Apostolic Succession

Pompey Magnus

I was just reading about the first epistle of Clement to the church in Corinth in which the author relies on the argument of apostolic succession to demand the Christians of Corinth reinstate deposed presbyters who had been replaced by rival Christian leaders, perhaps followers of some form of proto-gnosticism alluded to when Paul wrote to the divided church 40 years earlier.

Basically the epistle argued that God sent Jesus who chose the apostles who handpicked the leaders of the Church who in turn appointed their successors, and as the Christians in Corinth had rejected the old presbyters they were in effect setting themselves against the will of God.

So do Christians follow this argument still? It was used widely in the argument against heterodox groups such as the Gnostics (who also made use of the argument of apostolic succession from Peter to Glauicas to Basilides) but is it still believed now or has it been sidelined since it served its purpose now that the early battles between the various Christianities have been decided?

If it is still accepted then how do Catholics account for the numerous scandals that are rampent in the Church right now, the flip side of the argument should also apply, if the "correct" presbyters can trace their authority back to Jesus then so too can the paedophile priests in modern times. If the Corinthian community were setting themselves against Christ by removing their leaders who had a direct line back to Jesus then how can Catholics justify (whilst bearing in mind the question of Apostolic succession) removing say, Bishop Vangheluwe, who recently admitted abusing a boy.

As for Protestants how do they stand with Clements arguments, how do denominations created just within the last century defend themselves against the argument of Apostolic succession, or do they even bother trying?

Fanny Cradock

They joys of being non-denominational. ASFAIK, Protestantism largely rejects Apostolic Succession. So it is not something they have to worry about.

wolfsbane

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I was just reading about the first epistle of Clement to the church in Corinth in which the author relies on the argument of apostolic succession to demand the Christians of Corinth reinstate deposed presbyters who had been replaced by rival Christian leaders, perhaps followers of some form of proto-gnosticism alluded to when Paul wrote to the divided church 40 years earlier.

Basically the epistle argued that God sent Jesus who chose the apostles who handpicked the leaders of the Church who in turn appointed their successors, and as the Christians in Corinth had rejected the old presbyters they were in effect setting themselves against the will of God.

So do Christians follow this argument still? It was used widely in the argument against heterodox groups such as the Gnostics (who also made use of the argument of apostolic succession from Peter to Glauicas to Basilides) but is it still believed now or has it been sidelined since it served its purpose now that the early battles between the various Christianities have been decided?

If it is still accepted then how do Catholics account for the numerous scandals that are rampent in the Church right now, the flip side of the argument should also apply, if the "correct" presbyters can trace their authority back to Jesus then so too can the paedophile priests in modern times. If the Corinthian community were setting themselves against Christ by removing their leaders who had a direct line back to Jesus then how can Catholics justify (whilst bearing in mind the question of Apostolic succession) removing say, Bishop Vangheluwe, who recently admitted abusing a boy.

As for Protestants how do they stand with Clements arguments, how do denominations created just within the last century defend themselves against the argument of Apostolic succession, or do they even bother trying?

The Protestant position is that apostolic succession applies to the doctrine, not the teacher. That is, God has ensured the apostolic message - the word of God - is preserved in all generations, no matter how corrupt any church or individual becomes. The corrupt may well reject the pure word and substitute their own, but God causes others to hold to the truth.

Each faithful minister is charged with passing the word onto other faithful men, who in turn teach it to others. But if any of those we thought faithful turn out to be false brethren, we are not to heed them - only the word.
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

I seem to recall Clement did not demand unqualified obedience to the original elders. His case, if I'm not mistaken, was that they had done no wrong, yet had been deposed. So it seems either doctrinal or moral error would have justified their removal.
_________________________________________________________________
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

PDN

The Orthodox and Anglican Churches also claim apostolic succession.

For example, Anglicans claim an unbroken line back to the Bishops who broke from Rome during the Reformation, and who in turn could trace an unbroken line back to Peter.

santing

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I was just reading about the first epistle of Clement to the church in Corinth in which the author relies on the argument of apostolic succession

You read about the letter? Or did you read the letter?

Looking at Clements letter, you could read Apostolic Succession into it, but you could also use it to support the Methodist Church order, or the order of many independent evangelical Churches today...

We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them [the apostles], or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.