1. Apologetics vs. historiography
2. Addressing some misconceptions about Catholic teaching on apostolic succession
3. What does Catholicism expect from the historical record?
I ended the first article of this series by promising, in the sequel, to provide historical evidence supporting the doctrine of apostolic succession. However, I must beg the reader's patience as I will only get to the evidence in the next article. This article serves as a necessary preamble.
In the previous article we explored the three ways in which the Church is apostolic, from the Catholic point of view: apostolic origins, apostolic teaching and apostolic succession. All Christians today agree that the earliest Church was led and spread by Jesus's apostles. The Catholic Church (along with the Orthodox and Anglicans) affirms that the apostles' teachings were transmitted to posterity in two forms: written scriptures and oral tradition. They likewise affirm that the apostles bequeathed a continuous chain of successors (bishops) to lead the faithful and preserve and interpret their written and oral teachings. These two doctrines enjoyed virtually universal acceptance among Christians for well over a millennium (i.e., c. 300-1500 A.D.) but have remained controversial in the West since their rejection by the Reformers in the 16th century.
1. Apologetics vs. historiography
When an apologist comes to the textual data concerning early church government and authority, his/her aim is to defend a contemporary doctrine of church government that he/she holds (on the assumption that ancient precedents remain normative today). The desire to make one's position as credible as possible may lead an apologist to read the evidence with a theological bias. This could manifest as exaggerated uniformity in the data, tendentious interpretation of problematic texts, etc.
When a contemporary historian comes to the same data, his/her aim is to reconstruct past events and circumstances objectively, without regard to theological convictions. This is good insofar as it mitigates theological bias. However, the desire to be perceived as critical, impartial and/or ecumenical may lead a historian to approach the evidence with a bias against his or her own theological background (or against theology itself). This could manifest as an exaggerated diversity in the data, skepticism of ancient or traditional perspectives (a "hermeneutics of suspicion"), etc.
In this article I am trying to wear both hats in order to achieve a balance of biases. I make no secret of my Catholic theological bias (one I acquired only recently), but I want to be critical and fair in my interpretation of the evidence. The reader may decide how far I have succeeded.
2. Addressing some misconceptions about Catholic teaching on apostolic succession
The Roman Catholic Church of today has a clearly defined hierarchical structure. There are three sacramental ministerial orders—bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons—each with clearly defined powers. Each local jurisdiction of the Church is ruled by a single monarchical bishop. One of these bishops, the bishop of Rome, also reigns over all the other bishops. The pope, who is regarded as the successor of St. Peter, rules over the other bishops, who are all regarded as successors of the apostles. The pope is the global face of the Catholic Church, a visible marker of its unity.
Some naive Catholics would insist that the above description is exactly what the Catholic Church has always looked like, from the time the apostles died out c. 100 A.D. down through history. However, when many contemporary historians, including Catholic historians, study early Christian texts they paint a very different picture. For instance, they find that monoepiscopacy (monarchical rule by a single bishop over a city or locale) was a gradual development, including in Rome, and not the established norm until the late second century or later. They find that terms like episkopos (bishop/overseer) and presbyteros (presbyter/elder) are used interchangeably in some texts, along with other terms like didaskalos (teacher) and hēgoumenos (leader), and not as the ecclesiastical technical terms they would later become. Most importantly for our purposes here, some historians assert that the doctrine of apostolic succession through bishops developed in the late second century and that the episcopal succession lists published at that time were fabrications.
Ultraconservative Catholic apologists vehemently contest all of the above findings, and sometimes resort to very contrived and far-fetched arguments in the process. Meanwhile, triumphalist Protestant apologists tout the historians' findings as though they have reduced the Catholic faith to an absurd fantasy. They take particular glee in citing Catholic historians as "hostile witnesses" against their own faith.
