Apostolic Succession in the Early Church

"It is the contention of certain Protestants that the traditional Orthodox/Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession was not truly present in the earliest days of the Church. Instead, they argue, the only essential component of apostolic succession during this time was a succession of doctrine, with the succession of office simply being the material occasion for that to occur. On this view, the absolute necessity of receiving a sacerdotal office from a man who himself possesses that office is rejected, and the only thing truly necessary to be a “valid church” is the possession of orthodox doctrine. While the vast majority of Protestant denominations hold this view today, the present article seeks to demonstrate that it is absolutely nowhere to be found in the early Church. We’ll start by considering the New Testament data, and then move on to the witness of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian of Carthage, St. Cyprian of Carthage, and St. Hippolytus of Rome. The contents of this article are largely indebted to Felix L. Cirlot’s excellent book, Apostolic Succession: Is It True?."

Read more here:

Comments

[Stephen]

Very fascinating article -- thank you for posting it! He is quite nuanced in his arguments and avoids many of the standard "stretch the passage and then bang your opponent over the head with it" argumentation that characterizes so much of this kind of argumentation on all sides. I have been thinking over this topic off and on, and while this didn't finally make up my mind, it will surely be helpful. Thank you for sharing it.

There were a few times where I did think he overstated his case or the strength of his conclusions ("everyone in the 2nd-3rd century Christian Church was a strict sacerdotalist, whether we like it or not," for example, is not a very responsible sentence.)

Interestingly in the context of this blog, I thought (and I think I'm not just being biased) that one o fthe places where he most got out ahead of his evidence was his condemnation of the branch "theory." I've read Cyprian's work in question and careful commentators on it from Roman Catholic and other perspectives, and I don't think anyone can seriously argue that he was thinking through the ins and outs of what happens in an inter-regional schism.

Anyway, thank you again for posting, Father!