Presbyterion III

Apostolic Succession

Chris Schlect

he line of the Nicene Creed which reads, "And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic church" is of great importance to those of the Orthodox faith. Surely, to affirm this proposition is to affirm a biblical view of the true Christian church: it is universal, and it is grounded historically and doctrinally in the ministry of the apostles. Yet Orthodox theologians press the apostolicity of the church much further than this. Anthony Coniaris claims, "In order to be genuine, the Church must have an unbroken historical connection with the early apostolic church that was founded by Jesus."[1]This unbroken "living, historical connection with the apostles" is maintained "through the ordination of its clergy."[2] In other words, a church is a true church only if it can trace its institutional succession of clergy back to the apostles in an unbroken line. This is an important element of the Orthodox view of apostolic succession.

One of the acclaimed popular statements of the Orthodox view of apostolic succession is a booklet by that title by Gregory Rogers[3]. Rogers tells of two key elements in the Orthodox view of apostolic succession. The first is the idea of unbroken succession discussed above. He states that the New Testament records that Christ ordained the apostles, who in turn ordained bishops and elders; and from extrabiblical history we know that these bishops ordained their successors, and so on. Rogers argues that this pattern is normative today because it has been followed since the church's beginning. The second, and the more important element in Rogers' view, is that legitimate succession takes place only within the true apostolic communion, which is of course the Orthodox Church. For example, if a legitimately ordained bishop falls into heresy, becomes schismatic, and then ordains someone without the approval of the Orthodox Church, such ordination is illegitimate. Given these two elements we may now more completely define the Orthodox doctrine of apostolic succession: it is the unbroken, successive ordination of clergy within the communion of the Orthodox Church.

This Orthodox view differs from the Roman Catholic view in one important respect. The Roman church teaches that apostolic succession refers primarily to an unbroken line of popes since the apostle Peter, who supposedly was the first pope. But the Orthodox church denies the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. It claims that a number of patriarchs, rather than a single pontiff, hold the highest offices of the church. Moreover, there is no Orthodox claim of its patriarchs that is analogous to Rome's doctrine of papal infallibility. Thus the Orthodox claims are less haughty, and a bit more defensible, than Rome's. The Orthodox claim to unbroken succession evades the easy criticism to which Rome falls: that breaks are easily found in the history of the papacy. (For example, Pope Honorious was declared a heretic by the Council of Constantinople, and there was great confusion when two, and later, three rival popes held claims to papal dignity during the Great Schism of 1378-1417. These historical e mbarrassments undermine Rome's claim to unbroken papal succession.)

Examination of the Orthodox case for apostolic succession reveals that it begs-the-question. They defend their view of apostolic succession on the basis of their tradition, and they defend their tradition on the ground that it has been handed down from the apostles through unbroken succession. A protestant who disputes any doctrine or practice of Orthodoxy, be it apostolic succession, icons, the procession of the Holy Spirit, or whatever, will probably soon become frustrated. The protestant will likely appeal to Scripture, but the Orthodox understands Scripture to be the inspired writings from an early point within the continuing tradition of his church. Orthodox faithful will receive appeals to Scripture only as they are seen through the eyes of their tradition.

What the Orthodox need to realize is that their appeal to tradition is arbitrary. Rome marshalls a strong tradition as well; the weightiest Orthodox objection to this is the claim that Rome's appeal is not to the Orthodox tradition, but to a schismatic tradition. The papist would answer that it is the Orthodox church that is schismatic. Now imagine that the Eastern monophysites enter the fray, each appealing to their respective traditions in claiming that the others are schismatic. The four disputants, the Orthodox, the papist, the Arian and the Sabellian, would each discredit the legitimacy of their rivals' traditions. Because each recognizes a different court of appeals, the only way to settle the matter is by resorting to blows.

The historically obvious fact is that the early church fathers and the councils have contradicted one another. This has resulted in different traditions, and usually in contradictions within traditions. Remember that when the Bereans encountered a teaching which was touted as apostoliceven that of Paul and Silasthey accepted it only when they saw its truth in the text of Scripture, and so they are commended as an example for us (Acts 17:11).

Many heresies can be successively traced back to the apostolic era, but this does not make them any less heretical. Schismatics in Corinth included professing followers of Paul and of Christ; theirs was an apostolic succession (1 Cor. 1:12). The Judaizers who led astray many believers in Antioch were followers of the apostle James; theirs was also an apostolic succession (Gal. 2:12). Now could it be that the current Orthodox patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV, is among a party that has been led astray? Such things have happened before in the church of Antioch. The only way we will know for sure is if we search the Scriptures, and not a tradition that allegedly proceeds in succession from the apostles.