April 12, 2008
Protestants, contra their Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox counterparts, disassociate themselves, for the most part, from the concept of Apostolic Succession. This movement away from this concept was re-initiated most succinctly, and with shaping force, by the “Reformers.” Anglican, Paul Avis provides a good synopsis of how the Reformers distanced themselves from this defining ecclesial feature of Roman Catholics:
The concept of the Church which was fundamental to the thought of the Reformers (including of course the Anglicans)—namely, that only the gospel was of the esse—had profound implications for the doctrine of succession and with it the key concept of catholicity, one of the four creedal attributes of the church. Here a radical reinterpretation was effected. . . . By making the gospel alone the power at work in the Church through the Holy Spirit, the Reformers did away with the necessity of a doctrine of apostolic succession, replacing it with the notion of a succession of truth. Correspondingly, the gospel of truth was held to be sufficient to secure the catholicity of the Church. The Reformers believed with all of Christendom that the Church was one, holy, catholic and apostolic, but this was understood in a radically new sense in which the gospel itself became the decisive and dominant criterion. (Paul Avis, “The Church in the Theology of the Reformers,” 127-28 )
Of course the “Gospel of Truth” was assumed to be clearly comprehended by interacting with the “Apostolic Witness,” deposited for the Church, in the writings of the New Testament (and Old Testament). It was these writings that the Reformers believed “clearly” (the a priori commitment of the “Reformers” was in the Perspicuity of the Scriptures) bore witness to The Gospel, The Person, The Head of the Church—Jesus Christ.
How does this differ from the Roman conception of “Apostolic Succession?” It differs in the sense that it sees the Gospel, itself, better, “Himself,” as The esse, constitutively, of the concrete shaping of the Church. In other words, the very trinitarian life of God, as disclosed in the person of Jesus Christ becomes the cornerstone for “who” the Church “catholic” (universal) is. The “Church” is the Church by an immediate union with Christ, instantiated by the wooing work of the Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of the Holy Scriptures, made known through the proclamation of the Church. So in this sense, the concrete shape of the Church is not isolated to an “office of succession,” intrinsically tied to the Roman expression of the Church; instead the concrete shape of the Church is essentially rooted within the person of Jesus Christ as “actualised” in the incarnation, and realized behind the Church who proclaims His life shaping message. In this accounting, then, the Church is not necessarily tied to a particular “church,” but the Church becomes the Church, apart from any “organizational structure,” through her reception of the Gospel, as determined by the purposes of God of God.
April 12, 2008 at 12:12 pm
To invoke an interesting analogy you made in the context of your discussion of dispensationalism, I wonder if you are falling into a sort of ecclesiological Monophysitism here. Is it possible that there is a real Chalcedonian distinction-in-unity when we think about the visible Church (signified by the laying on of hands, connecting the bishops and their flocks to the apostles themselves) and the “invisible Church” (Christ’s mystical body and all who inhere to Him through the Holy Spirit).
Just a thought.
By the way, I tried to post on the last discussion about apostolic succession (where I had some nice quotations from the Catechism to clarify a few things) and wasn’t able to… I’ve never been crazy like irishanglican or whatever his name was.
April 12, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Matt,
If you provide to many links in the body of your comment it will go to spam. I did approve the comment you made on the primacy of the pope, but I didn’t see any comment in the spam with any quotations. I’m not sure why your comment on the primacy of the pope went to spam.
Let me try an figure out what happened.
As far as Monophysitism, I do believe in a visible manifestation of the church, just that “the keys” are the Gospel, and “all” those who are union with the Gospel (Jesus) through His humanity into His divinity (and thus the divine, perichoretic life) . . . have been given the “keys” of the kingdom (and are “Priests unto God Rom 15:16) through the Priesthood of Christ (Priesthood of all Believers I Pet 2:9). So I do hold to a Chalcedonian Ecclesiology of sorts, to use the “analogy.”
Yeah, the irishanglican is the only person I have ever blacklisted here—I don’t do that lightly, but his spamming and attitude just have no place here. Actually I don’t mind attitude, but at least back it up . . . which you usually do a good job of
. Anyway, I just don’t have time to respond to ad hominen, or the desire.
