24; 16:4 – the teaching authority is granted to the apostles and their successors. This
teaching authority must be traced to the original apostles, or the authority is not sanctioned by
Christ.

Rom. 15:16 – Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the
priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may
be acceptable. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained which
is distinguishable from the universal priesthood of the laity. Notice the Gentiles
are the “sacrifice” and Paul does the “offering.”

1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17 – these verses show the
authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize (“deliver to satan”).

2 Cor. 2:17 – Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God’s
word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed
authority.

2 Cor. 3:6 – Paul says that certain men have been qualified by God to be
ministers of a New Covenant. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of Christ
handed down the ages through sacramental ordination.

2 Cor. 5:20 – Paul says we are “ambassadors” for Christ. This means that the
apostles and their successors share an actual participation in Christ’s mission,
which includes healing, forgiving sins, and confecting the sacraments.

2 Cor. 10:6 – in reference to the ordained, Paul says that they are ready to
punish every disobedience. The Church has the authority excommunicate
those who disobey her.

2 Cor. 10:8 – Paul acknowledges his authority over God’s people which the
Lord gave to build up the Church.
1 Thess. 5:12-13 – Paul charges the members of the Church to respect those
who have authority over them.

2 Thess. 3:14 – Paul says if a person does not obey what he has provided in
his letter, have nothing to do with him.

1 Tim. 5:17 – Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed
elders (“priests”) of the Church.

Titus 2:15 – Paul charges Timothy to exhort and reprove with all authority,
which he received by the laying on of hands.

Heb. 12:9 – in the context of spiritual discipline, the author says we have had
earthly fathers (referring to the ordained leaders) to discipline us and we
respected them.

Heb. 13:7,17 – Paul charges the members of the Church to remember and
obey their leaders who have authority over their souls.

1 Peter 2:18 – Peter charges the servants to be submissive to their masters

whether kind and gentle or overbearing.

1 Peter 5:5; Jude 8 – Peter and Jude charge the members of the Church to be
subject to their elders.

2 Peter 2:10 – Peter warns the faithful about despising authority. He is

referring to the apostolic authority granted to them by Christ.

3 John 9 – John points out that Diotrephes does not acknowledge John’s
apostolic authority and declares that this is evil.

Deut. 17:10-13 – the Lord commands His faithful Israel to obey the priests that
He puts in charge, and do to all that they direct and instruct. The Lord warns
that those who do not obey His priests shall die.

Num. 16:1-35 – Korah incited a “protestant” rebellion against God’s chosen

Moses in an effort to confuse the distinction between the ministerial and
universal offices of priesthood, and Korah and his followers perished. (This
effort to blind the distinctions between the priests and the laity is still pursued
by dissidents today.)

Sirach 7:29-30 – with all your soul fear the Lord and honor His priests, love
your Maker and do not forsake His ministers. God is not threatened by the
authority He gives His children! God, as our Loving Father, invites us to
participate in His plan of salvation with His Son Jesus. Without authority in the
Church, there is error, chaos and confusion.

Tradition / Church Fathers

I. The Church Has Apostolic Succession
“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits
[of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and
deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing,
since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and
deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their
bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also
knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of
the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had
obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers]
already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should
fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For
our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have
blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to
Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power
and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to
his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the
presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the
bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers,
fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement
to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has
left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a
journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same
doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks
about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And
the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in
Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the
Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true
doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus,
whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and
he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is
preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.'” Hegesippus, Memoirs,
fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180).

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and
the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the
distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of
the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in
every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved
without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and
neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she
believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification,
and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both
without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-
eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious
than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].” Irenaeus, Against
Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180).

“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in
the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been
handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the
apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches;
let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from
the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be
able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of
apostolic men,–a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles.
…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…Then let all the heresies, when challenged
to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem
themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able
to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to
peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way
connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves
apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.” Tertullian,
Prescription against the Heretics, 33 (A.D. 200).

“And that you may still be more confident, that repenting thus truly there
remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale? Which is not a tale
but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about
the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus
from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous
territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole
Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.” Clement of
Alexandria, Who is the rich man that shall be save?, 42 (A.D. 210).

“We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and the
ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than as the churches of God
have by succession transmitted to us.” Origen, Commentary on Matthew (post
A.D. 244).

“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing

the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and
says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I
build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and
successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards;
so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church
is controlled by these same rulers.” Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 1 (A.D. 250).

“Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the
churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who
succeeded to them by vicarious ordination.” Firmilian, To Cyprian, Epistle
75[74]:16 (A.D. 256).

“It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles,

as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our
own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred
in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and
presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in
each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing…
When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the
evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria…Linus …was
Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there…Clement also, who
was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome.” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History,1:1,2:24, (A.D. 325).

“Lo! In these three successions, as in a mystery and a figure … Under the

three pastors,–there were manifold shepherds” Ephraem, Nisbene Hymns,
The Bishops of Nisibis (Jacob, Babu, Valgesh), 13,14 (A.D. 350).

“[W]hile before your election you lived to yourself, after it, you live for your
flock. And before you had received the grace of the episcopate, no one knew
you; but after you became one, the laity expect you to bring them food,
namely instruction from the Scriptures … For if all were of the same mind as
your present advisers, how would you have become a Christian, since there
would be no bishops? Or if our successors are to inherit this state of mind,
how will the Churches be able to hold together?” Athanasius, To Dracontius,
Epistle 49 (A.D. 355).

“[B]elieve as we believe, we, who are, by succession from the blessed

apostles, bishops; confess as we and they have confessed, the only Son of
God, and thus shalt thou obtain forgiveness for thy numerous crimes.” Lucifer
of Calaris, On St. Athanasius (A.D. 361).

“[W]e shall not recede from the faith … as once laid it continues even to this
say, through the tradition of the fathers, according to the succession from the
apostles, even to the discussion had at Nicea against the heresy which had,
at that period, sprung up.” Hilary of Poitiers, History Fragment 7 (ante A.D.
367).

“[D]uring the days of that Anicetus, bishop of Rome, who succeeded Pius and
his predecessors, For, in Rome, Peter and Paul were the first both apostles
and bishops; then came Linus, then Cletus … However the succession of the
bishops in Rome was in the following order. Peter and Paul, and Cletus,
Clement…” Epiphanius, Panarion, 27:6 (A.D. 377).
“He [St. Athanasius] is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in
piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in
the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For
unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival
throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the
intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the
lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but
the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he
succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to
calm, and frenzy to sound sense.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21:8 (A.D.
380).

“For they [Novatians] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair
of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly
denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to
Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and
whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.'”
Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, 7:33 (A.D. 384).

“It has been ordained by the apostles and their successors, that nothing be
read in the Catholic Church, except the law, and the prophets, and the
Gospels.” Philastrius of Brescia, On Heresies (ante A.D. 387).

“If the lineal succession of bishops is to be considered with how much more
benefit to the Church do we reckon from Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in
a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of hell shall not conquer it!’ For to Peter succeeded Linus,
Clement…Damsus, Sircius, Anastasius. In this order of succession no
Donatist bishop is too be found.” Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D.
400).

“Let a bishop be ordained by three or two bishops; but if any one be ordained
by one bishop, let him be deprived, both himself and he that ordained him. But
if there be a necessity that he have only one to ordain him, because more
bishops cannot come together, as in time of persecution, or for such like
causes, let him bring the suffrage of permission from more bishops.” Apostolic
Constitutions, 8:27 (A.D. 400).
“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how
much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we
reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the
Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in
unbroken continuity were these: — Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander,
Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor,
Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius,
Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus,
Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus,
and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order
of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of
things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who,
putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave
some notoriety to the name of “mountain men,” or Cutzupits, by which they
were known.” Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400).

“‘To the fellow-Bishops and Deacons.” What is this? Were there several
Bishops of one city? Certainly not; but he called the Presbyters so. For then
they still interchanged the titles, and the Bishop was called a Deacon. For this
cause in writing to Timothy, he said, “Fulfill thy ministry,’ when he was a
Bishop. For that he was a Bishop appears by his saying to him, ‘Lay hands
hastily on no man.’ (1 Tim. v. 22.) And again, ‘Which was given thee with the
laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.’ (1 Tim. iv. 14.) Yet Presbyters would
not have laid hands on a Bishop. And again, in writing to Titus, he says, ‘For
this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest appoint elders in every city,
as I gave thee charge. If any man is blameless, the husband of one wife’ (Tit.
i. 5, 6); which he says of the Bishop. And after saying this, he adds
immediately, ‘For the Bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward, not self
willed:’ (Tit. i. 7.)” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Phillipians, 1:1 (A.D. 404).