It turns out that both sets of apologists are misguided. Historical research has shown that the hierarchical structure of the Church underwent development over time. However, what many Protestant apologists have failed to recognise is that Catholic theology allows for such development (within certain parameters). For example, (although the papacy is not our main concern here), one Catholic scholar observes, "It is not prima facie obvious that a high doctrine of the papacy does require that a single bishop exercised magisterial authority in Rome in the immediate post-apostolic age."1
The most famous Catholic proponent of the theory of doctrinal development was, of course, Cardinal Newman in the 19th century. Specifically on the episcopate and the papacy, Newman explained why these structural features of the Church became more visible over time:
3. What does Catholicism expect from the historical record?
What sort of evidence would we expect to find in the historical record if the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession were true? Firstly, we would not necessarily expect to find evidence that the apostles left monarchical bishops as their immediate successors. However, we might expect to find evidence that the apostles did leave successors in the form of a divinely ordained office. That is, evidence that they did not merely happen to leave behind some protégés, but created a ministry that they understood to be divinely sanctioned. Secondly, we would not necessarily expect to find evidence that unbroken "succession lists" of bishops going back to the apostles were theologically important immediately after the apostles died. We might, however, expect to find evidence that such succession lists became theologically important within a couple of generations, as living memory of the apostles disappeared and direct links to the apostles could no longer be verified by eyewitness testimony. (As long as there were people around who could recall the apostles' teachings firsthand, their successors would not have the same value as preservers of apostolic teaching as they would acquire thereafter.) Finally, we would not expect to find evidence supporting a Protestant model of Church government and post-apostolic apostolicity over against the Catholic model. For instance, if it could be shown that the apostles provided a fixed, completed canon of Scripture to serve as the sole locus of theological authority after they died (over against any notion of theological authority vesting in ministerial leaders), this would be quite fatal to Catholic ecclesiology.
It must also be emphasised that a relative sparseness of evidence for the idea of apostolic succession within the New Testament is not particularly problematic for Catholic theology. In the apostolic period there was little concern over who would lead the Church after the apostles died, for the simple reason that the earliest Christians anticipated that "Church history" would be more of a sprint than a marathon. The Lord's promised Parousia was believed to be imminent (Phil. 4:5; Jas 5:9; Rev. 22:20; etc.) A community that expects its leadership to become redundant in the very near future does not prioritise long-term succession planning. Thus, that the New Testament leaves us with little information about how the apostles envisioned the Church to be governed in the post-apostolic period is regrettable, but not surprising.
With these preliminaries out of the way, the third part of this study will finally discuss the historical evidence concerning apostolic succession directly. This study is not intended as a comprehensive treatment of the relevant historical evidence, nor is it intended to "prove" the doctrine of apostolic succession. The aim is more modest: to show that the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession is consistent with the historical record. This doctrine cannot, however, be "proven"; it can only be received by faith. The ground for belief in this doctrine is that the Church declares it to be so. Nevertheless, faith and reason are friends and not enemies, which is why a consideration of historical evidence is meaningful.
2. Addressing some misconceptions about Catholic teaching on apostolic succession
3. What does Catholicism expect from the historical record?
I ended the first article of this series by promising, in the sequel, to provide historical evidence supporting the doctrine of apostolic succession. However, I must beg the reader's patience as I will only get to the evidence in the next article. This article serves as a necessary preamble.
In the previous article we explored the three ways in which the Church is apostolic, from the Catholic point of view: apostolic origins, apostolic teaching and apostolic succession. All Christians today agree that the earliest Church was led and spread by Jesus's apostles. The Catholic Church (along with the Orthodox and Anglicans) affirms that the apostles' teachings were transmitted to posterity in two forms: written scriptures and oral tradition. They likewise affirm that the apostles bequeathed a continuous chain of successors (bishops) to lead the faithful and preserve and interpret their written and oral teachings. These two doctrines enjoyed virtually universal acceptance among Christians for well over a millennium (i.e., c. 300-1500 A.D.) but have remained controversial in the West since their rejection by the Reformers in the 16th century.
1. Apologetics vs. historiography
When an apologist comes to the textual data concerning early church government and authority, his/her aim is to defend a contemporary doctrine of church government that he/she holds (on the assumption that ancient precedents remain normative today). The desire to make one's position as credible as possible may lead an apologist to read the evidence with a theological bias. This could manifest as exaggerated uniformity in the data, tendentious interpretation of problematic texts, etc.
When a contemporary historian comes to the same data, his/her aim is to reconstruct past events and circumstances objectively, without regard to theological convictions. This is good insofar as it mitigates theological bias. However, the desire to be perceived as critical, impartial and/or ecumenical may lead a historian to approach the evidence with a bias against his or her own theological background (or against theology itself). This could manifest as an exaggerated diversity in the data, skepticism of ancient or traditional perspectives (a "hermeneutics of suspicion"), etc.
In this article I am trying to wear both hats in order to achieve a balance of biases. I make no secret of my Catholic theological bias (one I acquired only recently), but I want to be critical and fair in my interpretation of the evidence. The reader may decide how far I have succeeded.
