Apostolic succession (Hebrew: הירושה האפיפיורית, Greek: Αποστολική διαδοχή) is a doctrine held by the Apostolic Sees and other Christian denominations which asserts that the chosen successors (properly ordained bishops) of the Twelve Apostles (who dispersed from Jerusalem) from the first century to the present day have inherited the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon them by the Apostles, who in turn received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion and some Lutheran churches are the predominant proponents of this doctrine.[1] To them, present-day bishops, as the successors of previous bishops, going back to the early days of Christianity, have spiritual and ecclesiastical power by this unbroken chain of ordinations stemming from the Apostles. This link with the Apostles guarantees for them their authority in matters of faith, morals and the valid administration of sacraments. This is reaffirmed every Sunday in the reciting of the Nicene Creed by priests and congregants, with the words, "We believe in one holy and catholic and apostolic Church..." All adherents view proper consecration of bishops as essential to maintaining apostolic succession.
The Catholic Church additionally believes that a bishop's authority on matters of faith and morals is infallible when what he teaches is universally taught by all the college of bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), who in turn is seen as the successor of Saint Peter the Apostle and the Vicar of Christ on Earth until the Second Coming of Christ. Nevertheless, Apostolic succession is to be distinguished from the Petrine supremacy (see Papacy and Coptic Pope).
Protestants consider the authority given to the apostles as unique, proper to them alone, or in the case of Evangelicals as applying to all Christians, see Interpretations of the Great Commission for details. They reject any doctrine of a succession of their power. The Protestant view of ecclesiastical authority differs accordingly.[2]
Adherents maintain that apostolic succession "is one of four elements which define the true Church of Jesus Christ"[3] and legitimizes the sacramental offices, as it is considered necessary for a bishop to perform legitimate or "valid" ordinations of priests, deacons and other bishops. Apostolic succession is transmitted during episcopal consecrations (the ordination of bishops) by the laying on of hands of bishops previously consecrated within the apostolic succession. This lineage of ordination is traceable, according to "Apostolic" churches, to the original Twelve Apostles, thus making the Church the continuation of the early Apostolic Christian community.
Within the sacramental theology of these churches, only bishops and presbyters (priests) ordained by bishops in the apostolic succession can validly celebrate or "confect" several of the other sacraments, including the Eucharist, reconciliation of penitents, confirmation and anointing of the sick. To those who claim it, apostolic succession is an important dividing line: the lack of it is the primary basis on which Protestant communities are not considered churches by the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church.[4]
While the Anglican claim of apostolic succession is recognized by some Eastern Orthodox churches, it is not officially recognized by the Catholic Church, based on Pope Leo XIII's papal bull Apostolicae Curae. However, since the promulgation of Apostolicae Curae, Anglican bishops have acquired Old Catholic lines of apostolic succession recognized by Rome.[5]
Eastern Orthodox theology and ecclesiology teach that each bishop is equal to the other bishops, even the Ecumenical Patriarch, who is first amongst equals. The Roman Catholic Church and many early Christian writers teach that Jesus gave Saint Peter a unique primacy among the apostles. Roman Catholics teach that this primacy has been passed on in the office of the Papacy.
| “ | 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[6] | ” |
While many of the more ancient Churches within the historical episcopate state that Holy Orders are valid only through apostolic succession, most of the various Protestant denominations would deny the need of maintaining episcopal continuity with the early Church. Such Protestants generally hold that one important qualification of the Apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this understanding, the work of the twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures of the Bible. To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is to them the only meaningful "continuity" with what such Protestants hold the early Christians to have believed, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth (an extension of the new Reformation-era doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura). The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is a "faithful succession" of apostolic teaching. There is, of course, much disagreement among various Protestant denominations about the exact content of apostolic teaching, ranging from fundamental doctrinal disagreements to lesser side-issues.
