When Protestants and
Catholics discuss the role of authority, sooner or later, it is inevitable that
the Catholic will point to the teaching of “Apostolic Succession.” This seems to be their “ace in the hole”
argument and the “ultimate proof” for all their debates on authority. It is important to note that it is a foundational teaching for Catholics. They point to this to prove the Catholic
Church’s claim of being the One True Church.
From the highest Catholic theologian to the lowest amateur Catholic apologist,
they all seem to hold tightly to this doctrine, and they are quick to point to
it.
Defined
But what is Apostolic
Succession, exactly? It is the belief
that the present pope can be traced all the way back (in an unbroken line of
successors) to the apostle Peter (whom they claim is the first pope). Here are some official Catholic statements
concerning Apostolic Succession. According
to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online), under “Apostolicity”:
“…the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission
entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and
their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present
representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power
in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession.” [Emphasis
added]
“…Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted
substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles…” (Ibid.) [Emphasis added]
“Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to
the Apostles, no lacuna [i.e.,
gap, blank space, or missing part] can be
allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must
pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful
succession.” (Ibid.) [Emphasis added]
“If any break in the Apostolic succession had
ever occurred, it could be easily shown, for no fact of such importance could
happen in the history of the world without attracting universal notice.”
(Ibid.) [Emphasis added]
And according to the Catechism
of the Catholic Church,
#77:
“In order that the full and
living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops
as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.
Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the
inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession
until the end of time.” (referencing “Dei Verbum,” a document of the Second Vatican Council)
[Emphasis added]
Is
it Really Unbroken?
So, to briefly recap, the Catholic Church claims that an “unbroken,”
“uninterrupted” and “continuous” lawful
chain exists in the successors of Peter (popes), with “no breaks” and “no
lacunas” (gaps) in this line of succession.
But can they prove this claim
of a continuous and unbroken line of Peter’s successors? When challenged, the Catholic Church proudly
displays a list of the whole line of popes to prove their claim. But it is interesting that there have been
several different lists of popes over the years.
The List
Here is an example of an
official list of the popes from the New
Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:
But if one looks closely at
this particular list, he can see that there are several gaps when no popes were reigning. For example, during the years of 259, 305,
306, 307, 639, 1242, 1269, 1270, 1293, 1315, and 1416, we see vacancies in the
papal throne. This cannot be considered an
“uninterrupted substitution of persons,” nor is this an “unbroken chain,” as
claimed. There are indeed lacunas / gaps
in this official list of popes. Don’t
just take our word for it, but click on the link just above and see for
yourselves.
And lest anyone think that
this list was produced by some unknown amateur Catholic apologist, the
encyclopedia article containing this list has the official Catholic seals of
approval - the nihil obstat (“nothing
hinders”) and the imprimatur (“let it
be printed”). We have also seen other
lists with slightly different dating, but these have gaps, as well.
How Catholics Deal with it
So, why don’t Catholics seem
to be aware of these embarrassing gaps?
Don’t these gaps serve to refute the Catholic version of Apostolic
Succession and demonstrate that their claim is false? Indeed it does. So, how do Catholics respond to this “gap”
argument? Let’s go over some of their
objections…
It’s Just a “Vacancy”
Objection #1
- Some Catholics will admit that these gaps exist. By the way, they are officially called
“interregnums” (i.e., a pause; interruption; gap; absence). And some Catholics will say that these
interregnums are not really a big deal.
They will claim that there must
be some “down” time between the death of one pope and the election of the next. They’ll say it is just a vacancy, not an actual break
in succession.
But what size “vacancy” is
acceptable in this case? A few
days? A week? A month?
Perhaps even a month would be an acceptable amount of time to tolerate
the election process, but if there is no limit
on the length of an interregnum, then it is open-ended. And if it is open-ended, then there can never
be an occasion of a “broken” succession.
There would be no real way to tell when it’s “broken” or not. In other words, their claim is unfalsifiable
(not able to be tested in order to verify or refute). You see, these Catholics are simply playing
word games and trying to justify all of the actual
gaps that are found in these lists. They
are trying to exempt themselves from the obvious.
With no standard to limit the time of these “vacancies,” they can simply
brush off any challenges about breaks or gaps.
So, according to their reasoning, any apparent gap is never really a gap at all. Very convenient, but very dishonest.
Furthermore, if these “vacancies”
are really no big deal, then where do you draw the line? Why not have only one documentable pope
every 50 or 100 years, since, according to this argument, it doesn’t seem to
matter anyway? After all, it would be
“just another interregnum,” right? Could
they be just as proud of such a list? Would
they still be able to brag about their Apostolic Succession? Without putting definite limits on
interregnums, their claim to an “unbroken succession” is meaningless. When you take it
to its logical conclusion, this objection fails.
As Long as the “Office” Remains
Objection #2
– Some will say that as long as the office
(of pope) has not been destroyed, it is an “unbroken” chain and it doesn’t
matter if no pope is in office. To them,
Apostolic Succession simply means that there is always an office existing.
But the use of the word “chain”
doesn’t refer to the office itself, but it must refer to the men (the
individual “links”) within that succession.
Else, why would they describe it as a “chain” in the first place? So, the continuation
of Apostolic Succession is about the individual successors just as much as it
is the office. And what good is an
office if no one is in it, if no one is there to fill it? Whether pope, king, president, or senator, it
certainly does matter if someone is
in the office. An office is useless if
there is no one there functioning and fulfilling its demands. So, this objection also fails.
It’s the Bishops that Matter
Objection #3
– To other Catholics, an unbroken line of successors refers to bishops, as well, not necessarily just
to popes. They’ll say apostolic
succession means an unbroken succession of valid
bishops. And even if there is no pope, the valid
bishops are there in place, causing this apostolic line to be unbroken.
But think about this. When asked to demonstrate or prove this
“unbroken succession,” Catholics will immediately point to their list of
popes. But why point to this list if it’s really all about bishops instead?
Another List?
Continuing with Objection #3,
if it is all about the bishops
(instead of just the popes), then why bother with a list of popes at all? Why not make an unbroken list of all the bishops, instead, to prove their case? But the problem with this is that they can’t even trace
the POPES all the way back with accuracy, much less the lesser-known multitude
of individual bishops!
And furthermore, without an
official list of those bishop-successors, almost anyone else could make the
same claim – that they, too, have an
“unbroken” historical connection to others who have laid hands on, and ordained,
their own successors all the way back to the same apostles.
Are You “Valid”?
Concluding this “bishop” objection,
how do we know that every one of these
bishops were “validly ordained” (according
to Catholic standards) in the first place?
It is possible that they could be unauthorized
bishops. Ordaining a priest or bishop is
a Catholic sacrament (“holy orders”), and in order for any sacrament to “work,”
or be “valid,” the ordaining priest / bishop must have the correct intention (CCC #1466) and the recipient must also have the correct intention (CCC #1319 and #1491). Otherwise, the ordination is invalid. But how could anyone ever know the true intention
of either the ordaining bishop or the receiving priest? Without knowing the heart, or intention, of
either one, it is very possible that an invalid pope could be created, if he is
ordained by invalid bishops. We just
can’t know for sure. So, for all these
reasons, their “bishop” objection also fails the test.
Sufficient Sources?
Another problem with the
Catholic concept of Apostolic Succession is that sources from the early church
were not always plentiful. The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), which also contains the Catholic seals of approval, states:
“…the scarcity of documents leaves much that is
obscure about the early development of the episcopate…” (Volume 1, page 696)
And even more damaging, that same encyclopedia also states:
“But it must
be frankly admitted that bias or deficiencies in the sources make it impossible
to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or antipopes.”
(Volume I, page 632)
Let’s Be Honest
You know, we could respect
the Catholic Church more on this topic if they told us, “The list of popes we
have is not complete, but we’ve got a pretty good idea who they were and when
they served in this long line from Peter onward…” – instead of boasting of an “unbroken” and
“uninterrupted” lawful chain of successors.
Why proudly display this seemingly “full” list? Are they hoping that no one notices those
gaps? But if these nagging gaps do exist
(and they do), then don’t call it an “unbroken line,” call it a “mostly intact”
line, but don’t lie about it just to maintain an inflated image of “Mother
Church.”
A Lesson from the Pharisees
Stop and think – one of the
reasons that Jesus and John the baptist rebuked the Pharisees is because they
trusted in some kind of lineage back to Abraham (Matthew 3:9; John 8:37,39,56). It is very
possible that they did have an actual unbroken historical lineage back to
Abraham. But Jesus was not impressed
with that (John 8:44). And their historical line
didn’t make them the “true church” of their day. Just as Catholics do today, the Pharisees
were trusting in their historical line in vain.
Conclusion
The Catholic Church does not
have what they claim to have. But even if
they did have a perfectly unbroken
and legitimate historical line of successors all the way back to the apostles,
the truth is not discovered that way… it is discovered by handing down the true
TEACHINGS of the apostles, not just depending on a physical, historical succession
of people in the church hierarchy.
Consider the issue of Judas
Iscariot. He was an apostle, directly chosen by Jesus, Himself – yet,
he defected and did not pass on the faith of Jesus Christ. Because of Judas, there was already a failure in the “historical
lineage-from-the-hierarchy” type system to maintain the truth. Before the original twelve apostles could
even HAVE their first successor, there were already issues. Sometimes, even those we may trust will fail to faithfully pass on
the correct teachings. And the fact that
even an apostle could defect destroys
the Catholic Church’s concept of Apostolic Succession through historical
lineage. Even if all the “right people”
may be there in this line, this will not guarantee truth coming through them.
Now, we Protestants do believe in apostolic succession, just
not the Catholic version of it. True apostolic succession is simply taking
the inspired teachings of the
apostles and passing these truths down to the next generation. That’s it.
Nothing complicated about that, and no lists to worry about.
But in the end, these lists
hold no weight anyway, since the cold, hard truth is that the office of “pope”
is unscriptural to start with. There
never was a BIBLICAL office by that
name or that function. Catholics will claim that their type of Apostolic
Succession is biblical, since the Bible does speak of laying hands on one's successor (1
Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6), but dead popes can’t lay hands on
their successors. The papal process of "laying on of hands" is not the one identified in Scripture. So, for many reasons, this foundational Catholic teaching crumbles upon its own weight.
We pray that Catholics can
come to see the truth of this.
Hopefully, these nagging, ever-present, and embarrassing gaps in the
lists of popes will convince many (Catholics, Protestants, and others) of the
deceitfulness of the Catholic Church’s claims.
This particular article has
dealt with the “unbroken line of successors” aspect of Catholic Apostolic
Succession. For more details on the
“lawfulness” aspect of this teaching, see here:
