....Protestants have reacted strongly against the doctrine of apostolic succession. They have done so in a number of ways, historical and theological. One of these ways is by affirming the apostolicity of the church. Apostolicity may be defined as receiving and obeying apostolic doctrine as it is set forth in the New Testament. In matters of doctrine and life, Protestants permit no ultimate appeal to traditions that are distinct from canonical Scripture...Absolutely no provision is made for an authoritative, unwritten tradition. In fact, it is to the touchstone of Scripture that all traditions, including those of Roman Catholicism, must be brought. Protestants have correctly observed that it is the appeal to Tradition that has made possible many doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism that have no basis in Scripture. These include (to name only a handful) the papacy, papal infallibility, purgatory, the mass, the immaculate conception, and the assumption of Mary. Even if it were historically provable that there was an unbroken succession of bishops from the first century to the present day Roman Catholic bishops (and it is not), Protestants would still demur to claims of Roman authority based upon apostolic succession. It is the apostolicity of the church that counts. And it is precisely by the standard of apostolicity that the Roman Catholic Church is measured and found wanting....
....While the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and historic Protestantism are many, let me focus on the one difference that must always be kept in mind, namely, the issue of authority. In every debate between Roman Catholics and historic Protestants, whether it be over the nature of the papacy, the place of tradition, justification, the role of Mary, the sacraments, or any other disputed matter, the question of authority will always surface. By what standard are matters of religious controversy judged? Historic Protestants will appeal to the Bible as the final authority in all matters of Christian faith and practice. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, appeal to Scripture and Tradition as authoritatively interpreted by the papacy and its courts....
....As long as Protestants and Catholics appeal to two different authorities, an unbridgeable gulf separates them...The source of the irreconcilable differences between the Roman Catholic Church and historic Protestantism rests here. Reconciliation between historic Protestants and Roman Catholics would require either that Catholics abandon the papacy and its traditions, or that Protestants surrender their bedrock conviction that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The issue of authority leaves no room for compromise.
From the bottom of the webpage:
"Questions and Answers" is a weekly feature of the OPC website. At least one new question is posted each week, so there should always be something new here for you to read. (For those who would like to look at previous questions and answers, they will continue to be available as well.)The questions come from individuals like yourself. If you have questions about biblical and theological matters, you are invited to send them by e-mail by using the "Pose a Question" link on the OPC home page or by clicking here.
The purpose of the OPC website's "Questions and Answers" is to respond to biblical and theological questions. Matters of church discipline, disputes, or debates go beyond the scope of our work. We recommend that you present your concerns in these areas to the appropriate judicatory. In most cases this will be to a local pastor, elder, or session. We do not want the website to replace personal involvement in, or commitment to, the local, visible church.
While we will respond to every serious questioner, we are not bound to give a substantive answer to every question, should we deem the question to be beyond the scope of our purpose or our own ability to answer.
You will receive an answer by email. Please be patient as many of our respondents are busy pastors. The response to your question may take up to two weeks. Some of the questions submitted will be chosen to be posted here, along with the corresponding answers.
The answers come from individual ministers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church expressing their own convictions and do not necessarily represent an "official" position of the Church, especially in areas where the Standards of the Church (the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms) are silent.
“Even if it were historically provable that there was an unbroken succession of bishops from the first century to the present day Roman Catholic bishops (and it is not), Protestants would still demur to claims of Roman authority based upon apostolic succession. It is the apostolicity of the church that counts. And it is precisely by the standard of apostolicity that the Roman Catholic Church is measured and found wanting.”
Where does your definition of ‘apostolicity’ first appear?
Very interesting article expressing a profound doctrinal position. I accept what the article states as the Protestant position on the issue.
But they'll accept scripture as canonical based on ... what authority? The authority of the Church. The authority of the Apostles.
The same tradition or traditions - in fact - that they pretend not to appeal to.
Why do Protestants not recognize - for instance - the Gnostic gospels? The Church at the time of the founding fathers recognized the true Gospels as being true - and the Gnostic Gospels as being false. If Protestants reject that 'tradition' then upon what basis do they reject the Gnostic gospels? It's all 'scripture' after all?
For those who haven't investigated them - the stuff in some of those Gnostic gospels is pretty whacked out.
Protestants must either accept that the Church indeed has authority to declare what is canonical and what is not - or they must admit that they have no consistent basis for ruling out those weird 'Gospels' that depict Christ baking his friends in an oven, turning bread into birds or being suspended over Jerusalem by his hair.
This is a well written article, and clearly states a particular point of view.
However, as has been written greatly on this forum previously, the practice of relying solely on Scripture is found wanting, as the canon of Scripture can’t reference itself.
The cannon of Scripture was defined by the Roman Catholic Church, there is no dispute in that. It can’t reference itself, as only individual books existed (except the Pentatuch). There was no defined cannon to reference, prior to the 400s.
While I appreciate learning different points of view, it is worth noting that without Apostolic Succession, there is a lack of authentic Authority with which to settle disputes.
Recall the first major dispute was settled by Peter, in Rome, and not by the canon of Scripture.
Just my $.02
The Apostles and the Priesthood ~ Part 3 [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
The Apostles and the Priesthood ~ Part 2 [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
The Apostles and the Priesthood ~ Part I [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. Thomas [Catholic Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. Simon [Catholic Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. Matthew [Catholic Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. James [Catholic Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. John [Catholic Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. Andrew [Catholic Caucus]
The Twelve Apostles of the Catholic Church: St. Peter [Catholic Caucus]
Yes, I know some will quote a verse or two they say supports the idea but those quoted verses have nothing to do with any imagined “succession”.