2. Addressing some misconceptions about Catholic teaching on apostolic succession
The Roman Catholic Church of today has a clearly defined hierarchical structure. There are three sacramental ministerial orders—bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons—each with clearly defined powers. Each local jurisdiction of the Church is ruled by a single monarchical bishop. One of these bishops, the bishop of Rome, also reigns over all the other bishops. The pope, who is regarded as the successor of St. Peter, rules over the other bishops, who are all regarded as successors of the apostles. The pope is the global face of the Catholic Church, a visible marker of its unity.
Some naive Catholics would insist that the above description is exactly what the Catholic Church has always looked like, from the time the apostles died out c. 100 A.D. down through history. However, when many contemporary historians, including Catholic historians, study early Christian texts they paint a very different picture. For instance, they find that monoepiscopacy (monarchical rule by a single bishop over a city or locale) was a gradual development, including in Rome, and not the established norm until the late second century or later. They find that terms like episkopos (bishop/overseer) and presbyteros (presbyter/elder) are used interchangeably in some texts, along with other terms like didaskalos (teacher) and hēgoumenos (leader), and not as the ecclesiastical technical terms they would later become. Most importantly for our purposes here, some historians assert that the doctrine of apostolic succession through bishops developed in the late second century and that the episcopal succession lists published at that time were fabrications.
Ultraconservative Catholic apologists vehemently contest all of the above findings, and sometimes resort to very contrived and far-fetched arguments in the process. Meanwhile, triumphalist Protestant apologists tout the historians' findings as though they have reduced the Catholic faith to an absurd fantasy. They take particular glee in citing Catholic historians as "hostile witnesses" against their own faith.
It turns out that both sets of apologists are misguided. Historical research has shown that the hierarchical structure of the Church underwent development over time. However, what many Protestant apologists have failed to recognise is that Catholic theology allows for such development (within certain parameters). For example, (although the papacy is not our main concern here), one Catholic scholar observes, "It is not prima facie obvious that a high doctrine of the papacy does require that a single bishop exercised magisterial authority in Rome in the immediate post-apostolic age."1
The most famous Catholic proponent of the theory of doctrinal development was, of course, Cardinal Newman in the 19th century. Specifically on the episcopate and the papacy, Newman explained why these structural features of the Church became more visible over time:
While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope...
When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated. And, in like manner, it was natural for Christians to direct their course in matters of doctrine by the guidance of mere floating, and, as it were, endemic tradition, while it was fresh and strong; but in proportion as it languished, or was broken in particular places, did it become necessary to fall back upon its special homes, first the Apostolic Sees, and then the See of St. Peter.2The magisterial document Lumen Gentium from the Second Vatican Council, which formally defines Catholic doctrine about the Church, has the following to say about the origin of apostolic succession:
That divine mission, entrusted by Christ to the apostles, will last until the end of the world, since the Gospel they are to teach is for all time the source of all life for the Church. And for this reason the apostles, appointed as rulers in this society, took care to appoint successors. For they not only had helpers in their ministry, but also, in order that the mission assigned to them might continue after their death, they passed on to their immediate cooperators, as it were, in the form of a testament, the duty of confirming and finishing the work begun by themselves, recommending to them that they attend to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit placed them to shepherd the Church of God. They therefore appointed such men, and gave them the order that, when they should have died, other approved men would take up their ministry. Among those various ministries which, according to tradition, were exercised in the Church from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office of those who, appointed to the episcopate, by a succession running from the beginning, are passers-on of the apostolic seed. Thus, as St. Irenaeus testifies, through those who were appointed bishops by the apostles, and through their successors down in our own time, the apostolic tradition is manifested and preserved.Notice that Lumen Gentium reaffirms the historical foundations of the doctrine of apostolic succession through episcopacy. However, it does not make any specific claims about when or how monoepiscopacy—open and uncontested rule by one bishop within a region—developed. The Church's dogmatic teaching on apostolic succession is thus at least compatible with a developmental paradigm. Indeed, consider the following excerpts from the post-Vatican II document Catholic Teaching on Apostolic Succession:
The documents of the New Testament show that in the early days of the Church and in the lifetime of the apostles there was diversity in the way communities were organized... Those who directed communities in the lifetime of the apostles or after their death have different names in the New Testament texts: the presbyteroi-episkopoi are described as poimenes, hegoumenoi, proistamenoi, kyberneseis. In comparison with the rest of the Church, the feature of the presbyteroi-episkopoi is their apostolic ministry of teaching and governing. Whatever the method by which they are chosen, whether through the authority of the Twelve or Paul or some link with them, they share in the authority of the apostles who were instituted by Christ and who maintain for all time their unique character. In the course of time this ministry underwent a development... Already in the New Testament texts there are echoes of the transition from the apostolic period to the subapostolic age, and one begins to see signs of the development that in the second century led to the stabilization and general recognition of the episcopal ministry... The absence of documents makes it difficult to say precisely how these transitions came about. By the end of the first century the situation was that the apostles or their closest helpers or eventually their successors directed the local colleges of episkopoi and presbyteroi. By the beginning of the second century the figure of a single bishop who is the head of the communities appears very clearly in the letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who further claims that this institution is established "unto the ends of the earth" (Ad Epk. 3, 2).Although not a magisterial document, this study was produced by a committee of leading Catholic theologians appointed by the pope. It thus represents a mainstream Catholic perspective on early Church history. It is therefore interesting that the document makes numerous statements in line with the findings of contemporary historians. First, the document acknowledges that there was diversity in the earliest Christian communities both in terms of organizational structure and in the terminology used for community leaders. Second, the document speaks explicitly of "development" and "transitions" in Christian ministry, specifically the "stabilization and general recognition of the episcopal ministry." Third, the document acknowledges that the historical evidence from the late first and early second centuries is too thin to permit dogmatic reconstructions of the development of Christian ministry during this period. These statements might shock some naive Catholics who would like to picture St. Peter's earliest successors making public appearances on the balcony of a basilica. However, they ought also to give pause to Protestant apologists who too easily conclude that the earliest historical evidence concerning Christian ministry is incompatible with Catholic theology.
3. What does Catholicism expect from the historical record?
What sort of evidence would we expect to find in the historical record if the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession were true? Firstly, we would not necessarily expect to find evidence that the apostles left monarchical bishops as their immediate successors. However, we might expect to find evidence that the apostles did leave successors in the form of a divinely ordained office. That is, evidence that they did not merely happen to leave behind some protégés, but created a ministry that they understood to be divinely sanctioned. Secondly, we would not necessarily expect to find evidence that unbroken "succession lists" of bishops going back to the apostles were theologically important immediately after the apostles died. We might, however, expect to find evidence that such succession lists became theologically important within a couple of generations, as living memory of the apostles disappeared and direct links to the apostles could no longer be verified by eyewitness testimony. (As long as there were people around who could recall the apostles' teachings firsthand, their successors would not have the same value as preservers of apostolic teaching as they would acquire thereafter.) Finally, we would not expect to find evidence supporting a Protestant model of Church government and post-apostolic apostolicity over against the Catholic model. For instance, if it could be shown that the apostles provided a fixed, completed canon of Scripture to serve as the sole locus of theological authority after they died (over against any notion of theological authority vesting in ministerial leaders), this would be quite fatal to Catholic ecclesiology.
It must also be emphasised that a relative sparseness of evidence for the idea of apostolic succession within the New Testament is not particularly problematic for Catholic theology. In the apostolic period there was little concern over who would lead the Church after the apostles died, for the simple reason that the earliest Christians anticipated that "Church history" would be more of a sprint than a marathon. The Lord's promised Parousia was believed to be imminent (Phil. 4:5; Jas 5:9; Rev. 22:20; etc.) A community that expects its leadership to become redundant in the very near future does not prioritise long-term succession planning. Thus, that the New Testament leaves us with little information about how the apostles envisioned the Church to be governed in the post-apostolic period is regrettable, but not surprising.
With these preliminaries out of the way, the third part of this study will finally discuss the historical evidence concerning apostolic succession directly. This study is not intended as a comprehensive treatment of the relevant historical evidence, nor is it intended to "prove" the doctrine of apostolic succession. The aim is more modest: to show that the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession is consistent with the historical record. This doctrine cannot, however, be "proven"; it can only be received by faith. The ground for belief in this doctrine is that the Church declares it to be so. Nevertheless, faith and reason are friends and not enemies, which is why a consideration of historical evidence is meaningful.
Footnotes
- 1 David Albert Jones, "Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?", New Blackfriars 80 (1999): 128.
- 2 John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed. (London: Piccadilly, 1846), 165-67. The excerpts here do not convey the full power of the argument of the section, which the reader is encouraged to consult.
