It is the contention of certain Protestants that the traditional 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,
1. Succession apostolique. Première lettre de Clément de Rome aux Corinthiens, 42 et 44 : les apôtres instituent des évêques pour leur succéder. Autorité de l'Eglise de Rome sur l'Eglise de Corinthe ?
2. Pas d'Eglise sans évêque. Lettres d'Ignace d'Antioche aux Ephésiens, aux Talliens, aux Smyrniotes et à Polycarpe : autorité des évêques ; se soumettre à l'évêque comme à Jésus-Christ ; l'évêque tient la place de Dieu et les prêtres représentent l'assemblée des apôtres ; sans l'évêque et les prêtres il n'y a pas d'Eglise ; sans l'évêque ou son délégué, il n'y a pas d'eucharistie valable.
3. Dignité de l'Eglise de Rome. Lettre d'Ignace d'Antioche aux Romains : l'Eglise de Rome porte la loi du Christ et le nom du Père.
You didn't mention these letters, written before Irénée de Lyon. Is there any reason ? Maybe I misunderstand them. (I didn't quote the letters in english because I'm afraid to make mistakes with my poor vocabulary)
Wonderful, thank you. I had just downloaded Cirlot's book and am realizing it's going to be a while before I can get to it, so I appreciate this recapitulation of some of the argument.
One question: you've established, I think, that material apostolic succession is necessary for valid ordination and ecclesiology. Would you (does Cirlot?) connect this more explicitly to sacramental theology? One question that I find myself never really having a satisfactory answer for is why only a validly ordained member of the ministerial priesthood can administer the sacraments (besides baptism), or in particular, can consecrate the Eucharist. Could you articulate the argument that any "communion" found outside ecclesial bodies with apostolic succession is merely bread and wine?
I believe Cirlot gives a fairly good historical treatment of this issue when demonstrating that non-ordained Christians were never permitted to perform any of the sacraments, most of the time even including baptism. The quote from Tertullian about heretics “imposing the functions of priesthood on laymen” likewise proves this from an historic perspective, as does St. Ignatius of Antioch’s famous declaration that the Eucharist is only valid if done by the bishop or one whom the bishop appoints (an issue Cirlot devoted much time to expounding as well). However, you seem more interested in the theology behind this historic doctrine, which I can offer a few thoughts on.
When it comes to consecrating the Eucharist in particular, it must be acknowledged that this sacrament is a propitiatory sacrifice. Because of this, only a priest who is ordained according to the order of Melchizedek may validly offer this sacrifice. While there’s certainly a sense in which all the faithful share in Christ’s priesthood, it was to the apostles alone that our Lord said, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:18-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25). This is not a command that was given to the entire Church, rather only the Lord’s chosen apostles. Thus, if anyone wishes to offer the Eucharist you can simply ask, “who told you you could do that?” Did Jesus tell them? Unless they can produce miracles, clearly not. Did the Scriptures tell them? No, they weren’t directly addressed to anyone besides the 1st century Church. The only option left, then, is to say that you’ve been authorized by an ordinary of the Church, which is the only possible claim to divine authorization one today could make.
In addition, I’ll also note some cool symbolism that points towards this as well. In John 20, the beloved disciple arrives at the tomb of our Lord first, but refuses to go in. It’s only when St. Peter arrives, the high priest of the new covenant, that he follows in afterwards. This symbolically reveals that in order to enter the holy of holies, the inner sanctuary where the presence of our Lord is, one must follow behind a successor of Peter, a bishop.
Thanks for this! That interpretation of Peter and John makes a great deal of sense to me, and I feel the force of the historical argument. For the second paragraph above, I was hoping you wouldn't mind going into just a little bit more detail. I fully agree with what you've said, but I don't think I would be able to defend that view properly to a particular Protestant friend I have in mind. I realize that these are large questions, so feel free to point me to resources rather than type out an answer, if you'd rather. (1) Even though I accept this myself, how do I explain/justify the view that the Eucharist is specifically a propitiatory sacrifice? (2) Why would only a priest in the order of Melchizedek be able to offer it? I assume this latter has something to do with an exclusive sacrificial priesthood in the old covenant. I see your point about Christ directing his words to the apostles alone rather than the "priesthood of all believers," but I could also imagine a Protestant balking at that, and saying that the exclusivity of his words cannot be proven from the text. How would you respond to that? Thanks!
