To some of my readers this may sound like a moment to sound the alarms, grab the heretic stick, and call your bishop. Others may be altogether disinterested in this post because their religious tradition has no notion of apostolic succession, and the fact that it is in “crisis” is quite mundane. I hope the panicked will be calmed, and the disinterested will become engaged. Oh the hopes and dreams of a blogger!
Apostolic
succession (at least in the Roman Catholic Church) has been used to make all
sorts of claims through history. These
days folks are interested to say that our Catholic Bishops are the direct
successors of Jesus’ apostles. This use
of apostolic succession is applied either apologetically, authoritatively, or
comfortingly. An example of the apologetic approach would be when in an
inter-denominational conversation, a Catholic may say to her Baptist friend, “I
understand your interpretation of Ephesians 2:8, but the Catholic Church reads
it this way, and our bishops go back to the Apostles.” Thus the apologetic approach says, “Our
bishops go back to the apostles, so we have the authentic interpretation of
Scripture, tradition, liturgy, etc.” The
authoritative approach is used when
a priest, bishop, or even lay person says, “You know, the bishops are the
successors of the apostles, so when we say that you should oppose the health
care reform, you should.” Or “I
understand the quality of research from this theologian, but the bishops are
the successors of the apostles, so we should listen to them instead.” It is
used to claim authority for the bishops.
The comforting approach can
be exemplified from a conversation I had one time about ecumenical
councils. Two different views of Jesus
were at stake at the First Council of Nicaea.
The “orthodox” perspective defeated Arius’ perspective. A friend asked, “What if Arius’ perspective
was right, but the “orthodox” perspective was simply more powerful?” The comforting approach would say, “Perhaps,
but we need not fear because the bishops as the successors of the apostles
guarantee that the truth about Jesus was conveyed through history.” The comforting approach gives some sense of
assurance that we still have an accurate picture of Jesus and his teachings.
What are
some of the assumptions about this view of apostolic succession? Seriously, think about it. Here are some:
1. Bishops can trace their ordination in an
unbroken line back to the Apostles.
2. Jesus intended in his earthly life to not
only send out apostles, but to ordain bishops.
3. In ordaining bishops, he also specifically
defined the role, function, and authority of the bishops.
4. The Church has therefore uniformly practiced
this same ordination and function throughout history.
 |
| Jesus ordaining the Apostles |
This is the
perspective of the Catechism and the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. Kenan Osborne in a book Orders and Ministry explores some of the historical data from the
early centuries of the Church and paints a picture that is a bit different than
the above, idealistic view.
Had Jesus
ordained bishops, we would expect there to be a uniformity of terms and
practice in the early Church. Even the New
Testament witness lacks this expected uniformity. This
is where folks whose tradition does not include apostolic succession may want to
pay attention. The New Testament has
language for MANY different roles in a church community. Among them would be episkapos (these days
translated as Bishops although this is problematic), presbyteros (sometimes
understood as pastor or elder), diakanos, prophet, apostle, priests, and so
forth. None of these roles were defined exhaustively, nor were they held up as normative for all Christian
communities. So where does the “biblical”
or historical basis for pastors, or bishops come from?
 |
| (160-225) |
Tertullian
(ca. 160-225ca.) used the term “order” for groups within the Christian community
in Carthage. He adapted structures from
the social and political orders to order the Christian community. Another early instance of a specific ordering
of a Christian community was in Apostolic
Tradition from about the year 200 in the community in Rome. In this document, the ritual for ordaining episkopoi,
presbyteroi, and diakanoi, is described, but their functions were not outlined. You will notice that I mentioned the
location and approximate date of both of these early sources. This is important to show that even after the
closing of the NT, the landscape of church leadership was not uniform. Rather both documents refer to a specific
practice of a specific community.
 |
| Did Augustine actually look like today's bishops? |
Osborne
describes the roles of the episkopi, presbyteroi, and diakanoi as their usage
became more widespread. The episkopos
was seen as the leader of a local Christian community, more like today’s
pastors. It was the episkopos who
celebrated the Eucharist. The
presbyteros on the other hand, was an advisor to the episkopos. Osborne mentions a story of Augustine, who
while a presbyteros, was asked by the episkopos to give the homily. The community in Carthage was not receptive,
for they understood that it was the episkopos who preached! As the need for leaders in rural areas grew,
episkopoi were sometimes reluctant to take on responsibility in those
areas. Presbyteroi sometimes took on
these positions and began to preach and celebrate the Eucharist. As the presbyteroi took on different roles,
the episkopoi began leading multiple communities.
As this
brief historical survey shows, there was never a universal consensus about who
was to lead the Christian community, what authority he/she possessed, nor what
ministries he/she would engage in. Where
we have arrived today in the Catholic Church (and wherever your tradition is),
is the result of theological reflection on various historical moments of the
Church. For any of us to claim that our
leadership represents exactly what Christ instituted while on earth is at best idealistic,
and unrealistic. Though Christ chose the Apostles, and they held a place of
honor in the early Church, it is unfounded that Jesus intended the
Apostles to ordain new Apostles with apostolic authority called episkopoi. Further, we must admit that our contemporary
bishops function in quite a different capacity than the episkopoi of the early
centuries. (If you are in a different
tradition, think carefully about what it means to have a “biblical” pastor or church
leadership when the early church didn’t exercise that same uniformity and certainty
about their leadership)
What Osborne
suggests (and this is very wise in my opinion) is that the development of the
orders in the Church occurred from theological reflection on pastoral
need. The need for leadership in rural
areas led to the presbyteroi celebrating the Eucharist and leading local
communities.
What does
all of this mean for Apostolic Succession in the Catholic Church? Firstly, current
New Testament and early Church scholarship rejects the notion that there is a
clear “unbroken line” from the Apostles to the Bishops. To continue as a theologian in these
traditions, while at the same time being committed to the historical studies,
one must find a mediating position. On
the one hand, what the classic approach to Apostolic Succession emphasizes is that
the ordering of the Church is divinely revealed. However, the argumentation for that
conclusion is based upon an unhistorical moment of institution of bishops by
Christ. The assumption is that for
something to be divinely revealed, it must have come from Christ’s mouth. What Osborne suggests is that after the
resurrection, the Holy Spirit guides the formation of Christian ministry. The sometimes chaotic and undeniably human
formation of Christian ministries in no way negates divine guidance.
Justo J. Gonzalez, a Protestant church
historian, describes the development of apostolic succession as a response to
Marcion and Gnostic teachings. As groups
claimed to possess secret knowledge from Jesus, the Church of the second
century found it important to show that its leaders were in fact connected to
the Apostles. The Church wanted to show
that had Jesus given secret knowledge to the apostles (as the Gnostics claimed),
the leaders of the second century church would possess it.[i]
Even if it was unrealistic to think that “bishop” was congruent with the
earlier “episkopoi” and “apostalos,” the point was clear. “Our leaders go back to the first Christians.”
To conclude, though a direct ordination from Christ seems untenable, the notion
of apostolic succession still seeks to preserve a line of guidance by the Holy
Spirit.
[i] Justo
Gonzalez. The Story of Christianity:
Volume I- The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. (New York,
HarperCollins. 1984), 65.
No comments:
Post a Comment