Background on Papal Succession
1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].
4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. (The First Vatican Council, chapter 4)
Apostolic succession is a complex topic, both within and outside of the Roman Catholic Church. As I’ve read through the Catechism and the Vatican Councils, I’ve noticed that the degree of aggressive declarations on the power and authority of the apostolic lines has varied over time, but has remained reasonably congruent over the centuries. So, I want to establish some ground rules and context for the Roman Catholic doctrines on succession.
First, there are two primary lines of apostolic succession, the greater one from the lineage of Peter, and the lesser one from other apostles and ordinators. In fairness, please note that greater and lesser are my words and not theirs. Let’s take a look at how these lineages interact with each other:
The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.”401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope. (881, CCC)
The Papal line:
“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.
The Pope is inherently infallible by virtue of his Papal Office, which sees him as a direct apostolic “descendent” of Peter.
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.”402 “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.”403
“The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”404 (CCC, 891-893)
The Pope has supreme power over the Roman Catholic Church, but also in part over all other churches. A bishop only has divine support and authority if they are following the Pope.
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.” (The First Vatican Council, chapter 4)
The Pope’s divinely unfailing faith and doctrinal infallibility makes him in charge of preserving the entire church from erroneous teachings and protecting the Roman Catholic Church from schism. (I only laughed a little during the schism piece, I promise)
“The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: ‘I am the door of the sheep.’ Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth.” (Pope John XXIII, homily to the Bishops assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958 Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, Boston, St. Paul Editions, 1962, par. 1556.)”
Common line of bishops:
“Let everyone revere the deacons as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image of the Father, and the presbyters as the senate of God and the assembly of the apostles. For without them one cannot speak of the Church. 33” (1554, CCC)
“The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.”427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope. (894-895, CCC)
“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively.
This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25)
So, what did we learn? The Pope replaces Jesus as the Chief Shepherd, and has individual and intrinsic power of infallibility in matters of faith, morals, and doctrine. The Pope also holds a distinguished and individual set of the keys to heaven, granting him ultimate and supreme authority over people’s souls by virtue of his succession from Peter.
The other line of bishops, who share succession either with other apostles or simply through ordinated the Laity, are the image of God, but don’t hold any replacement offices from Him. They can proclaim the Word of God infallibly, but they cannot possess the same degree of infallibility as the Pope without gathering under him in a council.
While the Pope’s infallibility comes directly from God, the bishop’s infallibility is dependent on being in congruence with the Pope. The big takeaway here is that both the Papal and common apostolic lines have a divine blessing that allows them to preach the doctrines of Christianity infallibly.
Where does Apostolic Succession Come From?
Integration into one of these bodies in the Church was accomplished by a rite called ordinatio, a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. Today the word “ordination” is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a “sacred power” (sacra potestas)5 which can come only from Christ himself through his Church.
Ordination is also called consecratio, for it is a setting apart and an investiture by Christ himself for his Church. The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination. (CCC, 1538)
The laying of hands is the process by which divine power is given to bishops and all other positions in the Roman Catholic offices. Specifically, this is called the sacrament of Ordination, which guarantees the imputation of the Holy Spirit directly from Jesus Himself, using the ordinating bishop as a necessary medium.
Now, to the credit of the Roman Catholic Church, the laying of hands to impart blessings is biblical. It is also used in appointing new apostles and disciples in scripture. It is the mechanics of Ordination and the nature of these conferred blessings that fall out of congruence in scripture. I’ll present three greater sets of arguments to demonstrate:
- The “Office” of Apostle was always intended to be temporary. Once the original apostles passed, there could be no new ones.
- The laying of hands does not guarantee imputation of the Holy Spirit, even if done by a disciple ordinated by an apostle.
- Apostolic succession does not impart any spiritual strengthening of character or divine doctrinal teaching ability.