Sure, so the Eucharist being a propitiatory sacrifice is a very big topic that would require its own blog post. I’d recommend checking out Erick Ybarra’s book, “Melchizedek and the Last Supper,” and Brant Pitre’s book, “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.” But there are two primary (and somewhat simple) arguments that I think work for establishing the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice:
1.) The typology with Melchizedek. St. Paul tells us in Hebrews that Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, and what was the sacrifice that ancient priest offered? Bread and wine. But what was the sacrifice Christ offered? His body and blood. Thus, because the new covenant only has one sacrifice, Christ’s offering of bread and wine according to the order of Melchizedek must be identical with the offering of His body and blood. Jesus explicitly confirms this by identifying the bread not as bread, but rather His body, and the wine not as wine, but rather His blood.
2.) 1 Corinthians 10. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-21 the Apostle Paul creates a threefold analogy between (1) the Eucharist, (2) the sacrifices of Israel, and (3) the sacrifices of pagans. In all three of these, Paul reasons, there’s a consumption of the sacrificial victim that entails communion with the deity being propitiated. Thus, just as Israelite and pagan sacrifices had a real victim that was consumed, so too does the Eucharist have a real victim that is consumed. This requires the Supper to be a propitiatory sacrifice because the victim is Jesus Christ who, qua victim, is offered for the forgiveness of our sins.
With respect to your second question about why only priests would be able to offer this sacrifice, I’d simply re-state what I said above. Since we have tradition on our side, the burden of proof falls on the Protestant to demonstrate where they received the commission to offer this sacrifice from. Did they receive it from the Lord? No, last I checked when Jesus said “do this as my memorial,” He wasn’t speaking to Pastor Jim, He was speaking to the twelve apostles. Did these Protestants receive their commission from the apostles? No, the apostles gave that commission to other men, who gave it to other men, who have been in lineal succession through all of history. Yet it is precisely this lineal succession the Protestants reject. So who told them they could offer the Eucharist? The only answer is the Devil, the father of lies who’s deceiving them into usurping authority that doesn’t belong to them.
Very well written piece.
1. Succession apostolique. Première lettre de Clément de Rome aux Corinthiens, 42 et 44 : les apôtres instituent des évêques pour leur succéder. Autorité de l'Eglise de Rome sur l'Eglise de Corinthe ?
2. Pas d'Eglise sans évêque. Lettres d'Ignace d'Antioche aux Ephésiens, aux Talliens, aux Smyrniotes et à Polycarpe : autorité des évêques ; se soumettre à l'évêque comme à Jésus-Christ ; l'évêque tient la place de Dieu et les prêtres représentent l'assemblée des apôtres ; sans l'évêque et les prêtres il n'y a pas d'Eglise ; sans l'évêque ou son délégué, il n'y a pas d'eucharistie valable.
3. Dignité de l'Eglise de Rome. Lettre d'Ignace d'Antioche aux Romains : l'Eglise de Rome porte la loi du Christ et le nom du Père.
You didn't mention these letters, written before Irénée de Lyon. Is there any reason ? Maybe I misunderstand them. (I didn't quote the letters in english because I'm afraid to make mistakes with my poor vocabulary)
Wonderful, thank you. I had just downloaded Cirlot's book and am realizing it's going to be a while before I can get to it, so I appreciate this recapitulation of some of the argument.
One question: you've established, I think, that material apostolic succession is necessary for valid ordination and ecclesiology. Would you (does Cirlot?) connect this more explicitly to sacramental theology? One question that I find myself never really having a satisfactory answer for is why only a validly ordained member of the ministerial priesthood can administer the sacraments (besides baptism), or in particular, can consecrate the Eucharist. Could you articulate the argument that any "communion" found outside ecclesial bodies with apostolic succession is merely bread and wine?
Much appreciation for your writing!
Thanks for the kind words.
I believe Cirlot gives a fairly good historical treatment of this issue when demonstrating that non-ordained Christians were never permitted to perform any of the sacraments, most of the time even including baptism. The quote from Tertullian about heretics “imposing the functions of priesthood on laymen” likewise proves this from an historic perspective, as does St. Ignatius of Antioch’s famous declaration that the Eucharist is only valid if done by the bishop or one whom the bishop appoints (an issue Cirlot devoted much time to expounding as well). However, you seem more interested in the theology behind this historic doctrine, which I can offer a few thoughts on.