“And to Timothy he says: ‘Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given
thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.’… For
even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates
of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of
their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position,
just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves
whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function
excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a
presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in
all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East
worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the
world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome
or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be
at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither
the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop
or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.” Jerome, To
Evangelus, Epistle 146:1 (ante A.D. 420).

“We must strive therefore in common to keep the faith which has come down
to us to-day, through the Apostolic Succession.” Pope Celestine [regn A.D.
422-432], To the Council of Ephesus, Epistle 18 (A.D. 431).

“Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and
that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer
than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how
great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have
constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once
received.” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of
the Catholic Faith 6:15 (A.D. 434).

“Moreover, with respect to a certain bishop who, as the aforesaid magnificent

men have told us, is prevented by infirmity of the head from administering his
office, we have written to our brother and fellow-bishop Etherius, that if he
should have intervals of freedom from this infirmity, he should make petition,
declaring that he is not competent to fill his own place, and requesting that
another be ordained to his Church. For during the life of a bishop, whom not
his own fault but sickness, withdraws from the administration of his office, the
sacred canons by no means allow another to be ordained in his place. But, if
he at no time recovers the exercise of a sound mind, a person should be
sought adorned with good life and conversation, who may be able both to take
charge of souls, and look with salutary control after the causes and interests
of the same church; and he should be such as may succeed to the bishop’s
place in case of his surviving him. But, if there are any to be promoted to a
sacred order, or to any clerical ministry, we have ordained that the matter is to
be reserved and announced to our aforesaid most reverend brother Etherius,
provided it belong to his diocese, so that, enquiry having then been made, if
the persons are subject to no fault which the sacred canons denounce, he
himself may ordain them. Pope Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604],
Epistle 6 (A.D. 602).
II. Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination
“Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole
multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a
divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your
presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your
deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of
Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the
end was revealed…Let nothing exist among you that may divide you ; but be
ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and
evidence of your immortality.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians,
6 (c. A.D. 110).

“For, since ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to

live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for
us, in order, by believing in His death, ye may escape from death. It is
therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do
nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of
Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found.
It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of
Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not
ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are
bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they
would do fire.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, 2 (c. A.D. 110).

“And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ Himself, according as the

blessed apostles have enjoined you. He that is within the altar is pure,
wherefore also he is obedient to the bishop and presbyters: but he that is
without is one that does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters, and
the deacons. Such a person is defiled in his conscience, and is worse than an
infidel. For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all
power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who
according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And
what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors
of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers,
fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as the holy Stephen did to
the blessed James, Timothy and Linus to Paul, Anencletus and Clement to
Peter? He, therefore, that will not yield obedience to such, must needs be one
utterly without God, an impious man who despises Christ, and depreciates His
appointments.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, 7 (c. A.D. 110).
“I must not omit an account of the conduct also of the heretics–how frivolous it
is, how worldly, how merely human, without seriousness, without authority,
without discipline, as suits their creed…At one time they put novices in office;
at another time, men who are bound to some secular employment; at another,
persons who have apostatized from us, to bind them by vainglory, since they
cannot by the truth. Nowhere is promotion easier than in the camp of rebels,
where the mere fact of being there is a foremost service. And so it comes to
pass that today one man is their bishop, to-morrow another; to-day he is a
deacon who to-morrow is a reader; to-day he is a presbyter who tomorrow is a
layman. For even on laymen do they impose the functions of priesthood.”
Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, 41 (c. A.D. 200).

“Since, according to my opinion, the grades here in the Church, of bishops,

presbyters, deacons, are imitations of the angelic glory, and of that economy
which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who, following the footsteps of the
apostles, have lived in perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel.
For these taken up in the clouds, the apostle writes, will first minister [as
deacons], then be classed in the presbyterate, by promotion in glory (for glory
differs from glory) till they grow into ‘a perfect man.'” Clement of Alexandria,
Stromata, 13 (A.D. 202).

“And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there
remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale? Which is not a tale
but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about
the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus
from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous
territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole
Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit. Having
come to one of the cities not far off (the name of which some give), and
having put the brethren to rest in other matters, at last, looking to the bishop
appointed, and seeing a youth, powerful in body, comely in appearance, and
ardent, said, ‘This (youth) I commit to you in all earnestness, in the presence
of the Church, and with Christ as witness.’ And on his accepting and
promising all, he gave the same injunction and testimony.” Clement of
Alexandria, Who is the rich man that shall be saved?, 42 (A.D. 210).

“…these from the Presbyters and Deacons of the Mareotis, a home of the
Catholic Church which is under the most Reverend Bishop Athanasius, we
address this testimony by those whose names are underwritten:–Whereas
Theognius, Maris, Macedonius, Theodorus, Ursacius, and Valens, as if sent
by all the Bishops who assembled at Tyre, came into our Diocese alleging that
they had received orders to investigate certain ecclesiastical affairs, among
which they spoke of the breaking of a cup of the Lord, of which information
was given them by Ischyras, whom they brought with them, and who says that
he is a Presbyter, although he is not,-for he was ordained by the Presbyter
Colluthus who pretended to the Episcopate… For neither is he a Presbyter of
the Catholic Church nor does he possess a church, nor has a cup ever been
broken, but the whole story is false and an invention.” Athanasius, Defence
Against the Arians, 76 (A.D. 347).

“The Cathari are schismatics; but it seemed good to the ancient authorities, I
mean Cyprian and our own Firmilianus, to reject all these, Cathari, Encratites,
and Hydroparastatae, by one common condemnation, because the origin of
separation arose through schism, and those who had apostatized from the
Church had no longer on them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be
imparted when the continuity was broken. The first separatists had received
their ordination from the Fathers, and possessed the spiritual gift by the laying
on of their hands. But they who were broken off had become laymen, and,
because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy
Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either
to baptize or to ordain. And therefore those who were from time to time
baptized by them, were ordered, as though baptized by laymen, to come to
the church to be purified by the Church’s true baptism. Nevertheless, since it
has seemed to some of those of Asia that, for the sake of management of the
majority, their baptism should be accepted, let it be accepted. We must,
however, perceive the iniquitous action of the Encratites…” Basil, To
Amphilochius, Epistle 188:1 (A.D. 347).

“I may not sit in the presence of a presbyter; he, if I sin, may deliver me to
Satan, ‘for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved.’ Under the
old law he who disobeyed the priests was put outside the camp and stoned by
the people, or else he was beheaded and expiated his contempt with his
blood. But now the disobedient person is cut down with the spiritual sword, or
he is expelled from the church and torn to pieces by ravening demons. Should
the entreaties of your brethren induce you to take orders, I shall rejoice that
you are lifted up, and fear lest you may be cast down. You will say: ‘If a man
desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.’ I know that; but you
should add what follows: such an one “must be blameless, the husband of
one wife, vigilant, sober, chaste, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to
teach, not given to wine, no striker but patient.’ After fully explaining the
qualifications of a bishop the apostle speaks of ministers of the third degree
with equal care.” Jerome, To Heliodorus, Epistle 14:8 (A.D. 379).

“The bread again is at first common bread, but when the sacramental action
consecrates it, it is called, and becomes, the Body of Christ. So with the
sacramental oil; so with the wine: though before the benediction they are of
little value, each of them, after the sanctification bestowed by the Spirit, has its
several operations. The same power of the word, again, also makes the priest
venerable and honourable, separated, by the new blessing bestowed upon
him, from his community with the mass of men. While but yesterday he was
one of the mass, one of the people, he is suddenly rendered a guide, a
president, a teacher of righteousness, an instructor in hidden mysteries; and
this he does without being at all changed in body or in form; but, while
continuing to be in all appearance the man he was before, being, by some
unseen power and grace, transformed in respect of his unseen soul to the
higher condition.” Gregory of Nyssa, On the Baptism of Christ (ante A.D. 394).

“In like manner as if there take place an ordination of clergy in order to form a
congregation of people, although the congregation of people follow not, yet
there remains in the ordained persons the Sacrament of Ordination; and if, for
any fault, any be removed from his office, he will not be without the Sacrament
of the Lord once for all set upon him, albeit continuing unto condemnation.”
Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, 24:32 (A.D. 401).

“When a priest is ordained, while the bishop is blessing [him] and holding his
hands over his head, let all the priests also, who are present, hold their hands
close to the hands of the bishop above his head.” Council of Chalcedon,
Canon 3 (A.D. 451).

“As often as God’s mercy deigns to bring round the day of His gifts to us,
there is, dearly-beloved, just and reasonable cause for rejoicing, if only our
appointment to the office be referred to the praise of Him who gave it. For
though this recognition of God may well be found in all His priests, yet I take it
to be peculiarly binding on me, who, regarding my own utter insignificance
and the greatness of the office undertaken, ought myself also to utter that
exclamation of the Prophet, ‘Lord, I heard Thy speech and was afraid: I
considered Thy works and was dismayed.’…And finally, now that the mystery
of this Divine priesthood has descended to human agency, it runs not by the
line of birth, nor is that which flesh and blood created, chosen, but without
regard to the privilege of paternity and succession by inheritance, those men
are received by the Church as its rulers whom the Holy Ghost prepares: so
that in the people of God’s adoption, the whole body of which is priestly and
royal, it is not the prerogative of earthly origin which obtains the unction, but
the condescension of Divine grace which creates the bishop.” Pope Leo the
Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], Sermons, 3:1 (ante A.D. 461).