These assertions are especially prudent for the apostolic line of Peter and the office of the Papacy. Historically, the Papacy has been rife with evil, incompetence, and weakness, making its legitimacy unsupportable by Roman Catholic tradition.
Apostolic Succession in the Bible Does Not Support Roman Catholic Tradition
The first and most prominent depiction of apostolic succession is the election of Matthias as the replacement of Judas. This piece of history is actually more harmful to the Roman Catholic assertions of apostolic succession and Peter’s primacy than it is helpful.
First we must consider the pre-established context as the apostles being literal witnesses of Jesus, which meant that very few people actually had the ability to become an apostle. This is further damaged by Jesus affording equal thrones to the 12 original apostles/disciples as judges in heaven over the tribes of Israel. So not only does this reject Peter’s primacy, but it also infers that the office of apostleship is a limited quantity.
Matthew 19:27: “Look,” Peter replied, “we have left everything to follow You. What then will there be for us?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, in the renewal of all things, when the Son of. Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
There’s a reason most non-Roman catholic denominations don’t believe in divine offices imbued with special power by unbroken apostolic succession. In fact, let’s take a look at the election of Matthias for context:
Acts 1:20: …“‘Let another take his office.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Look at those qualifications: an apostle could only be a man who walked with Jesus, notice the emphasis with the word “must.” This is not some one-off verse either, look at how Paul chooses to argue his apostleship:
1 Corinthians 9: Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you yourselves not my workmanship in the Lord? Even if I am not an apostle to others, surely I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3This is my defense to those who scrutinize me: Have we no right to food and to drink? Have we no right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? 6 Or are Barnabas and I the only apostles who must work for a living?
Right after asking the hypothetical question as to whether or not he is an apostle, Paul asserts that he had seen Jesus. As an aside, also notice how he doubles down on apostles being able to have a wife, like Peter.
The Roman Catholic church equates apostolic succession in the Papacy and the clergy with the same authorities afforded to the apostleship of Paul and the original disciples, more specifically as a continuation of the authority of Peter.
This is directly against Peter’s and Paul’s assertion that apostles must have been witnesses of Christ to become a true apostle. The mandate of clerical celibacy is just another mode of conscious rejection of the will of the apostles.
1 Timothy 3: 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Also, note that the laying of hands won’t definitively solve this argument either. When the apostles laid hands on Philip and the other six men to impart the Holy Spirit, they certainly went on to preach the word of God and perform great works, but Philip could not impute the Holy Spirit to other people by virtue of his ordination, as was witnessed in Samaria.
The original apostles had to come to where he was and do it for him, in spite of Samarians being baptized and believing. Apparently, the Holy Spirit afforded special authority to the “original” apostles alone. Thus, the assertion of creating apostles through the laying of hands scripturally dies with the apostles themselves.
Acts 18: 4 Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. 5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ. 6 And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs that he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed. 8 So there was much joy in that city.
9 But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. 10 They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.” 11 And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
Philip, who would be a “second generation” apostle, could not impute the Holy Spirit through the laying of hands. In the regard, they had to send Peter and John, who’s greater preaching ability and authority as actual apostles were sent instead to remedy the situation:
14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 21 You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.
Philips ordination did not make him equal to the original apostles, they were still special.
Reason with me, in Acts 6 seven men receive laying of hands by the apostles and were filled with grace and power. But they were not denoted as bishops, apostles, nor successors in their teaching of prayer and ministry. Out of the seven, not a single one, not Stephen, Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, or Nicolas made a new successor with laying of hands or imputation of Holy Spirit that granted a greater power than that available to the common priesthood.
For a later disciple such as Timothy, despite having been personally ordained by laying of hands by Paul himself, he was warned not to be hasty with his own laying of hands, insinuating that it would not impart doctrinal infallibility, some indelible character, or guarantee imputation of the Holy Spirit:
1 Timothy 5: 22 “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure. 23 Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses. 24 The sins of some are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them. 25 In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not obvious cannot remain hidden forever.”
