Catholicism - Apostolic Succession Is Not Scriptural

Catholicism is built on the premise of a doctrine called Apostolic Succession. It is one they claim is Biblical. This article is an example of their claims. Here is another. And finally, a very common claim is that Peter was the first Pope (also called the Primacy of Peter). When @Catholiccom was challenged on this idea of Apostolic Succession on Twitter, their response was to search their own website and give many articles defending their belief, most of which were extra-Biblical. Rather than attempt to answer each of these articles individually, I will address the prooftexts used within them and then generally deal with the non-Biblical "evidence" they present in a separate article.
== I. Implication vs Assumption ==
There is a vast difference between what the Bible implies and what Catholicism assumes is being taught. What the Bible implies is easy to infer necessarily. One of the things the Catholic leadership is very good at is taking a statement made in scripture and running with it as a prooftext for their claims. An example of this is found in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. 
1 Corinthians 11:2 - Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
The Catholics will try to use these passages to say that their tradition should be kept making the assumption that their tradition is equal to the tradition that Paul is talking about here. It is not. Take a look at 1 Cor 11:1. "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." Paul was given specific teachings by Jesus the same as the other Apostles were. The Apostles were taught by Jesus during His earthly ministry and they were given the Holy Spirit to bring all these things to their rememberance (Jn 14:26). The Apostles were given "all things that pertain to life and godliness" in their lifetime (2 Pet 1:3) and The Faith was once and for all delivered to the saints in the first century (Jude 3). Therefore, any 'traditions' not found in scripture are not the teachings of Christ or the Apostles. They are, by definition, additions and explicitly condemned in both the Old Testament (Deut 4:2) and the New Testament (Gal 1:6-8; Rev 22:18-19). In fact, we are explicitly told not to think of men - stewards of the mysteries of God, i.e. the revealed word - above what is written (1 Cor. 4:1-6).
These two passages used as prooftexts do not say what the Catholics assume and assert. They are passages speaking directly about the things taught in the first century by the men who received direct instruction from Christ. Men who not only had miracles that showed everyone they spoke with God's authority as witnesses of Jesus Christ, but could pass on that ability to others by the laying on of their hands (Acts 8:12-17; Acts 19:1-6). No man has that ability after the Apostles died out, the last of whom was John. Anyone who claims to be an apostle and was not a direct witness to Christ, who cannot pass on the Holy Spirit and miraculous gifts to others, is a false apostle and a liar (Rev 2:2).
== II. What About Matthias? ==
Acts 1:20-26 - For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.The Catholics will invariably go to this passage to attempt to establish the idea of succession. Yet this passage is not about succession. It is about replacement. Psalm 69:25 and 109:8 are a bout a singular man as Peter quotes it here in verse 20. The replacing of Judas with Matthias was a one time thing to fulfill prophecy. There is no indication of setting up a perpetual succession here. We know this because very specific qualifications were given for this office of Apostle in verses 21-22. No man alive after the first century fits that qualification of direct witness, which is what the Apostles were. That is the core feature to their office. As John 14-17 shows, these men were given the office to establish the church, a task they completed with the writing of the last inspired book of the New Testament by the end of the first century. The office of Apostle is no longer in existence, nor can it be.
== III. What About Paul? ==
Again, when we bring up the objections in part II about the qualifications of an Apostle, the Catholics will invariably bring up Paul who was not "with them" from the baptism of John until the ascension. Again, the Catholics will attempt to take an exception and go far, far beyond what the scriptures convey to find their justification for a clergy-laity system not found in scripture. Paul was definitely an Apostle. He was selected by Christ Himself on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). He was taught for 3.5 years in Arabia by Christ personally (Gal. 1:15-18). He could lay hands on people and pass on the Holy Spirit and miraculous gifts (Acts 19:1-6). But most importantly to our purpose here, Paul was an exception, one born out of due season (1 Cor. 15:1-9). Look at what Paul says in this passage about the apostles.Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.Paul speaks of the gospel of Christ, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Then he speaks of witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. Peter, then the twelve. This is the original apostles, the twelve from Acts 1:26. In fact it was so well known that there were only twelve apostles they were often called simply "the twelve". In any lists after the church was founded and the NT being written, the twelve are listed by name (excluding Paul). E.g Matt 10:2; Lk 6:13; 8:1; 9:1; 22:14; Ac 6:2. It is evident that there were twelve Apostles only and that Paul was an exception added later by Jesus Himself for a specific reason.
Note that the five hundred are not called apostles, just brethren, so that's not part of the question here. Paul then speaks of Jesus being "seen of James; then of all the apostles" implying that James was on of the apostles here, one of the "twelve". Then what does Paul say of himself? Jesus was seen of Paul last, as one born out of due time, Paul is an exception. Born out of due time means that Jesus personally selected Paul out of the regular time when all the others were selected. This makes the selection of the apostles limited to the first century alone. Then Paul refers to himself as "least" of the apostles, a view he has of himself because he persecuted the church, but in terms of authority he is not behind any of them (2 Cor. 11:5).
For the Catholics to claim Apostolic Succession, the exception must become the rule and the clergy must all have been born out of due time like Paul. The exception becomes the rule for them, which is not logical.
== IV. Apostle vs Bishop/Elder/Shepherd ==
The word Apostle means "one sent". The twelve and Paul were specifically hand selected by Jesus during the first century and sent out into the world (John 17) to establish the church. The word can also be used generically of those sent out by some other entity such as a congregation. An example of this generic use is when Barnabas and Paul are sent out as missionaries from the church at Antioch (Acts 13-14:14), or Titus as a messenger (apostolos) of the churches (2 Cor 8:23), or Epaphroditus who was sent out by the church at Philippi (Phil 2:25). Note the difference though. The Apostles (the 12 and Paul) were called the Apostles of Jesus Christ. They were sent directly by Him. These others were messengers or sent out by specific congregations. They are not the same thing. Just as English words may have different meanings in different contexts, so does the Greek.
One of the other things the Catholics will attempt to do is conflate the idea of the office of bishop (episkopos) and apostle and then just run all the verses about those two offices together. The reality is, they are two different offices. In Acts 20:17 we read of Paul calling to the leaders of the church at Ephesus. He called them presbuteros (elders/presbyters). As he continues his conversation with these men, he then refers to them as episkopos (bishops/overseers) in verse 28 and speaks to them in terms of a poimen (shepherds/pastors). Peter referred to leaders of the various churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1) by these three same terms (presbuteros, episkopos, poimen) in 1 Peter 5:1-4 even going as far as calling Jesus the chief Shepherd (not some imaginary Pope which hadn't been invented yet). It is evident that these three words all referred to the same office, the plurality of men who led individual congregations. These men even had specific qualifications given in 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. Note that one of these qualifications is that they must be the husband of one wife (NOT celibate) and must have their own children in subjection, which you can't have if you never get married!
There is no evidence whatsoever that these two offices: Apostle and Bishop/Elder/Shepherd are equal. It is the case that some Apostles also served in the office of elder over the church at Jerusalem. Peter and James both are said to have served in this capacity.
== V. What About Peter, the Rock, and the Church at Rome? ==
The biggest prooftext, of course, that Catholics like to use is what Jesus said recorded by Matthew in Matthew 16:18. Let's go to verses 13-19 for context:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.Jesus was traveling with the twelve and asks them who does everyone else say that I am? They answered that some thought He was his cousin John, or Elisha, or Jeremiah or one of the prophets come again. Jesus accepts that answer but then asks, who do you say that I am? Simon son of Jonah answers that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus then responds by renaming Simon "Peter" (petros), which in the Greek - the language they all spoke and which the book of Matthew was originally written in - means pebble. Then, in a play on words, Jesus says that upon this foundational stone (petra) He would build His church. That foundational stone is the truth of what Simon Pebble had just stated, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It was His own Sonship, the fact that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, Jesus Himself that would be the chief cornerstone of the church. This is not just an alternate interpretation of a difficult passage. This is stated throughout the rest of the New Testament.
Romans 9:33 - As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (Isaiah 28:16)
1 Corinthians 10:4 - And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Ephesians 2:20 - And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
1 Peter 2:6-8 - Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Jesus is the petra, the foundation stone, the chief cornerstone, not Pebble.
=== Cephas ===
Some Catholics, in attempt to salvage their primary prooftext, will turn to the Aramaic and the use of Kephas (Cephas) in a number of places in the New Testament to refer to Peter. The word Kephas simply means "a stone" according to John 1:42. Their argument goes that since Kephas just means stone and in the Aramaic would be used for any kind of stone including both pebble and foundational stone, that this can mean that Simon, not Christ, is the stone one which the church is built. However, this argument is invalidated for two reasons. 1) Kephas isn't used in the prooftext of Matthew 16. It's petros and petra. 2) even in John 1:42 when John gives the translation, he does so in Greek using petros, not petra, thus forever cementing the translation contextually as pebble.
=== Keys to the Kingdom ===
Another, secondary argument that the Catholics will use from the prooftext is from verse 19.And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.They argue that because Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, this makes him the Pope and that implies the establishment of the office of Pope. However, not only does this shove a whole lot of assumption into the text that isn't implied there, it can be shown that Peter only had the keys temporarily. The idea of the keys of the kingdom comes originally from Isaiah 22 where Shebna is the steward, but did a poor job. Eliakim is then given the keys and verse 22 says:
=== And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. ===
So the Catholics will say Eliakim was a type pointing to Peter as the steward of the king. However, the scriptures themselves tell us who Isa 22:22 is referring to. Revelation 3:7 - And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;Looking at the surrounding context starting from chapter 1 all the way through 3, 'He that hath' is Christ, not Peter. This verse is a direct quote of Isaiah 22:22 and refers to Christ, not Peter. So their objection is rendered invalid by the scriptures. It is the case that Jesus loaned to Peter the keys that were Jesus' to have as a reward for Peter's declaration. What this meant was that Peter got to open the gates, so to speak, to both the Jews (Acts 2) and the gentiles (Acts 10-11), by preaching the first sermon. Furthermore, all of the Apostles were given the power to bind on Earth what had already been bound in Heaven and loose on Earth what had already been loosed in Heaven. This references the binding of the law of Christ which they were taught by Jesus and reminded of/guided to remember by the Holy Spirit (see John 14-17) and the loosing of the law of Moses which was no longer in authority over the Jews (and never was over the Gentiles). By the time we get to the writing of Revelation (around the mid 60's AD), Peter has already died and Jesus has His keys back.
There is no reason from scripture to assume that these keys went to anyone else for any other reason. There is no reason from scripture to conclude a perpetual office called Pope that is the head of the church and we don't see anything remotely like that in scripture. Paul said he was not one whit behind any other apostle (2 Cor 11:5; 12:11). Arguing that Peter had some kind of primacy over the other apostles is defeated by Paul's statement.
=== Peter in Rome ===
The last issue to deal with the special claim of Peter as Pope is that the Catholics claim Peter was in Rome acting as the head of the whole church from there. There is no indication from scripture that Peter ever went to Rome. Not one. However, we do have in Galatians 2:7 Paul saying the following:But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;The context here is not that Peter was the only apostle to the Jews (circumcision) but the specific contrast between Paul and Peter. Paul is talking about what the Holy Spirit had tasked him with, which was mainly the Gentiles (uncircumcision) which is where he was most effective. Being contrasted with Peter here shows that Peter worked effectively among the Jews (see vs 8). Rome was a gentile congregation and we know Paul was there several times, eventually imprisoned there and ministered to by the congregation there, and Luke records just short of him dying there. Peter was an apostle, but he was also the elder of the congregation at Jerusalem along with several other Apostles like James (Acts 15; 2 Pet 5).
== Conclusion ==
Catholicism is built on the premise of a doctrine called Apostolic Succession. It is one they claim is Biblical.
I have shown from every prooftext, that this claim is false. Now, it may be that there are other arguments they attempt to make from scripture that I don't remember or have not heard yet. As I encounter them, I will come back and add them to this document.
Understand that the Bible is the only common ground of authority we share. Attempts to claim authority based on any other source automatically are invalid because they hold no authority from God. We see in scripture how quickly error could enter into congregations. Much of the NT is written to correct error for this very reason. Thus, the only acceptable argument is one from the scriptures themselves. Without that, there is no validity at all to the monolithic clergy-laity system that the Catholic denomination uses.
I did not write this article out of hatred for Catholics, even for their leadership. Correction is done in love to rescue people from a path of destruction. That is the intent of this article. I hate no person. However, there are many doctrines and practices that I despise. Apostolic Succession is one of those doctrines-practices because it is responsible for leading the Catholic adherents down a horrible pathway of sin and destruction for not only themselves, but everyone the organization interacts with.
My plea is that they would get back to the Word of God, study it only and reason from it only in terms of authoritative sources, and repent of the erroneous, oft times violent and corrupt, system based on the false doctrine of Apostolic Succession.
In Truth and Love.
Category:Denominationalism
Category:Catholicism