THE CHURCH

What Is Apostolic Succession?

MSGR. M. FRANCIS MANNION
3 MIN READ

While it is true that the original Twelve Apostles were unique in that they had
been personally chosen by Jesus and had witnessed to the Resurrection, the
Catholic Church believes that the ministry of Peter and the apostles continues
in the Church, and that therefore the apostolic and Petrine ministries have
been transmitted through the ages.

The Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen

Gentium) states: “In order that the mission entrusted to [the apostles] might
be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament,
as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and
consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole
flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the whole
Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the
ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their
ministry” (No. 20).

The document continues: “Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter
alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a
permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of
shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without
interruption by the sacred order of bishops” (Ibid.) Therefore the Church holds
that “the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as
pastors of the Church” (Ibid). It reiterates this point by saying that when Christ
called the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or
permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from
among them” (No. 22). Thus, “By the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of
the apostles constituted a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the
Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the
apostles, are related with and united to one another” (No. 22).

It is certainly the case that the relationships between the Twelve Apostles and
their successors, and the relationship between Peter and subsequent popes,
was in the beginning quite complicated; nevertheless the fundamental lines of
Catholic doctrine on this matter are clear: The apostolic ministry continues in
the Church through a succession of bishops up to the present time, and the
ministry of Peter continues in the papacy down to today.

While it is true that the original Twelve were personally chosen by Jesus and
encountered the resurrected Christ, nevertheless Christ, who lives in the
Church by the power of the Holy Spirit, continues to call men personally to the
Petrine and episcopal ministries, and that in the Eucharist, they encounter
Christ risen from the dead.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out, the whole Church
constitutes an apostolic community, so that the ministry of Christ continues:
“The whole Church is apostolic, in that she remains, through the successor of
St. Peter and the other apostles, in communion of faith and life with her origin;
and that she is sent out into the whole world” (No. 863).
Apostolicity as a note of the true Church being dealt with elsewhere, the object of the
present article is to show:

 That Apostolic succession is found in the Catholic Church.

 That none of the separate Churches have any valid claim to it.
 That the Anglican Church, in particular, has broken away from Apostolic unity.

Roman claim

The principle underlying the Roman claim is contained in the idea of succession. "To
succeed" is to be the successor of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official
position just after, as Victoria succeeded William IV. Now the Roman Pontiffs come
immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions of St. Peter; they
are, therefore, his successors. We must prove

 that St. Peter came to Rome, and ended there his pontificate;

 that the Bishops of Rome who came after him held his official position in
the Church.

As soon as the problem of St. Peter's coming to Rome passed

from theologians writing pro domo suâ into the hands of unprejudiced historians, i.e.
within the last half century, it received a solution which no scholar now dares to
contradict; the researches of German professors like A. Harnack and Weizsaecker, of
the Anglican Bishop Lightfoot, and those of archaeologists like De Rossi and Lanciani, of
Duchesne and Barnes, have all come to the same conclusion: St. Peter did reside and
die in Rome. Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists a universal
consensus as to Peter's martyrdom in Rome;

 Dionysius of Corinth speaks for Greece,

 Irenaeus for Gaul,
 Clement and Origen for Alexandria,
 Tertullian for Africa.
 In the third century the popes claim authority from the fact that they are St.
Peter's successors, and no one objects to this claim, no one raises a counter-
claim.
  No city boasts the tomb of the Apostle but Rome.

There he died, there he left his inheritance; the fact is never questioned in the
controversies between East and West. This argument, however, has a weak point: it
leaves about one hundred years for the formation of historical legends, of which Peter's
presence in Rome may be one just as much as his conflict with Simon Magus. We have
then to go farther back into antiquity.