It is worth noting, however, that the First Epistle of Clement which is commonly dated to the 1st century and claims to be written by the Roman Church (the chair of St. Peter and the center of the unity of the Church, according to Catholic doctrine) which was established by the Apostles, suggests a belief in apostolic succession,[7][8] as does also the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch,[9] who was a personal disciple of the Apostles John and Paul. Also worth noting is the fact that others besides the twelve Apostles and Saint Paul are called "Apostles" in the New Testament. Also noteworthy is that the Apostle Paul, though given spiritual authority directly by Christ, did not embark on his apostleship without conferring with those who were apostles before him as he notes in his Epistle to the Galatians. By contrast, some Protestant groups such as the charismatic and the British New Church Movement include "apostles" among the offices that should be evident into modern times in "a true church", though they never trace a historical line of succession or attempt to confer, like Paul, with those who were "apostles" before them. The founders or senior leaders of a church grouping may be referred to as the apostles, and they may have been ordained by self-ordination, or appointed by a congregation. "Church planting" is seen as a key role of these present-day apostles.
Those who hold to the importance of episcopal apostolic succession would counter the above by appealing to the New Testament, which, they say, implies a personal apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, for example) and which states that Jesus gave the Apostles a "blank check" to lead the Church as they saw fit under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.[10] They appeal as well to other documents of the early Church, especially the Epistle of St. Clement to the Church at Corinth, written around 96 AD. In it, Clement defends the authority and prerogatives of a group of "elders" or "bishops" in the Corinthian Church which had, apparently, been deposed and replaced by the congregation on its own initiative. In this context, Clement explicitly states that the apostles appointed bishops as successors and had 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 431 AD), from which, as organizations, the Latin Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (at that point in time one Church until 1054, see Great Schism), as well as Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches have all directly descended.
At the same time, no defender of the personal apostolic succession of bishops would deny the importance of doctrinal continuity in the Church.
These churches hold that Christ entrusted 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, the written portion of which is Scripture) to the apostles, and the apostles passed on this role by ordaining bishops after them.
Catholic and Orthodox theology additionally holds that the power and authority to confect the sacraments, or at least all the sacraments aside from baptism and matrimony (the first of which may be administered by anyone, the second of which is administered by the couple to each other) are passed on only through the sacrament of Holy Orders, and an unbroken line of ordination of bishops to the Apostles is necessary for the valid celebration of the sacraments today. Roman Catholics recognize the validity of the apostolic successions of the bishops, and therefore the rest of the clergy, of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic (Union of Utrecht only). Since 1896, Rome has not fully recognized all Anglican orders as valid. The Eastern Orthodox generally recognize Roman Catholic orders, but have a different concept of the apostolic succession as it exists outside of Eastern Orthodoxy. This is also the case with Anglicans or other groups having apostolic succession. The validity of a priest's ordination is decided by each autocephalic Orthodox church.[4] Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox churches recognizes the validity of the apostolic succession of the clergy of the Protestant denominations, in large measure because of their theology of the Eucharist and the abandonment of more traditional views of the sacraments and sacramentalism.
| “ | Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession.[11] | ” |
The early Nicene Creed of the Church, in the form given to it by the First Council of Constantinople, affirms that the Church is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic". Of these "four marks" of the true Church, the "apostolic" mark has historically been understood principally as a reference to apostolic succession. Even so, the practice of the ancient church has also been to designate churches as apostolic, even without a succession of bishops, simply for holding to the doctrines professed by the twelve apostles.
The literature on this traditional doctrine is substantial. Many inferences have been drawn from it. For example, the unbrokenness of apostolic succession is seen as significant because of the promise made by Jesus Christ that the "gates of hell" (Matthew 16:18) would not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he would be with the apostles to "the end of the age".[Matthew 28:20] According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept. The same would be true if an intact apostolic succession should completely abandon the teachings of the apostles and their immediate successors. An abandonment hypothetical example might imagine all the bishops of the world agreeing to abrogate the Nicene Creed or to repudiate the Bible.
Some Eastern Christians hold that the Western papal Catholic Church lost all claim to apostolic succession by an illegitimate addition of the Filioque clause to the Nicene Creed incorporated by the Western church, which began with the teachings of Augustine. They see the rift as resulting in the loss of apostolic succession in the western churches. This is a minority view, however.
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 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.
Churches that claim the historic episcopate include the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Independent Catholic, the Anglican Communion, and several Lutheran Churches (see below). The former churches teach that apostolic succession is maintained through the consecration of their bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles or at least to leaders from the apostolic era.[12] The Anglican and some Lutheran Churches do not specifically teach this but exclusively practice episcopal ordination.
These churches generally hold that Jesus Christ founded a community of believers and selected the apostles to serve, as a group, as the leadership of that community.
| “ |
Since, however, it would be 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 preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.[13] |
” |
|
—Irenaeus, d. 202 |
||
On June 29, 2007 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the prefecture of Cardinal William Levada, explained why apostolic succession is integral to, and indeed, "a constitutive element" of the Catholic Church.[4] The Vatican was asked why the Second Vatican Council and all Catholic statements before and after the Council do not consider Protestant Christian Communities as Churches. The Vatican responded 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".[4]
In Roman Catholic theology, the doctrine of apostolic succession states that Christ gave the full sacramental authority of the Church to the Twelve Apostles in the sacrament of Holy Orders, making them the first bishops. By conferring the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders on the apostles, they were given the authority to confer the sacrament of Holy Orders on others, thus consecrating more bishops in a direct lineage that can trace its origin back to the Twelve Apostles and Christ. This direct succession of bishops from the apostles to the present day bishops is referred to as apostolic succession. The Catholic Church also holds that within the College of Apostles, Peter was picked out for the unique role of leadership and to serve as the source of unity among the apostles, a role among the bishops and within the church inherited by the pope as Peter's successor today.[14][15]
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.
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 a 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 today.
In the early 18th century, Pope Benedict XIII, whose orders were descended from Scipione Rebiba, personally consecrated at least 139 bishops for various important European sees, including German, French, English and New World bishops. These bishops in turn consecrated bishops almost exclusively for their respective countries causing other episcopal lineages to die off.[16]
Roman Catholics recognize the validity of the apostolic successions of the bishops, and therefore the rest of the clergy, of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and some Independent Catholic Churches. Rome does not fully recognize all Anglican orders as valid. This conflict stems over the Anglican Church's revision of its rite of ordination for its bishops during the 16th century. Most of today's Anglican bishops would trace their succession back through a bishop who was ordained with the revised form and thus would be viewed as invalid. However, all Anglican bishops in Europe today[5] can claim a line of succession through bishops who had only been ordained through the old rite. This was achieved through several different means: ordinations by the schismatic Catholic bishops of the Old Catholic and Independent Catholic Churches who converted to Anglicanism.
According to liberal Catholic theologian Richard P. McBrien, debate over the role of "bishop" in apostolic succession is a church-dividing issue. He calls for rejection of what he terms the passing-the-baton theory which he characterizes as "an overly simplistic, mechanistic notion." McBrien says many Catholics accept the commonly-understood definition of the doctrine; specifically, the claim that each validly ordained Catholic bishop can trace his episcopal consecration in an unbroken line back to one of the original apostles or to the apostles, collectively. He quotes Jesuit Professor Francis Sullivan's two reasons for opposing such a view:
McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, has no complaint with the succession doctrine, but with the way it is so often explained. He says that Catholic theologians today would point to Vatican II’s declaration that apostolic succession is “by divine institution” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church). McBrien maintains this interpretation should not be understood to mean that Christ explicitly determined the episcopal structures of either the local churches or dioceses. Boston College theologian Francis Sullivan says that “apostolic succession in the episcopate remains a church-dividing issue,” a source of debate even within the Catholic Church. There are the differing interpretations offered by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the one side, and by many Catholic theologians on the other.[17] Of course, from a Catholic point of view, the bishops in communion with the Pope (the Church's Magisterium) have the final say in the matter, as they, not theologians, are the successors of the Apostles and have doctrinal authority.
Orthodox Christians view apostolic succession as an important, God-ordained mechanism by which the structure and teaching of the Church are perpetuated. While Eastern Orthodox sources often refer to the bishops as "successors of the apostles" under the influence of Scholastic theology, strict Orthodox ecclesiology and theology hold that all legitimate bishops are properly successors of Peter.[18] This also means that presbyters (or "priests") are successors of the apostles. As a result, Orthodox theology makes a distinction between a geographical or historical succession and proper ontological or ecclesiological succession. Hence, the bishops of Rome and Antioch can be considered successors of Peter in a historical sense on account of Peter's presence in the early community. This does not imply that these bishops are more successors of Peter than all others in an ontological sense.[19]
According to ancient canons still observed with the Orthodox communion, a bishop must be consecrated by at least three other bishops; so-called "single handed ordinations" do not exist. Moreover, bishops are never ordained "at large" but only for a specific Eucharist community, in due historical and sacramental succession.
The Eastern Orthodox have often permitted non-Orthodox clergy to be rapidly ordained within Orthodoxy as a matter of pastoral necessity and economia. Priests entering Eastern Orthodoxy from Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have usually been received by "vesting" and have been allowed to function immediately within Eastern Orthodoxy as priests. Recognition of Roman Catholic orders by the Russian Orthodox Church was stipulated in 1667 by the Synod of Moscow,[20] but this position is not universal within the Eastern Orthodox communion.
In addition to a line of historic transmission, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches additionally require that a person who holds a high position in a hierarchy maintain Orthodox Church doctrine, which they hold to be that of the apostles and communion with other Orthodox bishops.
The Armenian Apostolic Church, which is one of the Oriental Orthodox churches, recognizes Roman Catholic episcopal consecrations without qualification.
The Patriarchate of Constantinople claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew.
The Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark[21]
The Russian Orthodox Church claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew[22]
The Armenian Apostolic Church claims unbroken succession to the Thrones of Saint Bartholomew and Saint Jude Thaddeus[23]
The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark[24]
The Assyrian Church of the East claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Thomas[25]
The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Thomas[26]
The Orthodox Church of Cyprus claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Barnabas[27]
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Philip the Evangelist[28]
The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem claims succession to the Throne of Saint James the Just,[29] although this line includes Patriarchs in exile.[30] (see Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem )
The Syriac Orthodox Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Peter[31]
The Roman Papacy of the Catholic Church claims unbroken succession to the Chair of Saint Peter, who is called by them the "Prince of the Apostles".
The Anglican Church's claim to apostolic succession is rooted in the Church of England's evolution as part of the Western Church.[32] Apostolic succession is viewed not so much as conveyed mechanically through an unbroken chain of the laying-on of hands, but as expressing continuity with the unbroken chain of commitment, beliefs and mission starting with the first apostles; and as hence emphasising the enduring yet evolving nature of the Church.[33] The Anglican—Roman Catholic International Commission report expressed broad agreement in the nature of apostolic succession as the ‘effective sign’ of the apostolicity of the whole people of God, living in fidelity to the teaching and mission of the apostles.[34]
When the Church of England declared independence from the Pope in the 16th century, the Church of England retained the episcopal polity and apostolic succession inherent in the Catholic Church. At first the Church of England continued to adhere to the doctrinal and liturgical norms of the Catholic Church. However, in the years following the split, the Church of England was increasingly influenced by the Protestant theology popular on the continent. English Reformers such as Richard Hooker rejected the Catholic position that Apostolic Succession is divinely commanded or necessary for true Christian ministry.[35]
In the 20th century there have been a variety of positions taken by the various Eastern Orthodox Churches on the validity of Anglican orders. In 1922 the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized them as valid.[36] He wrote: "That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders."
Succeeding judgments, however, have been more conflicting. The Eastern Orthodox churches require a totality of common teaching to recognize orders and in this broader view find ambiguities in Anglican teaching and practice problematic. Accordingly, in practice Anglican clergy who convert to Orthodoxy are treated as if they had not been ordained and must be ordained in the Eastern Orthodox communion as would a lay person.[37]
In the Catholic Church, Pope Leo XIII stated in his 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae that the Catholic Church believes specifically that the Anglican Church's consecrations are "absolutely null and utterly void" because of changes made to the rite of consecration under Edward VI, thus denying that Anglicans participate in the apostolic succession. Anglican clergy, then, are ordained as Catholic priests upon entry into the Catholic Church.
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.[38] It was argued in their reply that if the Anglican orders were invalid, then the Roman orders were as well:
For if the Pope shall by a new decree declare our Fathers of two hundred and fifty years ago wrongly ordained, there is nothing to hinder the inevitable sentence that by the same law all who have been similarly ordained have received no orders. And if our Fathers, who used in 1550 and 1552 forms which as he (the Pope) says are null, were altogether unable to reform them in 1662, (Roman) Fathers come under the self-same law. And if Hippolytus and Victor and Leo and Gelasius and Gregory have some of them said too little in their rites about the priesthood and the high priesthood, and nothing about the power of offering the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Church of Rome herself has an invalid priesthood...[39]
However, Catholics argue, this argument does not consider the sacramental intention involved in validating Holy Orders. In other words, Catholics believe that the ordinands were reworded so as to invalidate the ordinations because the intention behind the word substitution was a fundamental change in Anglican understanding of the priesthood.