April 12, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Matt,
I have it set for 5 links. If you provide more than 5 links it will go to spam, but I didn’t see your comment on the Catechism in the spam . . . so I’m not sure what happened?
April 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Do you think that the RCC believes bishops to actually be “new apostles”?
I’m just trying to figure out what you mean by “believing in a visible Church” when you limit (or expand) it to the Gospel (Jesus) and all believers… It doesn’t seems that there’s really any visibility there. Obviously, the Church exists and is “on earth” and is a beautiful thing (because centered around Christ), but it is certainly difficult (impossible?) to answer the question: “where is it?”…as you put it in your title here.
I guess what I’m saying is that your visible church (if really visible at all) is a bit diffuse and rather “invisible,” it seems to me. I would imagine that answering this question would demand spelling out a rather comprehensive ecclesiology, which might not be fitting for this context. But maybe a few references, tips, suggestions would help me out a bit.
Also, it might be worth noting (again) that, as a Catholic, I believe the Church is the body of Christ, Christ is the cornerstone, etc., of the Church. You seemed to be claiming that as a Protestant distinctive. As with so many things, my view of the episcopacy and Christ as constitutive of the Church is “both-and”, while the Protestant answer (or at least your particular answer as a Protestant) is “either-or.” I hope that is not cute or offensive or anything…it is just an interesting pattern in these discussions.
April 12, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“Furthermore, there is a whole complex related to the issue of assigning the label “Apostle” to anyone, post first century (i.e. those who actually saw the Resurrected Jesus).”
I just notice that you responded to my point (and that it was posted in the first place) and since it is relevant here, I thought I’d put a quotation or two from the Catechism to qualify this claim.
860 In the office of the apostles there is one aspect that cannot be transmitted: to be the chosen witnesses of the Lord’s Resurrection and so the foundation stones of the Church. But their office also has a permanent aspect. Christ promised to remain with them always. The divine mission entrusted by Jesus to them “will continue to the end of time, since the Gospel they handed on is the lasting source of all life for the Church. Therefore, . . . the apostles took care to appoint successors.”373
The bishops are able to do some of the things particular to the apostolic office, but they are not the office insofar as the apostles (”The Twelve”
were specially chosen as “founders” of the Church (as a layer upon Christ–the “chief cornerstone” 
and were special witnesses to the Resurrection, etc. So they are not apostles in the full sense of the word; they are the successors of the apostles and share in many (though not all) of the specially apostolic functions.
It would be worth checking out the passages surrounding 860. Interesting stuff. Basically, the bishops, inter alia, signify and sort of concretize the Church’s apostolicity. Quite lovely, at least to me.
April 15, 2008 at 5:13 am
This is a vital topic. There are so many red flags with the Roman Catholic position. Thanks.
April 17, 2008 at 3:36 am
But wasnt the entire “apostolic succession” thing a joke?
More often than not, and probably every time, the person that became Pope had the numbers and support of the faction or factions then in power.
Just as it still is now.
Saintliness of lived demonstration(s) of Holiness or the Truth of the Gospel(s) had nothing to do with it.
And besides which some of the Popes were essentially psycho-paths, the very worst of human beings.
April 17, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Matt,
I’m not sure how my view implies an “invisible church,” unless of course I am the invisible man ;-). I’m simply saying that where Christ is “professed” there is the Church . . . it is at base, people, and not an address—I first learned this concept when I was about 7, in Sunday School
, i.e. that the “Church and its concrete realization, is relational, and people defined. And I’m not saying that you don’t think this, I’m just saying that I don’t see the Apostolic office as The concrete manifestation of the Church, but apart of it . . . and, of course I don’t limit this to Rome.
I’ll have to read up on those quotes you have provided further.
Steve,
I tend to agree, esp. in regards to the claim that Rome is THE concrete visible manifestation of the Church.
Sue,
some Popes were I guess, “off,” so to speak; but then again I can think of many Protestant Pastors who fit your “colorful” language just as readily. Instead of making ad hominen remarks, please be more substantial (if you’re going to say someone is a psycho path, back it up!—or refrain from making these assertions, at least here)