Apostolic Succession

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Apostolicity as a note of thetrueChurch being dealt with elsewhere, the object of the present article is to show:

Roman claim

The principle underlying the Roman claim is contained in theidea of succession. "To succeed" is to be the successor of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official position just after, as Victoria succeeded William IV. Now theRoman Pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions ofSt. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors. We must prove

As soon as the problem of St. Peter's coming toRome passed fromtheologians writingpro domo suâ into the hands of unprejudiced historians, i.e. within the last half century, it received a solution which no scholar now dares to contradict; the researches of German professors like A. Harnack and Weizsaecker, of theAnglican Bishop Lightfoot, and those of archaeologists likeDe Rossi and Lanciani, of Duchesne and Barnes, have all come to the same conclusion: St. Peter did reside and die inRome. Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists a universal consensus as to Peter'smartyrdom inRome;

There he died, there he left his inheritance; the fact is never questioned in the controversies between East and West. This argument, however, has a weak point: it leaves about one hundred years for the formation of historical legends, of which Peter's presence inRome may be one just as much as his conflict withSimon Magus. We have then to go farther back into antiquity.

This chain of documentary evidence, having its first link in Scripture itself, and broken nowhere, puts the sojourn of St. Peter inRome among the best-ascertained facts in history. It is further strengthened by a similar chain of monumental evidence, which Lanciani, the prince of Roman topographers, sums up as follows: "For the archaeologist the presence and execution of Sts. Peter and Paul inRome are facts established beyond a shadow ofdoubt, by purely monumental evidence!" (Pagan and ChristianRome, 123).

St. Peter's successors in office

St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of theChurch. In 97 serious dissensions troubled theChurch ofCorinth. The Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered with Corinth. Before 117St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses theRoman Church as the one which "presides over charity . . . which has never deceived any one, which has taught others."St. Irenæus (180-200) states the theory and practice ofdoctrinal unity as follows:

With this Church [ofRome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that is the faithful everywhere, in this [i.e. in communion with theRoman Church] the tradition of the Apostles has ever been preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III)

ThehereticMarcion, theMontanists from Phrygia,Praxeas fromAsia, come toRome to gain the countenance of itsbishops; St. Victor,Bishop of Rome, threatens toexcommunicate the Asian Churches; St. Stephen refuses to receiveSt. Cyprian's deputation, and separates himself from various Churches of the East; Fortunatus and Felix, deposed byCyprian, have recourse toRome;Basilides, deposed inSpain, betakes himself toRome; thepresbyters of Dionysius,Bishop of Alexandria, complain of hisdoctrine to Dionysius,Bishop of Rome; the latter expostulates with him, and he explains. The fact is indisputable: the Bishops ofRome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ [Duchesne, "The Roman Church before Constantine", Catholic Univ. Bulletin (October, 1904) X, 429-450]. To be in continuity with theChurch founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter isnecessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors. Antioch, once thesee and centre of St. Peter's labours, fell into the hands ofMonophysitepatriarchs under the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius at the end of the fifth century. TheChurch of Alexandria inEgypt was founded bySt. Mark the Evangelist, the mandatory of St. Peter. It flourished exceedingly until theArian andMonophysiteheresies took root among its people and gradually led to its extinction. The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that ofJerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed byHadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site. The new Church of Ælia Capitolina was subjected to Caesarea; the very name ofJerusalem fell out of use till after theCouncil of Nice (325). The Greek Schism now claims its allegiance. Whatever of Apostolicity remains in these Churches founded by theApostles is owing to the fact thatRome picked up the broken succession and linked anew to the See of Peter. TheGreek Church, embracing all theEastern Churches involved in theschism of Photius andMichael Caerularius, and the Russian Church can lay no claim to Apostolic succession either direct or indirect, i.e. throughRome, because they are, by their own fact and will, separated from the Roman Communion. During the four hundred and sixty-four between the accession of Constantine (323) and theSeventh General Council (787), the whole or part of the Eastern episcopate lived inschism for no less than two hundred and three years: namely from theCouncil of Sardica (343) toSt. John Chrysostom (389), 55 years; owing toChrysostom's condemnation (404-415), 11 years; owing to Acadius and theHenoticon edict (484-519), 35 years; total, 203 years (Duchesne). They do, however, claimdoctrinal connection with the Apostles, sufficient to their mind to stamp them with the mark of Apostolicity.