It is Roman Catholic doctrine that the teaching of Apostolicae Curae is a truth to be "held definitively", as evidenced by commentary by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, currently Pope Benedict XVI:
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations...[40]
"While firmly restating the judgment 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." This was a statement issued by Cardinal Basil Hume to explain the conditional character of his ordination of Graham Leonard, former Anglican bishop of the Diocese of London, to the priesthood,[41] but is not widely endorsed. Since Apostolicae Curae was issued many Anglican jurisdictions have revised their ordinals, bringing them more in line with ordinals of the early Church. The Nag's Head Fable discrediting Matthew Parker's ordination was dismissed as an invention long before the issuance of Apostolicae Curae.
Timothy Dufort, writing in The Tablet in 1982, argued that by 1969 all Anglican bishops had acquired apostolic succession fully recognized by Rome,[5] since from the 1930s Old Catholic bishops (whose orders Rome recognizes as valid) have acted as co-consecrators in the ordination of Anglican bishops. This view is not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church itself, which continues to require that Anglican clergy be ordained absolutely (not conditionally) if they are to exercise a ministry in that church.
Negotiated at Järvenpää, Finland, and inaugurated with a celebration of the eucharist at Porvoo Cathedral in 1992, this agreement of unity includes the mutual recognition of the traditional apostolic succession among the following Churches:
Of note is the fact that at least one of the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches in the Porvoo Communion of Churches, the Church of Denmark has bishops, but strictly speaking they were not in the historic apostolic succession prior to their entry into the Porvoo Communion, since their Episcopate and Holy Orders derived from Dr. Johannes Bugenhagen, who was a pastor, not a bishop.[43] In 2010, the Church of Denmark joined the Porvoo Communion of Churches.
Wide variations exist within Lutheranism on this issue. Most Lutheran churches in Scandinavian countries (see immediately above and below) are favorable to the traditional doctrine of apostolic succession. Others de-emphasize it, e.g., many German Lutheran churches in former Prussian lands, resulting from their state-ordered union with Reformed (Calvinist) churches in 1817.[44]
In Scandinavia, most Lutheran churches participating in the Porvoo Communion,[45] those of Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, and Lithuania, believe that they ordain their bishops in the apostolic succession in lines stemming from the original apostles.[46][47] This view is not supported by the Roman Catholic Church,[48] nor by all of Orthodoxy. Two other Lutheran churches of Scandinavia, those of Denmark and Latvia, were observers at Porvoo.
Similarly, in the High Church Lutheranism of Germany, some religious brotherhoods like Hochkirchliche St. Johannes-Bruderschaft and Hochkirchlicher Apostolat St. Ansgar have managed to arrange for their own bishop to be re-ordained in apostolic succession. The members of these brotherhoods do not form into separate ecclesia.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, North America's largest Lutheran body, became united in the historic episcopate of the Episcopal Church in 2000, upon the signing of Called to Common Mission. By this document the full communion between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Episcopal Church was established.[49] The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is headed by a presiding bishop who is elected by the churchwide assembly for a six year term.[50]
In recent years a number of Lutheran churches at the most Catholic edge of the Evangelical Catholic High Church Lutheran spectrum in the United States of America have accepted the doctrine of apostolic succession and have successfully recovered it, generally from Independent Catholic Churches.[51] At present, most of these church bodies have memberships numbering in the hundreds.
Many German Lutherans appear to demur on this issue, which may be sourced in the church governance views of Martin Luther.[56] Luther's reform movement, however, usually did not as a rule abrogate the ecclesiastic office of Bishop.[57][58]
An important historical context to explicate the wide differences among German Lutheran Churches is the Prussian Union of 1817, whereby the secular government directed the Lutheran Churches in Prussia to merge with non-Lutheran Reformed Churches in Prussia. The Reformed Churches generally oppose on principle the traditional doctrine of ecclesiastic Apostolic Succession, e.g., not usually even recognizing the church office of Bishop.[59] Later in the 19th century, other Lutheran and Reformed congregations merged to form united church bodies in some of the other 39 states of the German Confederation, e.g., in Anhalt, Baden, Bremen, Hesse and Nassau, Hesse-Kassel and Waldeck, and the Palatinate.[60][61] Yet the partial nature of this list also serves to show that in Germany there remained many Lutherans who never did unite with the Reformed.[62]
Other Lutheran Churches seem indifferent as a matter of understood doctrine regarding this particular issue of ecclesiastical governance. In America, the conservative Missouri Synod places its church authority in the congregation rather than in the bishop, though its founder, C.F.W. Walther, while establishing congregational polity for the Missouri Synod, did consider Polity (a Church's form of government) to be a matter of adiaphora (something indifferent.) [63]
The Missouri Synod is, however, not in what it calls "Pulpit and Altar Fellowship" (full communion) with Churches which are not governed by Congregationalist polity. It has its own international communion structure, the International Lutheran Council, the member Churches of which are all of Congregationalist polity.[64][65]
Beyond indifference, some conservative Lutherans are in principle outright against the traditional doctrine of Apostolic Succession, e.g., Confessional Lutheranism (see also subsection Confessional Lutheranism herein below). Other conservative Lutherans, however, may favor High Church Lutheranism which remains generally favorable to the traditional doctrine of Apostolic Succession (see above).
In the beginnings of the Methodist movement, adherents were instructed to receive the sacraments within the Anglican Church; however, the Methodists soon petitioned to receive the sacraments from the local preachers who conducted worship services and revivals.[66] However, the Bishop of London refused to ordain ministers in the British American colonies.[66] Rev. John Wesley, the founder the movement, was not prepared to allow unordained preachers to administer the sacraments:[66] "We believe it would not be right for us to administer either Baptism or the Lord's Supper unless we had a commission so to do from those Bishops whom we apprehend to be in a succession from the Apostles."[67]
In 1763, Greek Orthodox bishop Erasmus of the Diocese of Arcadia, visited London, where John Wesley had considerable conversation with him,[68] and ordained several Methodist lay preachers as priests, including John Jones.[69]; however, there is considerable debate regarding whether he consecrated Rev. John Wesley a bishop or not,[70][71][72] If he was episcopally consecrated, Wesley could not openly announce this without incurring the penalty of the Præmunire Act.[73] In light of Wesley's episcopal consecration, the Methodist Church can lay a claim on apostolic succession, as understood in the traditional sense.[74] Since John Wesley ordained and sent forth every Methodist preacher in his day, who preached and baptized and ordained, and since every Methodist preacher who has ever been ordained as a Methodist was ordained in this direct "succession" from Wesley, then the Methodist Church teaches that it has all the direct merits coming from apostolic succession, if any such there be.[75] This apostolic succession is recognized by Unity Catholic Church, an Independent Catholic Church.[76]
However, most Methodists view apostolic succession outside its high church sense. This is because John Wesley believed that bishops and presbyters constituted one order,[77] citing an ancient opinion from the Church of Alexandria.[77] Since the Bishop of London refused to ordain ministers in the British American colonies,[66] this constituted an emergency, and as a result, on 2 September 1784,[78] Rev. John Wesley, along with a priest from the Anglican Church and two other elders,[79] operating under the ancient Alexandrian habitude, ordained Thomas Coke a "superintendent", although Coke embraced the title "bishop".[80] Today, Methodism follows this ancient Alexandrian practice as bishops are elected from and by the order of the presbyterate:[81] the Discipline of the Methodist Church, in ¶303, affirms that "ordination to this ministry is a gift from God to the Church. In ordination, the Church affirms and continues the apostolic ministry through persons empowered by the Holy Spirit."[82] It also uses sacred scripture in support of this practice, namely, 1 Timothy 4:12, which states: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."[83] Methodism also buttresses this argument with the leg of Sacred Tradition of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral by citing the Church Fathers, many of whom concur with this view.[82][84]
Although no longer Christian in the traditional sense, Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, also known as E.G.C., recognizes apostolic succession as a major spiritual tenet. Because E.G.C. has since accepted the Law of Thelema, a religion which claims to supersede Christianity, it is no longer concerned with apostolic succession deriving from Jesus. Instead, apostolic succession in E.G.C. is derived from The Master Therion, known by his civil name as Aleister Crowley and considered by Thelemites to be the Prophet of the Aeon.[85][86]
Unlike apostolic succession in Christianity, E.G.C. does not claim that Thelemic Succession grants the power to remit and retain sins. Instead, the point of a valid line of succession in E.G.C. is to grant the authority to claim communion and benediction of the Gnostic Saints.[85]
Most Protestants deny the doctrine of apostolic succession, believing that it is neither taught in Scripture nor necessary for Christian teaching, life, and practice. Accordingly, these Protestants strip the notion of apostolic succession from the definition of "apostolic" or "apostolicity." For them, to be apostolic is simply to be in submission to the teachings of the original twelve apostles as recorded in Scripture.[87] This doctrinal stance reflects the Protestant view of authority, embodied in the doctrine known as Sola Scriptura.
