Guest Blogger: Matt Kennedy

Our Guest Blogger Today is The Rev’d Matt Kennedy. Matt is the Rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, NY. Matt also shares in the leadership of the popular blog, Stand Firm.

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION – WHAT IS IT AND WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE ABOUT IT?

I’ve had a number of questions and conversations about Apostolic Succession over the last few weeks since the sermon I preached on what it means to be an apostle. I’m writing this brief note to address some of those questions. We may talk about it for a brief moment or two at the start of class this Sunday as well

What is apostolic succession? Apostolic Succession is the name for the belief that since the time of the original apostles in the first century until now, there has been an unbroken line of overseers (bishops) consecrated (or set apart) by the laying on of hands who exercise apostolic authority over the church. The Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and some Lutheran churches claim to have bishops in this succession and make differing claims about what this means.

1. For Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and some Anglicans, the Church can only truly exist where there are bishops in apostolic succession because only bishops in succession inherit through the laying on of hands (by other bishops in succession) the authority Jesus vested in the original 12.

According to this line of thought, only bishops in apostolic succession have the authority (according again to Catholics, Orthodox, and some—not all—Anglicans) to ordain priests. And only priests ordained by bishops in succession may legitimately celebrate the sacraments Christ gave to the Church. Moreover, according to Roman Catholic and, I think, Eastern Orthodox doctrine, when meeting in ecumenical (or ‘church-wide’) council bishops in Apostolic Succession may speak infallibly with Christ’s authority on matters of faith and doctrine (this belief is based on Jesus’ promise to his apostles in John 14:25-26 and John 16:12-15). Rome holds that infallible teaching authority is also vested in the office of the Pope as the successor of St. Peter. But the Pope’s infallibility only applies to his teachings ex cathedra or “from the chair”.

2. The Roman Catholic Church does not agree with the Anglican claim to have bishops in Apostolic Succession and, for that reason, Roman Catholics tend to view our sacraments as having less or no validity (depending on who you speak too)

3. Some Anglicans do not believe that Apostolic Succession carries the authority that others do. These Anglicans generally agree that our bishops are in the historic line of apostolic succession—in other words that you can trace the laying on of hands from our Anglican bishops all the way back to the original Apostles—but they do not believe that this succession of leadership carries with it the same type or level of authority that Jesus invested in the original Apostles. Rather, they understand authority in the church as being linked primarily and directly to a faithful succession of apostolic teaching (faithful adherence to the scriptures). In other words, any ordained leader in the church who preaches and teaches scripture faithfully, stands as a successor to apostolic teaching but does not inherit the same gifts and powers that Jesus gave to the 12.

This position does not deny the fact that Anglican bishops are in succession or the importance of that fact for church governance and tradition, but it does deny that this in itself lends a bishop any authority apart from a his faithful proclamation of the Word of God. Anglicans who take this view do not think a bishop in apostolic succession is necessary in order for the church to be fully present but instead recognize the validity of all other faithful Protestant and non-Protestant churches and denominations and accept them as full participant’s in the visible Church so long as they carry on the teaching of the original Apostles as contained in the bible.

Where do I stand?

I rejoice in the fact that our bishops stand in a historical line that reaches back to the original apostles. This fact stands as a living reminder that the Christian faith is grounded in real history and events that truly took place.

The historical succession of leaders from the first century until now also points to the faithfulness of God to his Church—never leaving his people without shepherds and leaders.

There is, finally, also a reminder for us that Anglicans have always sought to retain everything in Christian tradition that does not stand in conflict with the word of God. Anglicans have determined to retain the historical line of church leadership by ensuring that every bishop is consecrated by other bishops in apostolic succession. This is a fine tradition fully compatible with scripture and there is every reason to retain it as a living symbol and reminder of Christ’s love for his Bride.

While I believe that our bishops stand in apostolic succession and that this is an important truth for maintaining church order, Anglican identity, and governance, I do not believe that Apostolic Succession conveys the authority that Jesus invested in his original Apostles.

As I said in the sermon I preached (linked also above), I think the “Office of Apostle’ (Eph 4:11-13) as it was held by the 12 and by Paul and others in the first century ended when the last first century Apostle died. The two New Testament criteria for apostleship: 1. to be called as an apostle by Christ directly or through the Holy Spirit and 2. to have been a living witness to ministry, death and bodily resurrection (or, as in Paul’s case, at the very least a witness of the risen and ascended Lord) can no longer be fulfilled.

For this reason, while bishops have been given leadership and authority in the church by virtue of their conscration, I do not think bishops in succession are “apostles” in the New Testament sense of that word nor do I believe that they have the authority, when meeting in council or on their own, to teach or speak infallibly.

Every leader in every church, even (some would say, especially) bishops, must be held accountable to the Word of God.

That is my opinion but it is not just mine. It is held by a large number of Anglicans and it seems to be the one articulated in the Anglican confession of faith, the 39 Articles in which Article 19 defines the visible Church not by the presence or absence of bishops in succession but by the presence of faithful preaching and the celebration of the sacraments in keeping with Christ’s institution (the invisible Church, by contrast, is the body of all who believe in Christ which stretches from heaven to earth, across denominations and throughout time).

So, that is my opinion on the matter of apostolic succession. I think it to be faithful to the scriptures but, as always, please study the bible yourself, come to your own conclusions and test mine.

If you disagree with me, great, if you agree, well I think that is great too. Either way, you’re welcome at Good Shepherd. This is not an issue over which division is necessary. We can debate, disagree and remain brothers and sisters.