Why should Timothy be wary of laying of hands to appoint successors if the ordination guaranteed valid sacraments and divinely attuned doctrinal wisdom? Because it never did biblically.
So, this is just foolish lies:
“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418
When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,”419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421 (CCC, 891)
“Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the offices of teaching and ruling. In fact . . . by the imposition of hands and through the words of the consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is given, and a sacred character is impressed in such wise that bishops, in an eminent and visible manner, take the place of Christ himself, teacher, shepherd, and priest, and act as his representative (in Eius persona agant).”37 “By virtue, therefore, of the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, bishops have been constituted true and authentic teachers of the faith and have been made pontiffs and pastors.” (CCC 1558)
It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi). (CCC 1548)
Perhaps had the Roman Catholic church respected ordination the same way the apostles did, they wouldn’t have centuries-long history corrupted by war crimes, pedophilia, heresy, and simony. This is more than a bit of a problem if they are to be the visage of Jesus in character, faith, and authority by virtue of ordination as a sacrament.
The Apostles Themselves Didn’t Believe in the Divine Power of Ordination
This brings me back to my next argument, that the apostles themselves did not believe in apostolic succession the same way the Roman Catholic church does. They feared for the health of the church once they left. Not only that, but they all believed that the church would be deceived by false apostles.
2 Corinthians 11: I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin. 3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. 5 For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles. 6 But even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in fact, in every way we have made this evident to you in all things.
Here, Paul asserts that people would twist the church’s mind away from a pure devotion to Christ, effectively preaching another Jesus. Perhaps devotion to Mary and The Pope would fall under this? Protestant churches aren’t twisting people’s minds away from pure devotion to Jesus. Literally, the entire reason they were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church was because they would only submit to God alone.
Pope Eugene IV, Papal Bull at Council of Florence ( 1438 – 45): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life. . . No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
I personally find this assertion not only gross, but entirely incompatible with the established principle of salvation being the product in faith in Jesus Christ, as stated directly by Jesus and the apostles themselves. Let’s move on and delve a little deeper into these false apostles:
2 Corinthians 12: 12 And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
These false Christian teachers would still claim to be doing the work of God. They would pervert the Gospel, but do so under the guise of righteousness. Jesus says that anyone who truly believes in His name will be saved. The Roman Catholic Church contradicts Him by teaching that salvation is only attainable through their denomination as their Pope, Clergy, and Sacraments hold a special righteousness other Christians cannot have.
Not so sure? Well, how does the Catholic Church define the antichrist?
675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. 574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. (CCC, 675)
Now, where can we see men, who positing under Christian righteousness, are glorifying themselves?
The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (CD 2) (CCC 937)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Unam Sanctam, 1302).
Let everyone revere the deacons as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image of the Father, and the presbyters as the senate of God and the assembly of the apostles. For without them one cannot speak of the Church. (CCC, 1554).
I really can’t make this any more overt, can I?
2 Corinthians 11:16 I repeat, let no one think me foolish. But even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little. 17 What I am saying with this boastful confidence, I say not as the Lord would but as a fool. 18 Since many boast according to the flesh, I too will boast. 19 For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves! 20 For you bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face. 21 To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!
The Roman Catholic Church, which has claimed the exclusive ability to impart God’s salvation, has been militantly intertwined with Spanish and English governments for centuries. They exerted overwhelming political influence on people who had no reason to obey them unless they believed that the Church had power over their salvation.
As I will cover later on, they would use this influence to torture, kill, rob, and exile fellow Christians who challenged their abuse of political power and claim to spiritual sovereignty. How is that not twisting Christianity to take advantage of other people?
Jesus and His Apostles Meant Their Teachings to be Predominantly Carried on by Scriptures, not by Divinely Protected Successors
For now, let’s get back on track with apostolic succession, I will cover the historical abuses of the Church later. Here is Peter explaining that he will die soon and that he will take precautions to ensure his work is carried on:
2 Peter 1: “12 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.”
Here is Peter warning of false teachers disguised of men of God who would blasphemy against the Gospel:
2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
Here is Peter in his last letter stating that he had written the letter so that Christians would remember the words of the Apostles and prophets and the commandments of Jesus.