Among the original champions of Protestantism who rejected the doctrine of apostolic succession were John Calvin,[88] and Martin Luther.[89] They both said that the episcopacy was inadequate to address corruption, doctrinal or otherwise, and that this inadequacy justified the intervention of the church of common people. In part this position was also necessary, as otherwise there would have been no means to elicit or initiate reform of the church.
Protestants may hold that one important qualification of the Apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this understanding, the work of these twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, as all described in the Scriptures of the Bible, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church during our subsequent history. Such Protestants proclaim that to share with the historic apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in Scripture, to receive the same Holy Spirit: this can be the only sense in which "apostolic succession" is meaningful. It is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth (an extension of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura). The most meaningful apostolic succession for many Protestants, then, is construed as the "faithful succession" of apostolic teaching.
Many Protestants point to episodes described in the Hebrew Bible when the Jewish leadership became disobedient or strayed from the Divine command; God would then bestow that position upon an individual who was more obedient to his will---regardless of any claims that any other person might have sourced in tradition. An example of this would be when King Saul of Israel was removed by God due to his disobedience so that King David could assume the throne.[90] Protestants see apostolic succession in much the same way. In the view of many Protestants apostolic succession is not a matter of tradition, rather it is a matter of God safe-guarding his church by means of bestowing authority on those who best exemplify sound doctrine.[91]
In addition, many Protestant opponents state that the teaching of apostolic succession did not arise until 170-200 AD. Others would differ, pointing out that the doctrine is mentioned and expounded upon by St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John, and Clement of Rome, a disciple of Paul. They became bishops, and were later martyred.
In the centuries following the Protestant Reformation, most debates about apostolic succession in the West concerned the Catholic Church's claim that apostolic succession, as traditionally defined, was not merely permissible but essential for orthodox Christian ecclesiae and valid sacramental ministry. Protestants denied this and asserted that the traditional definition of apostolic succession was not revealed in the Bible, but was formulated later by the post-apostolic church.
In the 20th century, there has been more contact between Protestants and Christians from Eastern traditions which also claim apostolic succession. These ancient churches of the various Eastern Orthodox may use the doctrine of apostolic succession in their apologetics against Protestantism. Many Protestants now feel that the claims made by advocates of apostolic succession have been proven false by multiple churches' claims to have apostolic succession, and the traditions and doctrines of these churches are, according to Protestants, at odds with each other. According to some Protestant apologists, apostolic succession is a failed theological hypothesis and continued debates about it are no more meaningful than debates about whether the Earth is flat. The following reasons are cited by some Protestant apologists for the doctrine's failure:
According to some Protestants, it is evident from these facts that claims regarding the necessity of apostolic succession to preserve Christian orthodoxy are false. Continued debates regarding the doctrine would therefore be meaningless. Catholic apologists may reply that these arguments against apostolic succession overstate the Church's teachings about apostolic succession's effect on Christian unity and downplay the doctrine's sacramental aspects. Nonresponsive, however, some Protestants wonder what meaning such a doctrine might possibly have, if those with legitimate ministry, according to the doctrine, fail to preserve sound Christian teaching. On the other hand the doctrine of succession relates not only to the preservation of doctrine but also to the power to administer the sacraments. As such, those in succession are not infallible (or not necessarily so), but are given the position of administering the sacraments. Since Protestants frequently hold to the priesthood of all believers, they reject the need for a special episcopal class to administer the sacraments.
Yet such arguments may not be persuasive to the apostolic churches.[102] Some favoring the traditional ecclesia see the 'contra' Protestant denominations as vulnerable existentially because of their late origins in the 16th century, a millennium and a half after the ministry of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. Some Protestants dismiss the claims made by Catholics and by Orthodox that their episcopal institutions, in their current forms, date directly back to Christ and are in harmony with the early Christian church. To the contrary, it seems clear that these churches, the Orthodox and the Catholic who share a similar ecclesia, have evolved considerably during the great historical changes of the last two millennia. Several elements of their traditions were instituted by later church leaders, e.g., by Patriarches and by Popes, and sometimes by secular emperors. The dates when the Christian Church became fragmented into different denominations is not truly relevant to an ahistoric discussion of theology. Moreover, apostolic church criticism against contra Protestants appears to presuppose an approved ecclesiology of the Church that is not plainly stated in the Bible: namely, that the Christian Churches should be identical with authoritarian, episcopal institutions rather than simply indicating the worldwide community of Christians, each church interpreting scripture differently, as many Protestants maintain.
All Christians who have a genuine relationship with God through and in Christ are part of the "True Church," according to exemplary statements of evangelical Protestant theology, notwithstanding condemnation of the Catholic Church by some Protestants.[103] Claims that one or more denominations might be the "True Church" appear as nothing more than propaganda which has evolved over centuries to support authoritarian claims---based on tradition or based on scripture---of merely human institutions. Such claims can be found among the worldwide community of Christians. Yet all appear to treasure the truth that liberates.[104]
It should also be noted that Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox consider both the Oriental Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox churches to have been anathematized in the early ecumenical councils. Therefore, although maintaining that these churches have valid sacramental power in their succession, they would hold that this is distinct from maintaining fully sound doctrine.
An apologist for the traditional ecclesiastic form of apostolic succession would suggest taking a long view to survey the coherence among the ancient churches. That approach will find a general agreement over the course of two millennia regarding historic practice and church doctrine, e.g., the liturgy, the sacraments, regarding the monasteries, concerning Mary, and in other matters, like church governance (hence their agreement about the necessity of apostolic succession). Yet such coherence among the ancient churches is not exact; the broad uniformity exists notwithstanding their well-articulated differences.[105] Further, among those Protestant churches claiming traditional apostolic succession (see section above), their doctrines and practices can now generally be seen in light of the ecumenical movement and in the context of the 21st century, and compared with those of the ancient churches: there remain differences but in many areas, following a long process of discussion and prayer, significant reconciliation has been reached.[106][107]
On the other hand, in the 500 years since the Reformation, the Protestant churches not following ecclesiastic apostolic succession have come to differ markedly in several fundamentals, especially 'contra' churches that derive from the Protestant reformation. Such would include, e.g., the Unitarians whose name reflects their early rejection of the Trinity; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or LDS Church (a Restorationist faith) which claims new scripture on par with the Bible and a restored apostolic order by angelic ordination;[108] and the Jehovah's Witnesses who largely reject secular society. Yet many Protestants disavow these three churches as not Protestant for not following sola scriptura, one of the defining principles of Protestantism.[109] Yet the Adventist as well as Dispensationalist doctrines, both based on a new reading of Scripture, are generally considered Protestant.[110] In sum, while all practice many teachings of Christianity, a minority of such 'contra' churches, either Protestant or merely deriving therefrom, have also become---for good or ill---a source of profound innovation.[111]
One reason often given for traditional apostolic succession is the need for institutional continuity so that Christian doctrine, not only the written texts (pre-Gutenberg (1397–1468) an important consideration) but also their proper orthodox interpretation, could be better maintained. Many Protestants contra to traditionalist apostolic succession would not deny the importance of continuity and consistency in the true interpretation of Christian doctrine. At the same time, traditionalists defending apostolic succession would agree that ecclesiastics must remain orthodox in their teaching, or be disciplined or excommunicated.
Some Protestant charismatic and British New Church Movement churches include "apostles" among the offices that should be evident into modern times in a true church, though they never trace an historical line of succession. The founders or senior leaders of a British New Church Movement group will frequently be referred to as the apostles. Church planting is a key role of these present-day apostles.
Confessional Lutheranism rejects Apostolic succession, stating that that there's no evidence the Popes have historic succession from Peter other than their own claim that it is so. Furthermore, they claim that in the Bible there's no evidence showing that the office must be conveyed by laying on of hands and no Biblical command that it must be by a special class of bishops (the laying on of hands is repeatedly used to give a commission to some person in scripture. However, it was done to St. Paul before his missions work, and St. Paul also instructed St. Timothy to not be hasty in laying on hands. Confessional Lutherans claim that the churches claiming apostolic succession have not preserved apostolic doctrine, therefore their leaders have no meaningful apostolic succession.[112]