 About 150 the Roman presbyter Caius offers to show to the heretic Procius the

trophies of the Apostles: "If you will go to the Vatican, and to the Via Ostiensis,
you will find the monuments of those who have founded this Church." Can Caius
and the Romans for whom he speaks have been in error on a point so vital to
their Church?
 Next we come to Papias (c. 138-150). From him we only get a faint indication
that he places Peter's preaching in Rome, for he states that Mark wrote down
what Peter preached, and he makes him write in Rome. Weizsaecker himself
holds that this inference from Papias has some weight in the cumulative
argument we are constructing.
 Earlier than Papias is Ignatius Martyr (before 117), who, on his way
to martyrdom, writes to the Romans: "I do not command you as did Peter and
Paul; they were Apostles, I am a disciple", words which according to Lightfoot
have no sense if Ignatius did not believe Peter and Paul to have been preaching
in Rome.
 Earlier still is Clement of Rome writing to the Corinthians, probably in 96,
certainly before the end of the first century. He cites Peter's and
Paul's martyrdom as an example of the sad fruits of fanaticism and envy. They
have suffered "amongst us" he says, and Weizsaecker rightly sees here
another proof for our thesis.
 The Gospel of St. John, written about the same time as the letter Clement to the
Corinthians, also contains a clear allusion to the martyrdom by crucifixion of St.
Peter, without, however, locating it (John 21:18, 19).
 The very oldest evidence comes from St. Peter himself, if he be the author of the
First Epistle of Peter, of if not, from a writer nearly of his own time: "The Church
that is in Babylon saluteth you, and so doth my son Mark" (1 Peter 5:13). That
Babylon stands for Rome, as usual amongst pious Jews, and not for the real
Babylon, then without Christians, is admitted by common consent (cf. F.J.A.
Hort, "Judaistic Christianity", London, 1895, 155).
This chain of documentary evidence, having its first link in Scripture itself, and broken
nowhere, puts the sojourn of St. Peter in Rome among the best-ascertained facts in
history. It is further strengthened by a similar chain of monumental evidence, which
Lanciani, the prince of Roman topographers, sums up as follows: "For the archaeologist
the presence and execution of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome are facts established beyond
a shadow of doubt, by purely monumental evidence!" (Pagan and Christian Rome,
123).

St. Peter's successors in office

St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the
growth of the Church. In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The
Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St.
John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered with Corinth. Before
117 St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church as the one which "presides
over charity . . . which has never deceived any one, which has taught others." St.
Irenæus (180-200) states the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows:

With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that
is the faithful everywhere, in this [i.e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the
Apostles has ever been preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III)

The heretic Marcion, the Montanists from Phrygia, Praxeas from Asia, come to Rome to gain the countenance

of its bishops; St. Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatens to excommunicate the Asian Churches; St. Stephen
refuses to receive St. Cyprian's deputation, and separates himself from various Churches of the East;
Fortunatus and Felix, deposed by Cyprian, have recourse to Rome; Basilides, deposed in Spain, betakes
himself to Rome; the presbyters of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, complain of his doctrine to
Dionysius, Bishop of Rome; the latter expostulates with him, and he explains. The fact is indisputable: the
Bishops of Rome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ [Duchesne, "The
Roman Church before Constantine", Catholic Univ. Bulletin (October, 1904) X, 429-450]. To be in continuity
with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there
is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors. Antioch, once the see and
centre of St. Peter's labours, fell into the hands of Monophysite patriarchs under the Emperors Zeno and
Anastasius at the end of the fifth century. The Church of Alexandria in Egypt was founded by St. Mark the
Evangelist, the mandatory of St. Peter. It flourished exceedingly until the Arian and Monophysite heresies took
root among its people and gradually led to its extinction. The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that
of Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its
site. The new Church of Ælia Capitolina was subjected to Caesarea; the very name of Jerusalem fell out of use
till after the Council of Nice (325). The Greek Schism now claims its allegiance. Whatever of Apostolicity
remains in these Churches founded by the Apostles is owing to the fact that Rome picked up the broken
succession and linked anew to the See of Peter. The Greek Church, embracing all the Eastern
Churches involved in the schism of Photius and Michael Caerularius, and the Russian Church can lay no claim
to Apostolic succession either direct or indirect, i.e. through Rome, because they are, by their own fact and
will, separated from the Roman Communion. During the four hundred and sixty-four between the accession of
Constantine (323) and the Seventh General Council (787), the whole or part of the Eastern episcopate lived
in schism for no less than two hundred and three years: namely from the Council of Sardica (343) to St. John
Chrysostom (389), 55 years; owing to Chrysostom's condemnation (404-415), 11 years; owing to Acadius and
the Henoticon edict (484-519), 35 years; total, 203 years (Duchesne). They do, however,
claim doctrinal connection with the Apostles, sufficient to their mind to stamp them with the mark of
Apostolicity.

The Anglican continuity claim

The continuity claim is brought forward by all sects, a fact showing how essential a note of the true Church
Apostolicity is. The Anglican High-Church party asserts its continuity with the pre-Reformation Church
in England, and through it with the Catholic Church of Christ. "At the Reformation we but washed our face" is
a favourite Anglican saying; we have to show that in reality they washed off their head, and have been a
truncated Church ever since. Etymologically, "to continue" means "to hold together". Continuity, therefore,
denotes a successive existence without constitutional change, an advance in time of a thing in itself steady.
Steady, not stationary, for the nature of a thing may be to grow, to develop on constitutional lines, thus
constantly changing yet always the selfsame. This applies to all organisms starting from a germ, to all
organizations starting from a few constitutional principles; it also applies to religious belief, which
as Newman says, changes in order to remain the same. On the other hand, we speak of a "breach of continuity"
whenever a constitutional change takes place. A Church enjoys continuity when it develops along the lines of
its original constitution; it changes when it alters its constitution either social or doctrinal. But what is the
constitution of the Church of Christ? The answer is as varied as the sects calling themselves Christian. Being
persuaded that continuity with Christ is essential to their legitimate status, they have devised theories of the
essentials of Christianity, and of a Christian Church, exactly suiting their own denomination. Most of them
repudiate Apostolic succession as a mark of the true Church; they glory in their separation. Our present
controversy is not with such, but with the Anglicans who do pretend to continuity. We have points of contact
only with the High-Churchmen, whose leanings toward antiquity and Catholicism place them midway between
the Catholic and the Protestant pure and simple.

England and Rome

Of all the Churches now separated from Rome, none has a more distinctly Roman origin than the Church of
England. It has often been claimed that St. Paul, or some other Apostle, evangelized the Britons. It is certain,
however, that whenever Welsh annals mention the introduction of Christianity into the island, invariably they
conduct the reader to Rome.

In the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 136) we read that "Pope Eleutherius received a letter from Lucius,
King of Britain, that he might be made a Christian by his orders." The incident is told again and again by
the Venerable Bede; it is found in the Book of Llandaff, as well as in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; it is
accepted by French, Swiss, German chroniclers, together with the home authorities Fabius, Henry of
Huntingdon, William of Malmesbury, and Giraldus Cambrensis.

The Saxon invasion swept the British Church out of existence wherever it penetrated, and drove the
British Christians to the western borders of the island, or across the sea into Armorica, now French Brittany.
No attempt at converting their conquerors was ever made by the conquered. Rome once more stepped in. The
missionaries sent by Gregory the Great converted and baptized King Ethelbert of Kent, with thousands of his
subjects. In 597 Augustine was made Primate over all England, and his successors, down to the Reformation,
have ever received from Rome the pallium, the symbol of super-episcopal authority. The Anglo-
Saxon hierarchy was thoroughly Roman in its origin, in its faith and practice, in its obedience and affection;
witness every page in Bede's "Ecclesiastical History". A like Roman spirit animated the nation. Among
the saints recognized by the Church are twenty-three kings and sixty queens, princes, or princesses of the
different Anglo-Saxon dynasties, reckoned from the seventh to the eleventh century. Ten of the Saxon kings
made the journey to the tomb of St. Peter, and his successor, in Rome. Anglo-Saxon pilgrims formed quite a
colony in proximity to the Vatican, where the local topography (Borgo, Sassia, Vicus Saxonum) still recalls
their memory. There was an English school in Rome, founded by King Ine of Wessex and Pope Gregory
II (715-731), and supported by the Romescot, or Peter's-pence, paid yearly by every Wessex family.
The Romescot was made obligatory by Edward the Confessor, on every monastery and household in
possession of land or cattle to the yearly value of thirty pence.
The Norman Conquest (1066) wrought no change in the religion of England. St. Anselm of Canterbury (1093-
1109) testified to the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff in his writings (in Matthew 16) and by his acts. When
pressed to surrender his right of appeal to Rome, he answered the king in court:

You wish me to swear never, on any account, to appeal in England to Blessed Peter or his Vicar;
this, I say, ought not to be commanded by you, who are a Christian, for to swear this is
to abjure Blessed Peter; he who abjures Blessed Peter undoubtedly abjures Christ, who made him
Prince over his Church.

