I think there are some key points of Catholic teaching that are commonly misunderstood and the origins of which are largely unknown. One thing Protestants often come into conflict with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians over is the teaching of Apostolic Succession; that the authority and guidance of the Apostles is given to each successive generation, through God in the bishops, so as to safeguard the original Deposit of Faith as recieved from Christ and protect it from being mixed with error.
Now there are many here who will accuse Apostolic Succession of being unbiblical. While as a doctrine it is never explicitly stated, it is, like the Trinity, infered by Scripture and certainly consistent with Scripture. The central idea behind Apostolic Succession is that the original Christian community still exists today and has never been lost because its original members have died. Rather God, desiring to protect the revelation of the Christian religion from becoming corrupted, does not abandon his community and ensures its proper guidance through a recognized lineage. God chooses some for this position and not others. This neccessitates the authority of the bishops (and ultimately the bishop of Rome) because if every single person claimed Apostolic Authority the Christian community would become radically individualistic and private, each person yielding their own interpretation. This did happen when Protestants dissolved Apostolic Authority and ended their connection to the Apostolic Lineage. Today, Protestants argue over the true interpretation of Scripture without any way of knowing if they are correct besides their own person and no method to bind interpretation. Thus we will likely continue to see a spiralling of Protestant fragmentation everytime a new issue of interpretation is approached.
What shocks me most about the Protestant movement is that it is directly resisting 1500 years of Christian tradition and teaching regarding the authority of the Apostles being currently present and living in the Living Church.
Apostolic Succession is not new and it is not an invention of the Church. The earliest Christians after the Apostles maintained this teaching:
Clement I
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
Hegesippus
"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).
Irenaeus
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).
Clement I, Bishop of Rome is writing this as early as 80 AD when Luke was still being written. The two most ancient churches from which every other church has broken off, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, adhere to this teaching.
On what basis do you reject something that the first generation after the Apostles believed and regarded as instituted by the Apsotles themselves?
Now there are many here who will accuse Apostolic Succession of being unbiblical. While as a doctrine it is never explicitly stated, it is, like the Trinity, infered by Scripture and certainly consistent with Scripture. The central idea behind Apostolic Succession is that the original Christian community still exists today and has never been lost because its original members have died. Rather God, desiring to protect the revelation of the Christian religion from becoming corrupted, does not abandon his community and ensures its proper guidance through a recognized lineage. God chooses some for this position and not others. This neccessitates the authority of the bishops (and ultimately the bishop of Rome) because if every single person claimed Apostolic Authority the Christian community would become radically individualistic and private, each person yielding their own interpretation. This did happen when Protestants dissolved Apostolic Authority and ended their connection to the Apostolic Lineage. Today, Protestants argue over the true interpretation of Scripture without any way of knowing if they are correct besides their own person and no method to bind interpretation. Thus we will likely continue to see a spiralling of Protestant fragmentation everytime a new issue of interpretation is approached.
What shocks me most about the Protestant movement is that it is directly resisting 1500 years of Christian tradition and teaching regarding the authority of the Apostles being currently present and living in the Living Church.
Apostolic Succession is not new and it is not an invention of the Church. The earliest Christians after the Apostles maintained this teaching:
Clement I
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
Hegesippus
"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).
Irenaeus
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).
Clement I, Bishop of Rome is writing this as early as 80 AD when Luke was still being written. The two most ancient churches from which every other church has broken off, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, adhere to this teaching.
On what basis do you reject something that the first generation after the Apostles believed and regarded as instituted by the Apsotles themselves?
