- The Catechism Of The Roman Catholic Church Says In Regard To Apostolic Succession:
-“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority. Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.” (CCC # 77)
-"The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (CCC # 882)
- Apostolic Succession As Defined By The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:
-“…the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession...Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession.…Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles…” (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "Apostolicity")
- Biblical Arguments Against Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession:
-There is very little evidence that the Apostle Peter stayed in Rome, apart from the timing of his martyrdom. No one can rightly claim to have the same authority as the apostles, since they are not eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection (Acts 1:22; 1 Corinthians 9:1).
-The New Testament never records the apostles passing on their authority to successors.
-The original teachings of Jesus Christ, the apostles, and their closest associates have been accurately recorded and preserved in the New Testament. Scripture equips the man of God for every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Truth can easily be determined when Scripture is properly exegeted.
-The determining factor of the truthfulness and faithfulness of a church is its adherence to Scripture (Acts 17:11-12). The scribes and Pharisees claimed to have a physical, traceable lineage back to Abraham, yet Christ rejected them (John 8:36-45). We do not need a chain of apostolic successors from Christ and the original apostles to preserve divinely revealed truth (Matthew 3:7-9; Galatians 3:7). The scribes and Pharisees claimed to posses divine extra-biblical tradition, yet Christ publicly refuted them with Scripture (Matthew 15:1-9).
-The only known historical record containing the inspired words of Jesus Christ and the apostles is the New Testament itself. That is the remnants of apostolic authority. The Encyclopedia Britannica
affirms that, "the origins of episcopacy are obscure."
- Is Acts 1:15-26 An Example Of Apostolic Succession, As Roman Catholic Apologists Claim?:
-The context of this passage is talking *specifically* about the traitor Judas. Moreover, Acts 1:15-26 does not mention anything about the apostles having future successors. If this passage proves anything at all, then it does not provide us with an argument for apostolic succession. Rather, it provides biblical warrant for replacing ungodly and unfaithful church leaders with ones who are actually fit to serve God.
-At this point, the apostles did not begin their apostolic ministry. They did not even receive the power Christ had promised to bestow upon them earlier in this chapter (Acts 1:8). The apostles did not receive it until the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, this is not an example of the apostles passing on spiritual authority to successors. The apostles did not have any power at this time.
-This occasion was the actual replacement of an apostle with another apostle. This is dissimilar with the Roman Catholic teaching of apostolic succession, considering that they teach that only apostolic authority is passed on (not the essence of the office itself). Papal "successors" themselves do not become apostles like Matthias did.
- Does 2 Timothy 2:2 Provide Evidence For Apostolic Succession?:
-The Apostle Paul exhorts Timothy to pass on the truth of the gospel to "faithful men," not "priests and bishops." This passage merely describes the simple process of discipleship and the passing on of apostolic doctrine (i.e. "what you heard from me"). In fact, this theme is echoed throughout the two epistles written to Timothy (1 Timothy 4:6-11; 16; 2 Timothy 1:13-14; 3:14-15). There is no mention in this context of passing on extra-biblical oral tradition or infallible teaching authority. Catholics simply read these concepts into Scripture. Note that Paul does not say anything in reference to a future successor for himself. Instead, he pointed to Scripture as our rule of faith (2 Timothy 3:16-17). He mentions nothing else for us to turn to in times of deception.
- Apostolic Succession And The Early Church:
-When references to apostolic succession appear in the earliest Christian writings, they bear little resemblance to the concept often associated with a process of doctrinal evolution over time. For early Christians, apostolic succession primarily served as a safeguard for preserving doctrinal truth rather than as a framework for the gradual unfolding or adaptation of teaching. Churches founded by the apostles during the first century upheld apostolic succession as a defense against heresies such as Gnosticism, ensuring continuity in the unchanging teachings handed down directly from the apostles. The emphasis was not on the development of doctrine but on its faithful preservation.
-Some modern perspectives suggest that doctrinal continuity can be maintained through a process of organic development. However, the earliest expressions of apostolic succession emphasize the importance of preserving an unaltered deposit of faith. The early churches operated autonomously, fostering fellowship and collaboration when addressing disputes. This decentralized approach further underscores that doctrinal integrity was safeguarded by adherence to apostolic teaching rather than by evolving theological constructs or centralized authority.
-The Jewish background of the earliest Christians provides further context. Concepts of succession, such as the priestly transition from Aaron to Eleazar, were familiar to them as mechanisms for preserving spiritual leadership. However, the early church placed its emphasis on the continuity of apostolic truth rather than on processes of change or adaptation. Creeds were crafted on the foundation of Scripture, and any new ideas were subjected to rigorous scrutiny to ensure fidelity to the truths originally delivered by the apostles. This method ensured that any theological developments adhered strictly to apostolic teaching, rather than reflecting an evolving understanding of doctrine.
-Apostolic succession, as practiced in the early church, was a means of safeguarding apostolic truth in its original form, rather than accommodating an evolving theology. The preservation of doctrine was paramount, with a focus on maintaining the spiritual and doctrinal lineage established by the apostles. This view presents a marked contrast to interpretations that place value on the adaptation or development of doctrine over time, demonstrating that the priority of the early Christians was unwavering fidelity to the teachings handed down by the apostles.
- Contradictions In Early Succession Lists Of Roman Bishops:
-The succession lists of Roman bishops from the late second and early third centuries are fraught with inconsistencies. This discrepancy arises because, according to many scholars, there was no clear succession of a single bishop until around A.D. 150. This lack of continuity led to conflicting accounts among later church fathers regarding the earliest bishops. For instance, Irenaeus, writing around A.D. 180, claimed that Peter and Paul appointed Linus as the first Roman bishop, followed by Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, and Eleutherius (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.3). Contrarily, Tertullian, writing around A.D. 200, argued that Peter ordained Clement directly as the first Roman bishop, placing Clement at the beginning of the line instead of the third position as Irenaeus stated.
- The Papacy And Its Historical Development:
-No historical evidence from the first or second centuries affirms that the Apostle Peter was appointed as the first bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. The earliest Christian writings, which form the foundation of the faith, are conspicuously silent on the necessity of believing in Peter’s primacy or the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church. This silence is critical, as it challenges the claim that these doctrines were essential elements of the faith established by Christ. Furthermore, in early apologetic debates, neither pagan critics nor heretics such as those confronted by Justin Martyr and Tertullian raised objections regarding the existence of a papacy. Such an omission is revealing, as it would have been a natural point of contention if the concept of a singular, supreme papal office had existed in the early church. Instead, what we find in the earliest writings is a consistent emphasis on congregations being governed collectively by a plurality of elders—a model reflective of shared leadership rather than centralized authority.
-The absence of evidence for the papacy’s early existence is further underscored by the writings of the apostolic and post-apostolic fathers, who, while addressing various theological and ecclesiastical concerns, never refer to a central, supreme bishop in Rome. Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians (circa A.D. 96), exhorts unity within the church but does so from a position of moral authority, not papal supremacy. The letter provides no indication that Clement perceived himself as the head of all Christendom or that the Roman church wielded jurisdiction over others. Similarly, Ignatius of Antioch, in his early second-century epistles, emphasizes the importance of bishops and unity within individual churches but makes no appeal to a singular bishop in Rome as the ultimate arbiter of faith or practice. If the papacy were a foundational component of early Christianity, one would reasonably expect explicit recognition of its authority in these seminal writings. Instead, these documents reflect a decentralized structure of church governance, undermining the claim that the papacy was divinely instituted from the beginning.
-For the first three centuries of Christianity, the Roman church was indeed held in high regard among Christians, but its esteem arose not from a divinely mandated primacy but from its unique characteristics and circumstances. Rome was the capital of the empire, the "Eternal City," and this location alone conferred a degree of prestige. By the mid-third century, the Roman church had grown to an estimated 30,000 members, becoming the largest congregation in the West, despite periods of intense persecution by the Roman authorities. Its size and resources allowed it to become a focal point of charity and a bastion of theological orthodoxy. Apostolic tradition attributed its founding to both Peter and Paul, further enhancing its reputation by the second century. However, this recognition was based on custom and tradition, not on any explicit divine appointment. The absence of any early writings that confer primacy upon the Roman church underscores the argument that its prominence was circumstantial, not institutional or theological.
-A major shift in the trajectory of ecclesiastical authority coincided with the political realignments of the Roman Empire. In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine relocated the imperial capital to Byzantium, later renamed Constantinople, or "New Rome." This momentous move shifted the empire's political focus to the East, naturally elevating the stature of the bishop of Constantinople. Over time, this bishop acquired a position of prominence akin to that of a religious head, further challenging the Roman church's claim to primacy. This transition was accompanied by a cultural divide: the Western church continued to use Latin, while the Eastern church adopted Greek as its primary language. The linguistic and cultural differences deepened after Constantine's death in A.D. 337, when his sons inherited a divided empire, further fragmenting the unity of the early church.
-The assertion of the papacy's divine institution is profoundly challenged when viewed through the lens of historical progression. Rather than emerging as a clear mandate from Christ or a definitive apostolic teaching, the papal office developed gradually over centuries, shaped by political, cultural, and ecclesiastical shifts. The earliest Christian communities, spread across diverse regions, displayed remarkable autonomy in governance. They adapted their leadership structures according to local needs, with no indication of centralized authority vested in the bishop of Rome. Indeed, early writings such as those of Ignatius of Antioch emphasize the role of bishops in maintaining unity within individual congregations but are silent on the existence of a singular leader presiding over the universal church.
-In A.D. 381, Emperor Theodosius convened an assembly that formally elevated the bishop of Constantinople to a position of supremacy, citing the city's status as "New Rome." This decree sparked immediate opposition from the Roman church. Bishop Damasus, in response, was the first to explicitly declare the supremacy of the Roman church. His arguments rested on passages such as Matthew 16:18, claiming that Christ instituted this authority—a line of reasoning that remains central to modern Roman Catholic apologetics. Yet, this appeal to Scripture remains unconvincing when weighed against the historical record, as no trace of such claims is found in the earliest centuries of Christianity.
-By the time of Bishop Leo's appointment in 440, the Roman church had further entrenched its authority. Leo introduced the argument that the church's authority was grounded in the figure of the Roman bishop, whom he presented as Peter's successor. Leo interpreted the "keys of the kingdom" given to Peter by Christ as the foundation for papal power. However, this claim represents a misinterpretation of Scripture that deviates significantly from the teachings of the early and apostolic church. Crucially, such assertions arose over 400 years after Christ's ministry, underscoring the historically contingent nature of papal authority. Councils like Nicaea and Chalcedon, convened to resolve theological disputes, notably did so without reliance on papal authority. If the papacy were integral to the church's structure, it would undoubtedly have served as the primary mechanism for defining orthodoxy in such debates. Its absence from these critical moments highlights its later development as a historical innovation, not an apostolic foundation.
-As historian Joseph F. Kelly noted in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity: “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.” These historical developments strongly suggest that the rise of the papacy was not an apostolic institution but a later innovation shaped by political, cultural, and theological shifts.
- Forgeries And The Papacy:
-The Donation of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are prime examples of medieval forgeries crafted to enhance the papal authority. The Donation of Constantine, purportedly written by Emperor Constantine I, grants vast privileges and territories to the pope. It claims to transfer control over the Western Roman Empire to the Pope, which significantly bolstered the papacy's claims to temporal power. However, this document was later proven to be a fabrication, likely created in the 8th century, centuries after Constantine's death.
-Similarly, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, a collection of forged documents produced in the 9th century, were designed to support the independence and supremacy of the Church. These documents attributed various legal decisions and decrees to early popes, enhancing the papal authority against secular rulers and local bishops. By presenting these decrees as ancient and authoritative, the forgers aimed to create a historical precedent that strengthened the papal position in ecclesiastical and political matters.
-The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online
says that the, "Substitution of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages." Indeed, the creation and use of fraudulent documents was not uncommon during this period, as competing powers sought to legitimize their authority and claims through seemingly ancient and venerable sources. These forgeries had a lasting impact on the medieval church and its structure, influencing the balance of power between the papacy and other political entities. Although they were eventually exposed, their effects continued to resonate throughout the centuries, demonstrating the potent role of written documentation in shaping historical narratives and authority.