St. Thomas Becket shed his blood in defence of the liberties of the Church against the encroachments of the
Norman king (1170). Grosseteste, in the thirteenth century, writes more forcibly on the Pope's authority over
the whole Church than any other ancient English bishop, although he resisted an ill-advised appointment to
a canonry made by the Pope. In the fourteen century Duns Scotus teaches at Oxford "that they
are excommunicated as heretics who teach or hold anything different from what the Roman Church holds or
teaches." In 1411 the English bishops at the Synod of London condemn Wycliffe's proposition "that it is not of
necessity to salvation to hold that the Roman Church is supreme among the Churches." In 1535 Blessed John
Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, is put to death for upholding against Henry VIII the Pope's supremacy over the
English Church. The most striking piece of evidence is the working of the oath taken by archbishops before
entering into office: "I, Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, from this hour forward, will be faithful and
obedient to St. Peter, to the Holy Apostolic Roman Church, to my Lord Pope Celestine, and his successors
canonically succeeding...I will, saving my order, give aid to defend and to maintain against every man the
primacy of the Roman Church and the royalty of St. Peter. I will visit the threshold of the Apostles every three
years, either in person or by my deputy, unless I be absolved by apostolic dispensation...So help me God and
these holy Gospels." (Wilkins, Concilia Angliae, II, 199).

Chief Justice Bracton (1260) lays down the civil law of this country thus: "It is to be noted concerning
the jurisdiction of superior and inferior courts, that in the first place as the Lord Pope has
ordinary jurisdiction over all in spirituals, so the king has, in the realm, in temporals." The line of demarcation
between things spiritual and temporal is in many cases blurred and uncertain; the two powers often overlap,
and conflicts are unavoidable. During five hundred years such conflicts were frequent. Their very recurrence,
however, proves that England acknowledged the papal supremacy, for it requires two to make a quarrel. The
complaint of one side was always that the other encroached upon its rights. Henry VIII himself, in 1533, still
pleaded in the Roman Courts for a divorce. Had he succeeded, the supremacy of the Pope would not have
found a more strenuous defender. It was only after his failure that he questioned the authority of the tribunal to
which he had himself appealed. In 1534 he was, by Act of Parliament, made the Supreme Head of the English
Church. The bishops, instead of swearing allegiance to the Pope, now swore allegiance to the King, without
any saving clause. Blessed John Fisher was the only bishop who refused to take the new oath; his martyrdom is
the first witness to the breach of continuity between the old English and the new Anglican Church. Heresy
stepped in to widen the breach.

The Thirty-nine Articles teach the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone, deny purgatory, reduce the

seven sacraments to two, insist on the fallibility of the Church, establish the king's supremacy, and deny
the pope's jurisdiction in England. Mass was abolished, and the Real Presence; the form of ordination was so
altered to suit the new views on the priesthood that it became ineffective, and the succession of priests failed as
well as the succession of bishops. (See ANGLICAN ORDERS.) Is it possible to imagine that the framers of
such vital alternations thought of "continuing" the existing Church? When the hierarchical framework is
destroyed, when the doctrinal foundation is removed, when every stone of the edifice is freely rearranged to
suit individual tastes, then there is no continuity, but collapse. The old façade of Battle Abbey still stands, also
parts of the outer wall, and one faces a stately, newish, comfortable mansion; green lawns and shrubs hide old
foundations of church and cloisters; the monks' scriptorium and storerooms still stand to sadden the visitor's
mood. Of the abbey of 1538, the abbey of 1906 only keeps the mask, the diminished sculptures and the
stones--a fitting image of the old Church and the new.

Present stage

Dr. James Gairdner, whose "History of the English Church in the 16th Century" lays bare the
essentially Protestant spirit of the English Reformation, in a letter on "Continuity" (reproduced in the Tablet,
20 January, 1906), shifts the controversy from historical to doctrinal ground. "If the country," he says, "still
contained a community of Christians--that is to say, of real believers in the great gospel of salvation, men who
still accepted the old creeds, and had no doubt Christ died to save them--then the Church of England remained
the same as before. The old system was preserved, in fact all that was really essential to it, and as
regards doctrine nothing was taken away except some doubtful scholastic propositions."

About this page

APA citation. Wilhelm, J. (1907). Apostolic Succession. In The Catholic

Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved July 1, 2020 from New
Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm
MLA citation. Wilhelm, Joseph. "Apostolic Succession." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol.
1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 1 Jul.
2020 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Donald J.

Boon. Dedicated to the True Believers of Sandia Pueblo, New Mexico, U.S.A.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D.,

Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.