The Anglican continuity claim

The continuity claim is brought forward by allsects, a fact showing how essential a note of thetrue Church Apostolicity is. TheAnglican High-Church party asserts its continuity with the pre-Reformation Church inEngland, and through it with theCatholicChurch ofChrist. "At theReformation we but washed our face" is a favouriteAnglican saying; we have to show that in reality they washed off their head, and have been a truncated Church ever since. Etymologically, "to continue" means "to hold together". Continuity, therefore, denotes a successive existence without constitutional change, an advance in time of a thing in itself steady. Steady, not stationary, for the nature of a thing may be to grow, to develop on constitutional lines, thus constantly changing yet always the selfsame. This applies to all organisms starting from a germ, to all organizations starting from a few constitutional principles; it also applies to religiousbelief, which asNewman says, changes in order to remain the same. On the other hand, we speak of a "breach of continuity" whenever a constitutional change takes place. A Church enjoys continuity when it develops along the lines of its original constitution; it changes when it alters its constitution either social ordoctrinal. But what is the constitution of theChurch of Christ? The answer is as varied as thesects calling themselvesChristian. Being persuaded that continuity with Christ is essential to their legitimate status, they have devised theories of the essentials ofChristianity, and of aChristian Church, exactly suiting their own denomination. Most of them repudiate Apostolic succession as a mark of thetrue Church; they glory in their separation. Our present controversy is not with such, but with theAnglicans who do pretend to continuity. We have points of contact only with the High-Churchmen, whose leanings toward antiquity andCatholicism place them midway between theCatholic and theProtestant pure and simple.

England and Rome

Of all the Churches now separated fromRome, none has a more distinctly Roman origin than theChurch of England. It has often been claimed thatSt. Paul, or some other Apostle, evangelized the Britons. It iscertain, however, that wheneverWelsh annals mention the introduction ofChristianity into the island, invariably they conduct the reader toRome.

In the"Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 136) we read that "Pope Eleutherius received a letter from Lucius, King of Britain, that he might be made aChristian by his orders." The incident is told again and again by theVenerable Bede; it is found in the Book ofLlandaff, as well as in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; it is accepted by French,Swiss, German chroniclers, together with the home authorities Fabius,Henry of Huntingdon,William of Malmesbury, andGiraldus Cambrensis.

The Saxon invasion swept the British Church out of existence wherever it penetrated, and drove the BritishChristians to the western borders of the island, or across the sea into Armorica, now French Brittany. No attempt at converting their conquerors was ever made by the conquered.Rome once more stepped in. The missionaries sent byGregory the Great converted andbaptized King Ethelbert of Kent, with thousands of his subjects. In 597Augustine was made Primate over allEngland, and his successors, down to theReformation, have ever received fromRome thepallium, the symbol of super-episcopal authority. The Anglo-Saxonhierarchy was thoroughly Roman in its origin, in itsfaith and practice, in its obedience and affection; witness every page inBede's "Ecclesiastical History". A like Roman spirit animated the nation. Among thesaints recognized by theChurch are twenty-three kings and sixty queens, princes, or princesses of the different Anglo-Saxon dynasties, reckoned from the seventh to the eleventh century. Ten of the Saxon kings made the journey to thetomb of St. Peter, and his successor, inRome. Anglo-Saxonpilgrims formed quite a colony in proximity to the Vatican, where the local topography (Borgo, Sassia, Vicus Saxonum) still recalls their memory. There was an Englishschool inRome, founded by King Ine of Wessex andPope Gregory II (715-731), and supported by theRomescot, orPeter's-pence, paid yearly by every Wessexfamily. TheRomescot was madeobligatory byEdward the Confessor, on everymonastery and household in possession of land or cattle to the yearly value of thirty pence.

The Norman Conquest (1066) wrought no change in the religion ofEngland.St. Anselm of Canterbury (1093-1109) testified to the supremacy of theRoman Pontiff in his writings (inMatthew 16) and by his acts. When pressed to surrender his right of appeal toRome, he answered the king in court:

You wish me to swear never, on any account, to appeal inEngland to Blessed Peter or his Vicar; this, I say, ought not to be commanded by you, who are aChristian, for to swear this is toabjure Blessed Peter; he whoabjures Blessed Peter undoubtedlyabjures Christ, who made him Prince over his Church.