When it comes to consecrating the Eucharist in particular, it must be acknowledged that this sacrament is a propitiatory sacrifice. Because of this, only a priest who is ordained according to the order of Melchizedek may validly offer this sacrifice. While there’s certainly a sense in which all the faithful share in Christ’s priesthood, it was to the apostles alone that our Lord said, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:18-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25). This is not a command that was given to the entire Church, rather only the Lord’s chosen apostles. Thus, if anyone wishes to offer the Eucharist you can simply ask, “who told you you could do that?” Did Jesus tell them? Unless they can produce miracles, clearly not. Did the Scriptures tell them? No, they weren’t directly addressed to anyone besides the 1st century Church. The only option left, then, is to say that you’ve been authorized by an ordinary of the Church, which is the only possible claim to divine authorization one today could make.
In addition, I’ll also note some cool symbolism that points towards this as well. In John 20, the beloved disciple arrives at the tomb of our Lord first, but refuses to go in. It’s only when St. Peter arrives, the high priest of the new covenant, that he follows in afterwards. This symbolically reveals that in order to enter the holy of holies, the inner sanctuary where the presence of our Lord is, one must follow behind a successor of Peter, a bishop.
Thanks for this! That interpretation of Peter and John makes a great deal of sense to me, and I feel the force of the historical argument. For the second paragraph above, I was hoping you wouldn't mind going into just a little bit more detail. I fully agree with what you've said, but I don't think I would be able to defend that view properly to a particular Protestant friend I have in mind. I realize that these are large questions, so feel free to point me to resources rather than type out an answer, if you'd rather. (1) Even though I accept this myself, how do I explain/justify the view that the Eucharist is specifically a propitiatory sacrifice? (2) Why would only a priest in the order of Melchizedek be able to offer it? I assume this latter has something to do with an exclusive sacrificial priesthood in the old covenant. I see your point about Christ directing his words to the apostles alone rather than the "priesthood of all believers," but I could also imagine a Protestant balking at that, and saying that the exclusivity of his words cannot be proven from the text. How would you respond to that? Thanks!
Sure, so the Eucharist being a propitiatory sacrifice is a very big topic that would require its own blog post. I’d recommend checking out Erick Ybarra’s book, “Melchizedek and the Last Supper,” and Brant Pitre’s book, “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.” But there are two primary (and somewhat simple) arguments that I think work for establishing the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice:
1.) The typology with Melchizedek. St. Paul tells us in Hebrews that Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, and what was the sacrifice that ancient priest offered? Bread and wine. But what was the sacrifice Christ offered? His body and blood. Thus, because the new covenant only has one sacrifice, Christ’s offering of bread and wine according to the order of Melchizedek must be identical with the offering of His body and blood. Jesus explicitly confirms this by identifying the bread not as bread, but rather His body, and the wine not as wine, but rather His blood.
2.) 1 Corinthians 10. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-21 the Apostle Paul creates a threefold analogy between (1) the Eucharist, (2) the sacrifices of Israel, and (3) the sacrifices of pagans. In all three of these, Paul reasons, there’s a consumption of the sacrificial victim that entails communion with the deity being propitiated. Thus, just as Israelite and pagan sacrifices had a real victim that was consumed, so too does the Eucharist have a real victim that is consumed. This requires the Supper to be a propitiatory sacrifice because the victim is Jesus Christ who, qua victim, is offered for the forgiveness of our sins.
With respect to your second question about why only priests would be able to offer this sacrifice, I’d simply re-state what I said above. Since we have tradition on our side, the burden of proof falls on the Protestant to demonstrate where they received the commission to offer this sacrifice from. Did they receive it from the Lord? No, last I checked when Jesus said “do this as my memorial,” He wasn’t speaking to Pastor Jim, He was speaking to the twelve apostles. Did these Protestants receive their commission from the apostles? No, the apostles gave that commission to other men, who gave it to other men, who have been in lineal succession through all of history. Yet it is precisely this lineal succession the Protestants reject. So who told them they could offer the Eucharist? The only answer is the Devil, the father of lies who’s deceiving them into usurping authority that doesn’t belong to them.
Great! Very helpful, thanks.