2 Peter 3: 1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.
If Peter was to establish a line of successors that would continually preach an adaptive and inerrant word of God through the rest of history, why would he urge us to remember the words of the apostles and prophets?
Why, in his last letter, which Peter began by stating he knew he would die soon, did Peter never mention his successor, Linus, as replacing him? In fact, why did Peter never share anything about a papal office, or the passing on of his infallibility, or even leave a single shred of evidence concerning the line of bishops or any offices established in Rome at all?
Bonus Round: The Scriptures can Reach the Ends of Earth Without the Need of Roman Catholic Clergy
Well, because when Jesus meant the disciples witnessing to the ends of the earth, He never spoke of an eternal line of doctrinally infallible successors. The mechanism for salvation that Jesus would promise to be eternal would be…
Matthew 24:35: Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Just as how it has always been:
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
And just as how Peter had preached:
1 Peter 1:23-25: Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for “All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.” And this word is the good news that was preached to you.
Bonus Round: Part 2; What if I’m Wrong?
But I’ll be fair, my interpretation is not entirely definitive. So, I’m going to be intellectually honest and consider the wholly reasonable reality that Jesus really did also mean that His disciples would go on to spread the Gospel to the very ends of the earth, including Judea, Jerusalem, and Samaria.
Doesn’t this mean that Jesus needed apostolic succession to ensure that Christianity was orally preserved until it could be spread throughout the world?
Well, I wonder how many generations of doctrinally infallible bishops would need to be directly imputed with the spiritual character and the visage of Christ to pull that off?
Colossians 1:5 Because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and increasing—as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth.
Apparently only one. But, perhaps Paul misspoke. Surely, he didn’t really mean that the word of the Lord had been effectively preached around the whole world:
Romans 10:16-18“But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for ‘Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.”
Wait, this only two times in the entire Bible. Surely more context will disprove this assertion that completely undermines one of the arguments for the necessity of apostolic succession:
1 Colossians: 21 If indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
These verses kind of make it sound like the “ends of the Earth” was an alliterative idiom, you much like in the same vein of the parables Jesus was partial to. Alternatively, it might also be that Jesus’ intention was for the major kingdoms and world powers to receive the Gospel, knowing that it would originally spread to the corners of the world from there with or without direct apostolic intervention.
We Don’t Need Apostolic Succession to Ensure the Word is Authentically Taught
Okay, well, maybe Jesus needed to establish apostolic succession to ensure the word of God is authentically taught, as asserted in the Catechism. Surely there would be no other mode of communication for Christian teachings:
John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.
It wasn’t as if Mark and Luke weren’t already compiling their Gospels in 1st century A.D., so I guess that argument doesn’t work too well, either. Well, what about divinely ordained clergy being needed to present revelations that weren’t revealed at the time? Like Mary being immaculately conceived, the Pope being necessary for salvation, and venerating images no longer being idolatry?
Romans 15:18 I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obedience by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, and by the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.
There’s an Ulterior Motive for Roman Catholicism’s Claim over Apostolic Succession
So, if Jesus never conferred to the apostles that their ability to bind and loose could be passed on, if none of the apostles proclaimed to transmit doctrinal infallibility, if the disciples had already intended their messages to be preserved through their writings, and if the entire gospel had already been preached and revealed, why must a specifically Catholic apostolic succession be a mandated?
85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. (CCC, 85)
Ah, of course, so they can hold the exclusive power to tell people the “will” of God. This is definitely the will of Jesus Himself and not a shameless power grab.
For as we all know, the Roman Catholic church has never accumulated political and theocratic power for itself, and they certainly never leveraged that power to garner wealth and oppress their detractors.