St. Thomas Becket shed his blood in defence of the liberties of theChurch against the encroachments of the Norman king (1170).Grosseteste, in the thirteenth century, writes more forcibly on the Pope's authority over the whole Church than any other ancientEnglishbishop, although he resisted an ill-advised appointment to acanonry made by thePope. In the fourteen centuryDuns Scotus teaches at Oxford "that they areexcommunicated asheretics who teach or hold anything different from what theRoman Church holds or teaches." In 1411 theEnglishbishops at the Synod ofLondon condemnWycliffe's proposition "that it is not of necessity tosalvation to hold that theRoman Church is supreme among the Churches." In 1535Blessed John Fisher,Bishop of Rochester, isput to death for upholding againstHenry VIII the Pope's supremacy over the English Church. The most striking piece of evidence is the working of theoath taken byarchbishops before entering into office: "I, Robert,Archbishop ofCanterbury, from this hour forward, will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter, to the Holy ApostolicRoman Church, to my LordPope Celestine, and his successors canonically succeeding...I will, saving my order, give aid to defend and to maintain against every man the primacy of theRoman Church and the royalty of St. Peter. I will visit the threshold of the Apostles every three years, either in person or by my deputy, unless I be absolved by apostolicdispensation...So help meGod and these holy Gospels." (Wilkins, Concilia Angliae, II, 199).

Chief Justice Bracton (1260) lays down thecivil law of this country thus: "It is to be noted concerning thejurisdiction of superior and inferior courts, that in the first place as the Lord Pope has ordinaryjurisdiction over all in spirituals, so the king has, in the realm, in temporals." The line of demarcation between things spiritual and temporal is in many cases blurred and uncertain; the two powers often overlap, and conflicts are unavoidable. During five hundred years such conflicts were frequent. Their very recurrence, however, proves thatEngland acknowledged thepapal supremacy, for it requires two to make a quarrel. The complaint of one side was always that the other encroached upon itsrights.Henry VIII himself, in 1533, still pleaded in the Roman Courts for adivorce. Had he succeeded, the supremacy of the Pope would not have found a more strenuous defender. It was only after his failure that he questioned the authority of the tribunal to which he had himself appealed. In 1534 he was, by Act of Parliament, made the Supreme Head of the English Church. Thebishops, instead of swearing allegiance to thePope, nowswore allegiance to the King, without any saving clause.Blessed John Fisher was the onlybishop who refused to take the newoath; hismartyrdom is the first witness to the breach of continuity between the old English and the newAnglican Church. Heresy stepped in to widen the breach.

The Thirty-nine Articles teach theLutherandoctrine ofjustification byfaith alone, denypurgatory, reduce the sevensacraments to two, insist on the fallibility of theChurch, establish the king's supremacy, and deny thepope'sjurisdiction inEngland. Mass was abolished, and theReal Presence; the form ofordination was so altered to suit the new views on thepriesthood that it became ineffective, and the succession ofpriests failed as well as the succession ofbishops. (SeeANGLICAN ORDERS.) Is it possible to imagine that the framers of such vital alternations thought of "continuing" the existing Church? When the hierarchical framework is destroyed, when thedoctrinal foundation is removed, when every stone of the edifice is freely rearranged to suit individual tastes, then there is no continuity, but collapse. The oldfaçade of Battle Abbey still stands, also parts of the outer wall, and one faces a stately, newish, comfortable mansion; green lawns and shrubs hide old foundations of church andcloisters; themonks' scriptorium and storerooms still stand to sadden the visitor's mood. Of the abbey of 1538, the abbey of 1906 only keeps the mask, the diminishedsculptures and the stones--a fitting image of the old Church and the new.

Present stage

Dr. James Gairdner, whose "History of the English Church in the 16th Century" lays bare the essentiallyProtestant spirit of theEnglishReformation, in a letter on "Continuity" (reproduced in the Tablet, 20 January, 1906), shifts the controversy from historical todoctrinal ground. "If the country," he says, "still contained a community ofChristians--that is to say, of real believers in the great gospel ofsalvation, men who still accepted the old creeds, and had nodoubtChrist died to save them--then theChurch of England remained the same as before. The old system was preserved, in fact all that was really essential to it, and as regardsdoctrine nothing was taken away except somedoubtful scholastic propositions."

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT