.jpg)
.jpg)
Apostolic succession (, ) is a doctrine, held by some Christian denominations, which asserts that the chosen successors (properly ordained bishops) of the Twelve Apostles, from the first century to the present day, have inherited the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon them by the Apostles, who in turn received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, and Lutheran churches are the predominant proponents of this doctrine. To them, present-day bishops, as the successors of previous bishops, going back to the early days of Christianity, have spiritual and ecclesiastical power by this unbroken chain of ordinations stemming from the Apostles. This link with the Apostles guarantees for them their authority in matters of faith, morals, and the valid administration of sacraments. This is reaffirmed every Sunday in the reciting of the Nicene Creed by priests and congregants, with the words, "We believe in one holy and catholic and apostolic Church.." (Catholic is capitalized in the Roman version.). The Catholic Church doubly believes that a bishop's authority on matters of faith and morals is infallible when what he teaches is universally taught by all the college of bishops in communion with the Pope, who in turn is seen as the successor of St. Peter the Apostle and the Vicar of Christ on Earth.
Essential to maintaining the apostolic succession is the proper consecration of bishops. Apostolic succession is to be distinguished from the Petrine supremacy (see Papacy and Coptic Pope). Protestants (other than Anglicans) consider the authority given to the apostles as unique, proper to them alone. They reject any doctrine of a succession of their power. The Protestant view of ecclesiastical authority differs accordingly.
Within the sacramental theology of these churches, only bishops and presbyters (priests) ordained by bishops in the apostolic succession can validly celebrate or "confect" several of the other sacraments, including the Eucharist, reconciliation of penitents, confirmation and anointing of the sick. To those who claim it, apostolic succession is an important dividing line: the lack of it is the primary basis on which Protestant communities are not considered churches by the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church.
While the Anglican claim of apostolic succession is recognized by some Eastern Orthodox churches, it is not officially recognized by the Catholic Church, based on Pope Leo XIII's papal bull Apostolicae Curae. However, since the promulgation of Apostolicae Curae, Anglican bishops have acquired Old Catholic lines of apostolic succession recognized by Rome.
While many of the more ancient Churches within the historical episcopate state that Holy Orders are valid only through apostolic succession, most of the various Protestant denominations would deny the need of maintaining episcopal continuity with the early Church. Such Protestants generally hold that one important qualification of the Apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this understanding, the work of the twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures of the Bible. To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is to them the only meaningful "continuity" with what such Protestants hold the early Christians to have believed, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth (an extension of the new Reformation-era doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura). The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is a "faithful succession" of apostolic teaching. There is, of course, much disagreement among various Protestant denominations about the exact content of apostolic teaching, ranging from fundamental doctrinal disagreements to lesser side-issues.
It is worth noting, however, that the First Epistle of Clement which is commonly dated to the 1st century and claims to be written by the Roman Church (the chair of St. Peter and the center of the unity of the Church, according to Catholic doctrine) which was established by the Apostles, presents a belief in apostolic succession, as does also the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, who was a personal disciple of the Apostles John and Paul. Also worth noting is the fact that others besides the twelve Apostles and Saint Paul are called "Apostles" in the New Testament. Also noteworthy is that the Apostle Paul, though given spiritual authority directly by Christ, did not embark on his apostleship without conferring with those who were apostles before him as he notes in his Epistle to the Galatians. By contrast, some Protestant groups such as the charismatic and the British New Church Movement include "apostles" among the offices that should be evident into modern times in "a true church", though they never trace a historical line of succession or attempt to confer, like Paul, with those who were "apostles" before them. The founders or senior leaders of a church grouping may be referred to as the apostles, and they may have been ordained by self-ordination, or appointed by a congregation. "Church planting" is seen as a key role of these present-day apostles.
Those who hold to the importance of episcopal apostolic succession would counter the above by appealing to the New Testament, which, they say, implies a personal apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, for example) and which states that Jesus gave the Apostles a "blank check" to lead the Church as they saw fit under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They appeal as well to other documents of the early Church, especially the Epistle of St. Clement to the Church at Corinth, written around 96 AD. In it, Clement defends the authority and prerogatives of a group of "elders" or "bishops" in the Corinthian Church which had, apparently, been deposed and replaced by the congregation on its own initiative. In this context, Clement explicitly states that the apostles appointed bishops as successors and had directed that these bishops should in turn appoint their own successors; given this, such leaders of the Church were not to be removed without cause and not in this way. Further, proponents of the necessity of the personal apostolic succession of bishops within the Church point to the universal practice of the undivided early Church (up to 431 AD), from which, as organizations, the Latin Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (at that point in time one Church until 1054, see Great Schism), as well as Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches have all directly descended.
At the same time, no defender of the personal apostolic succession of bishops would deny the importance of doctrinal continuity in the Church.
These churches hold that Christ entrusted the leadership of the community of believers, and the obligation to transmit and preserve the "deposit of faith" (the experience of Christ and his teachings contained in the doctrinal "tradition" handed down from the time of the apostles, the written portion of which is Scripture) to the apostles, and the apostles passed on this role by ordaining bishops after them.
Catholic and Orthodox theology additionally holds that the power and authority to confect the sacraments, or at least all the sacraments aside from baptism and matrimony (the first of which may be administered by anyone, the second of which is administered by the couple to each other) are passed on only through the sacrament of Holy Orders, and an unbroken line of ordination of bishops to the Apostles is necessary for the valid celebration of the sacraments today. Roman Catholics recognize the validity of the apostolic successions of the bishops, and therefore the rest of the clergy, of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic (Union of Utrecht only). Since 1896, Rome has not fully recognized all Anglican orders as valid. The Eastern Orthodox generally recognize Roman Catholic orders, but have a different concept of the apostolic succession as it exists outside of Eastern Orthodoxy. This is also the case with Anglicans or other groups having apostolic succession. The validity of a priest's ordination is decided by each autocephalic Orthodox church.[4] Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox churches recognizes the validity of the apostolic succession of the clergy of the Protestant denominations, in large measure because of their theology of the Eucharist and the abandonment of more traditional views of the sacraments and sacramentalism.
The early Nicene Creed of the Church, in the form given to it by the First Council of Constantinople, affirms that the Church is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic". Of these "four marks" of the true Church, the "apostolic" mark has historically been understood principally as a reference to apostolic succession. Even so, the practice of the ancient church has also been to designate churches as apostolic, even without a succession of bishops, simply for holding to the doctrines professed by the twelve apostles.
The literature on this traditional doctrine is substantial. Many inferences have been drawn from it. For example, the unbrokenness of apostolic succession is seen as significant because of the promise made by Jesus Christ that the "gates of hell" () would not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he would be with the apostles to "the end of the age". According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept. The same would be true if an intact apostolic succession should completely abandon the teachings of the apostles and their immediate successors. An abandonment hypothetical example might imagine all the bishops of the world agreeing to abrogate the Nicene Creed or to repudiate the Bible.
Some Eastern Christians hold that the Western papal Catholic Church lost all claim to apostolic succession by an illegitimate addition of the Filioque clause to the Nicene Creed incorporated by the Western church, which began with the teachings of Augustine. They see the rift as resulting in the loss of apostolic succession in the western churches. This is a minority view, however.
Papal primacy is different though related to apostolic succession as described here. The Catholic Church has traditionally claimed a unique leadership role for the Apostle Peter, believed to have been named by Jesus as head of the Apostles and as a focus of their unity, who became the first Bishop of Rome, and whose successors accordingly became the leaders of the worldwide Church as well. Even so, Catholicism acknowledges the papacy is built on apostolic succession, not the other way around. As such, apostolic succession is a foundational doctrine of authority in the Catholic Church.
These churches generally hold that Jesus Christ founded a community of believers and selected the apostles to serve, as a group, as the leadership of that community.
On June 29, 2007 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the prefecture of Cardinal William Levada, explained why apostolic succession is integral to, and indeed, "a constitutive element" of the Catholic Church.
Catholicism holds that Christ entrusted the Apostles with the leadership of the community of believers, and the obligation to transmit and preserve the "deposit of faith" (the experience of Christ and his teachings contained in the doctrinal "tradition" handed down from the time of the apostles and the written portion, which is Scripture). The apostles then passed on this office and authority by ordaining bishops to follow after them.
Roman Catholic theology holds that the apostolic succession effects the power and authority to administer the sacraments except for baptism and matrimony. (Baptism may be administered by anyone and matrimony by the couple to each other). Authority to so administer such sacraments is passed on only through the sacrament of Holy Orders, a rite by which a priest is ordained (ordination can be conferred only by a bishop). The bishop, of course, must be from an unbroken line of bishops stemming from the original apostles selected by Jesus Christ. Thus, apostolic succession is necessary for the valid celebration of the sacraments today.
In the early 18th century, Pope Benedict XIII, whose orders were descended from Scipione Rebiba, personally consecrated at least 139 bishops for various important European sees, including German, French, English and New World bishops. These bishops in turn consecrated bishops almost exclusively for their respective countries causing other episcopal lineages to die off.
Roman Catholics recognize the validity of the apostolic successions of the bishops, and therefore the rest of the clergy, of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and some Independent Catholic Churches. Rome does not fully recognize all Anglican orders as valid. This conflict stems over the Anglican Church's revision of its rite of ordination for its bishops during the 16th century. Most of today's Anglican bishops would trace their succession back through a bishop who was ordained with the revised form and thus would be viewed as invalid. However, all Anglican bishops in Europe today Of course, from a Catholic point of view, the bishops in communion with the Pope (the Church's Magisterium) have the final say in the matter, as they, not theologians, are the successors of the Apostles and have doctrinal authority.
Orthodox Christians view apostolic succession as an important, God-ordained mechanism by which the structure and teaching of the Church are perpetuated. While Eastern Orthodox sources often refer to the bishops as "successors of the apostles" under the influence of Scholastic theology, strict Orthodox ecclesiology and theology hold that all legitimate bishops are properly successors of Peter. This also means that presbyters (or "priests") are successors of the apostles. As a result, Orthodox theology makes a distinction between a geographical or historical succession and proper ontological or ecclesiological succession. Hence, the bishops of Rome and Antioch can be considered successors of Peter in a historical sense on account of Peter's presence in the early community. This does not imply that these bishops are more successors of Peter than all others in an ontological sense.
According to ancient canons still observed with the Orthodox communion, a bishop must be consecrated by at least three other bishops; so-called "single handed ordinations" do not exist. Moreover, bishops are never ordained "at large" but only for a specific Eucharist community, in due historical and sacramental succession.
In addition to a line of historic transmission, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches additionally require that a person who holds a high position in a hierarchy maintain Orthodox Church doctrine, which they hold to be that of the Apostles and communion with other Orthodox bishops.
The Armenian Apostolic Church, which is one of the Oriental Orthodox churches, recognizes Roman Catholic episcopal consecrations without qualification.
The Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark
The Russian Orthodox Church claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew
The Armenian Apostolic Church claims unbroken succession to the Thrones of Saint Bartholomew and Saint Jude Thaddeus
The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark
The Assyrian Church of the East claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Thomas
The Orthodox Church of Cyprus claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Barnabas
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Philip
The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem claims succession to the Throne of Saint James the Just, although this line includes Patriarchs in exile. (see Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem )
The Roman Papacy of the Catholic Church claims unbroken succession to the Chair of Saint Peter, who is called by them the "Prince of the Apostles".
When the Church of England declared independence from the Pope in the 16th century, the Church of England retained the episcopal polity and apostolic succession inherent in the Catholic Church. At first the Church of England continued to adhere to the doctrinal and liturgical norms of the Catholic Church. However, in the years following the split, the Church of England was increasingly influenced by the Protestant theology popular on the continent. English Reformers such as Richard Hooker rejected the Catholic position that Apostolic Succession is divinely commanded or necessary for true Christian ministry.
Succeeding judgments, however, have been more conflicting. The Eastern Orthodox churches require a totality of common teaching to recognize orders and in this broader view find ambiguities in Anglican teaching and practice problematic. Accordingly, in practice Anglican clergy who convert to Orthodoxy are treated as if they had not been ordained and must be ordained in the Eastern Orthodox communion as would a lay person.
A reply from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (1896) was issued to counter Pope Leo's arguments: Saepius Officio: Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Bull Apostolicae Curae of H. H. Leo XIII. It was argued in their reply that if the Anglican orders were invalid, then the Roman orders were as well:
For if the Pope shall by a new decree declare our Fathers of two hundred and fifty years ago wrongly ordained, there is nothing to hinder the inevitable sentence that by the same law all who have been similarly ordained have received no orders. And if our Fathers, who used in 1550 and 1552 forms which as he (the Pope) says are null, were altogether unable to reform them in 1662, (Roman) Fathers come under the self-same law. And if Hippolytus and Victor and Leo and Gelasius and Gregory have some of them said too little in their rites about the priesthood and the high priesthood, and nothing about the power of offering the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Church of Rome herself has an invalid priesthood...
However, Catholics argue, this argument does not consider the sacramental intention involved in validating Holy Orders. In other words, Catholics believe that the ordinands were reworded so as to invalidate the ordinations because the intention behind the word substitution was a fundamental change in Anglican understanding of the priesthood.
It is Roman Catholic doctrine that the teaching of Apostolicae Curae is a truth to be "held definitively", as evidenced by commentary by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, currently Pope Benedict XVI:
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations...
"While firmly restating the judgment of Apostolicae Curae that Anglican ordination is invalid, the Catholic Church takes account of the involvement, in some Anglican episcopal ordinations, of bishops of the Old Catholic Church of the Union of Utrecht who are validly ordained. In particular and probably rare cases the authorities in Rome may judge that there is a 'prudent doubt' concerning the invalidity of priestly ordination received by an individual Anglican minister ordained in this line of succession." This was a statement issued by Cardinal Basil Hume to explain the conditional character of his ordination of Dr Graham Leonard, former Anglican bishop of the Diocese of London, to the priesthood, but is not widely endorsed, and many would say that such a statement is misleading. Since the issuance of Apostolicae Curae many Anglican jurisdictions have revised their ordinals, bringing them more in line with ordinals of the early Church. The Nag's Head Fable discrediting Matthew Parker's ordination was dismissed as an invention long before the issuance of Apostolicae Curae.
According to Timothy Dufort, writing in The Tablet, by 1969 all Anglican bishops had acquired apostolic succession fully recognized by Rome, as since the 1930s Old Catholic bishops (whom Rome recognizes as valid) have acted as co-consecrators in the ordination of Anglican bishops. There is no official support for this view in the Roman Catholic Church.
There are also some Catholic theologians who argue that Anglican orders are invalid not because of the ordinands, but because of the declaration of Pope Leo of their nullity.
Lutheran Churches: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland, Church of Norway, Church of Sweden, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lithuania, Church of Denmark, observer: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia.
Of note is the fact that at least one of the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches in the Porvoo Communion of Churches, the Church of Denmark has bishops, but strictly speaking they were not in the historic apostolic succession prior to their entry into the Porvoo Communion, since their Episcopate and Holy Orders derived from Dr. Johannes Bugenhagen, who was a pastor, not a bishop. In 2010, the Church of Denmark joined the Porvoo Communion of Churches.
In recent years a number of Lutheran Churches at the most Catholic edge of the Evangelical Catholic High Church Lutheran spectrum in the United States of America have accepted the doctrine of apostolic succession and have successfully recovered it, generally from Independent Catholic Churches.
Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church, representing the earliest Lutherans in America, has autonomous and congregationally-oriented ministries and believes it consecrates deacons, priests and bishops in valid and historic apostolic succession. This must be done through the laying on of hands with word and sacrament during the celebration of Holy Communion. Only bishops may consecrate deacons, priests and other bishops into apostolic succession. The newly consecrated bishop's name is added to the apostolic lineage.
The Lutheran Orthodox Church traces its historic lineage of Apostolic Succession through established lines. In 2004 it had broken away from the above Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church. The two church bodies remain on amicable terms. The Lutheran Orthodox Church maintains its complete book of Apostolic Lineages in its archives, adding a new bishop's name following consecration.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, North America's largest Lutheran body, became united in the historic episcopate of the Episcopal Church in 2000, upon the signing of Called to Common Mission. By this document the full communion between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Episcopal Church was established. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is headed by a Presiding Bishop who is elected by the Churchwide Assembly for a six year term.
The Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church recovered the apostolic succession from Old Catholic and Independent Catholic Churches, adopted a strict episcopal polity, and all of its clergy have been ordained (or re-ordained) into the historic apostolic succession. This Church was formed in 1997, with its headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri.
Another North American Lutheran Church which has also has successfully recovered the historic Apostolic Succession is the International Lutheran Fellowship. Luther's reform movement, however, usually did not as a rule abrogate the ecclesiastic office of Bishop.
An important historical context to explicate the wide differences among German Lutheran Churches is the Prussian Union of 1817, whereby the secular government directed the Lutheran Churches in Prussia to merge with non-Lutheran Reformed Churches in Prussia. The Reformed Churches generally oppose on principle the traditional doctrine of ecclesiastic Apostolic Succession, e.g., not usually even recognizing the church office of Bishop. Later in the 19th century, other Lutheran and Reformed congregations merged to form united church bodies in some of the other 39 states of the German Confederation, e.g., in Anhalt, Baden, Bremen, Hesse and Nassau, Hesse-Kassel and Waldeck, and the Palatinate. Yet the partial nature of this list also serves to show that in Germany there remained many Lutherans who never did unite with the Reformed.
Other Lutheran Churches seem indifferent as a matter of understood doctrine regarding this particular issue of ecclesiastical governance. In America, the conservative Missouri Synod places its church authority in the congregation rather than in the bishop, though its founder, C.W.F. Walther, while establishing congregational polity for the Missouri Synod, did consider Polity (a Church's form of government) to be a matter of adiaphora (something indifferent.)
The Missouri Synod is, however, not in what it calls "Pulpit and Altar Fellowship" (full communion) with Churches which are not governed by Congregationalist polity. It has its own international communion structure, the International Lutheran Council, the member Churches of which are all of Congregationalist polity.
Beyond indifference, some conservative Lutherans are in principle outright against the traditional doctrine of Apostolic Succession, e.g., Confessional Lutheranism (see also subsection Confessional Lutheranism herein below). Other conservative Lutherans, however, may favor High Church Lutheranism which remains generally favorable to the traditional doctrine of Apostolic Succession (see above).
Despite this fact, most Methodists view apostolic succession outside its high church sense. This is because Rev. John Wesley believed that bishops and presbyters constituted one order, citing an ancient opinion from the Church of Alexandria. Since the Bishop of London refused to ordain ministers in the British American colonies, Rev. John Wesley, along with a priest from the Anglican Church and two other elders, operating under the ancient Alexandrian habitude, ordained Rev. Thomas Coke a superintendent, although Rt. Rev. Coke embraced the title bishop. Today, the Methodist Church follows this ancient Alexandrian practice as bishops are elected from and by the order of the presbyterate: the Discipline of the Methodist Church, in ¶303, affirms that "ordination to this ministry is a gift from God to the Church. In ordination, the Church affirms and continues the apostolic ministry through persons empowered by the Holy Spirit." It also uses sacred scripture in support of this practice, namely, 1 Timothy 4:12, which states: |St. Paul of Tarsus|KJV}} The Methodist Church also buttresses this argument with the leg of Sacred Tradition of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral by citing the Church Fathers, many of whom concur with this view.
Among the original champions of Protestantism who rejected the doctrine of apostolic succession were John Calvin, and Martin Luther. They both said that the episcopacy was inadequate to address corruption, doctrinal or otherwise, and that this inadequacy justified the intervention of the church of common people. In part this position was also necessary, as otherwise there would have been no means to elicit or initiate reform of the church.
Many Protestants point to episodes described in the Hebrew Bible when the Jewish leadership became disobedient or strayed from the Divine command; God would then bestow that position upon an individual who was more obedient to his will---regardless of any claims that any other person might have sourced in tradition. An example of this would be when King Saul of Israel was removed by God due to his disobedience so that King David could assume the throne. Protestants see apostolic succession in much the same way. In the view of many Protestants apostolic succession is not a matter of tradition, rather it is a matter of God safe-guarding his church by means of bestowing authority on those who best exemplify sound doctrine.
In addition, many Protestant contras state that the teaching of apostolic succession did not arise until 170-200 AD. Others would differ, pointing out that the doctrine is mentioned and expounded upon by St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John, and Clement of Rome, a disciple of Paul. They became bishops, and were later martyred.
In the centuries following the Protestant Reformation, most debates about apostolic succession in the West concerned the Catholic Church's claim that apostolic succession, as traditionally defined, was essential for orthodox Christian ecclesiae and valid sacramental ministry. Protestants denied this and asserted that the traditional definition of apostolic succession was not revealed in the Bible, but was formulated later by the post-apostolic church.
Different churches that claim apostolic succession insist that they alone are the true Church, and other churches in apostolic succession are false. Some apostolic churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, do recognize the apostolic succession of other churches, but may consider their holy orders 'illicit' yet essentially valid. Other apostolic churches, however, appear to deny the validity of churches other than themselves.
According to some Protestants, it is evident from these facts that claims regarding the necessity of apostolic succession to preserve Christian orthodoxy are false. Continued debates regarding the doctrine would therefore be meaningless. Catholic apologists may reply that these arguments against apostolic succession overstate the Church's teachings about apostolic succession's effect on Christian unity and downplay the doctrine's sacramental aspects. Nonresponsive, however, some Protestants wonder what meaning such a doctrine might possibly have, if those with legitimate ministry, according to the doctrine, fail to preserve sound Christian teaching. On the other hand the doctrine of succession relates not only to the preservation of doctrine but also to the power to administer the sacraments. As such, those in succession are not infallible (or not necessarily so), but are given the position of administering the sacraments. Since Protestants frequently hold to the priesthood of all believers, they reject the need for a special episcopal class to administer the sacraments.
Yet such arguments may not be persuasive to the apostolic churches. Some favoring the traditional ecclesia see the 'contra' Protestant denominations as vulnerable existentially because of their late origins in the 16th century, a millennium and a half after the ministry of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. Some Protestants dismiss the claims made by Catholics and by Orthodox that their episcopal institutions, in their current forms, date directly back to Christ and are in harmony with the early Christian church. To the contrary, it seems clear that these churches, the Orthodox and the Catholic who share a similar ecclesia, have evolved considerably during the great historical changes of the last two millennia. Several elements of their traditions were instituted by later church leaders, e.g., by Patriarches and by Popes, and sometimes by secular emperors. The dates when the Christian Church became fragmented into different denominations is not truly relevant to an ahistoric discussion of theology. Moreover, apostolic church criticism against contra Protestants appears to presuppose an approved ecclesiology of the Church that is not plainly stated in the Bible: namely, that the Christian Churches should be identical with authoritarian, episcopal institutions rather than simply indicating the worldwide community of Christians, each church interpreting scripture differently, as many Protestants maintain.
All Christians who have a genuine relationship with God through and in Christ are part of the "True Church," according to exemplary statements of evangelical Protestant theology, notwithstanding condemnation of the Catholic Church by some Protestants. Claims that one or more denominations might be the "True Church" appear as nothing more than propaganda which has evolved over centuries to support authoritarian claims---based on tradition or based on scripture---of merely human institutions. Such claims can be found among the worldwide community of Christians. Yet all appear to treasure the truth that liberates.
It should also be noted that Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox consider both the Oriental Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox churches to have been anathematized in the early ecumenical councils. Therefore, although maintaining that these churches have valid sacramental power in their succession, they would hold that this is distinct from maintaining fully sound doctrine.
On the other hand, in the 500 years since the Reformation, the Protestant churches not following ecclesiastic apostolic succession have come to differ markedly in several fundamentals, especially if one includes all those 'contra' churches that merely derive from the Protestant reformation. Such would include, e.g., the Unitarians whose name reflects their early rejection of the Trinity; the Mormons (although not Protestant) claim to have discovered new Scriptures on par with the Bible and restored the apostolic order by angelic ordinations , and the Jehovah's Witnesses who largely reject secular society. Yet many Protestants disavow these three churches as not Protestant because not following sola scriptura the defining principle of Protestantism. Yet the Adventist as well as Dispensationalist doctrines, both based on a new reading of Scripture, are generally considered Protestant. In sum, while all practice many teachings of Christianity, a minority of such 'contra' churches, either Protestant or merely deriving therefrom, have also become---for good or ill---a source of profound innovation.
Category:Christian group structuring Category:Christian terms Category:Ecclesiology Category:Episcopacy in Anglicanism Category:Episcopacy in Roman Catholicism
This text is licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA License. This text was originally published on Wikipedia and was developed by the Wikipedia community.
Judas Iscariot (, Yehuda, ) was, according to the New Testament, one of the twelve original apostles of Jesus, and is best known for betraying Jesus into the hands of the chief priests.
The precise significance of "Iscariot", however, is uncertain. There are two major theories on its etymology: The most likely explanation derives Iscariot from Hebrew איש־קריות, Κ-Qrîyôth, or "man of Kerioth". The Gospel of John refers to Judas as "son of Simon Iscariot", implying it was not Judas, but his father, who came from there. Some speculate that Kerioth refers to a region in Judea, but it is also the name of two known Judean towns. A second theory is that "Iscariot" identifies Judas as a member of the sicarii. These were a cadre of assassins among Jewish rebels intent on driving the Romans out of Judea. However, many historians maintain the sicarii only arose in the 40s or 50s of the 1st century, in which case Judas could not have been a member.
Mark states that the chief priests were looking for a "sly" way to arrest Jesus. They decided not to do so during the feast because they were afraid that the people would riot; instead, they chose the night before the feast to arrest him. In the Gospel of Luke, Satan enters Judas at this time. and betrayed Jesus for a bribe of "thirty pieces of silver" by identifying him with a kiss—"the kiss of Judas"—to arresting soldiers of the High Priest Caiaphas, who then turned Jesus over to Pontius Pilate's soldiers.
The existence of conflicting accounts of the death of Judas caused problems for traditional scholars who saw them as threatening the reliability of Scripture. Various attempts at harmonization have been suggested, such as that of Augustine that Judas hanged himself in the field and the fall burst his body open, or that the accounts of Acts and Matthew refer to two different transactions.
Modern scholars tend to reject these approaches stating that the Matthew account is a midrashic exposition that allows the author to present the event as a fulfillment of prophetic passages from the Old Testament. They argue that the author adds imaginative details such as the thirty pieces of silver, and the fact that Judas hangs himself, to an earlier tradition about Judas's death.
Matthew's reference to the death as fulfilment of a prophecy "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" has caused some controversy, since it clearly paraphrases a story from the Book of Zechariah () which refers to the return of a payment of thirty pieces of silver. Many writers, such as Augustine, Jerome, and John Calvin concluded that this was an obvious error. However, some modern writers have suggested that the Gospel writer may also have had a passage from Jeremiah in mind, such as chapters 18 () and 19 (), which refers to a potter's jar and a burial place, and chapter 32 () which refers to a burial place and an earthenware jar.
The Gospels suggests that Jesus both foresaw (, ) and allowed Judas's betrayal (). An explanation is that Jesus allowed the betrayal because it would allow God's plan to be fulfilled. In April 2006, a Coptic papyrus manuscript titled the Gospel of Judas dating back to 200 AD, was translated into modern language, and said to suggest that Jesus may have asked Judas to betray him, although some scholars question the translation.
Origen knew of a tradition according to which the greater circle of disciples betrayed Jesus, but does not attribute this to Judas in particular, and Origen did not deem Judas to be thoroughly corrupt (Matt., tract. xxxv).
Judas is also the subject of many philosophical writings, including The Problem of Natural Evil by Bertrand Russell and "Three Versions of Judas", a short story by Jorge Luis Borges. They both allege various problematic ideological contradictions with the discrepancy between Judas's actions and his eternal punishment. John S. Feinberg argues that if Jesus foresees Judas's betrayal, then the betrayal is not an act of free will, and therefore should not be punishable. Conversely, it is argued that just because the betrayal was foretold, it does not prevent Judas from exercising his own free will in this matter. Other scholars argue that Judas acted in obedience to God's will. The gospels suggest that Judas is apparently bound up with the fulfillment of God's purposes (, , , , , , ),
Erasmus believed that Judas was free to change his intention, but Martin Luther argued in rebuttal that Judas's will was immutable. John Calvin states that Judas was predestined to damnation, but writes on the question of Judas's guilt: "...surely in Judas betrayal, it will be no more right, because God himself willed that his son be delivered up and delivered him up to death, to ascribe the guilt of the crime to God than to transfer the credit for redemption to Judas."
It has been speculated that Judas's damnation, which seems to be possible from the Gospels' text, may not actually stem from his betrayal of Christ, but from the despair which caused him to subsequently commit suicide. This position is not without its problems since Judas was already damned by Jesus even before he committed suicide (see ), but it does avoid the paradox of Judas's predestined act setting in motion both the salvation of all mankind and his own damnation. The damnation of Judas is not a universal conclusion, and some have argued that there is no indication that Judas was condemned with eternal punishment. Adam Clarke writes: "he[Judas] committed a heinous act of sin...but he repented () and did what he could to undo his wicked act: he had committed the sin unto death, i.e. a sin that involves the death of the body; but who can say, (if mercy was offered to Christ's murderers? ()...) that the same mercy could not be extended to wretched Judas?..."
Some scholars have embraced the alternative notion that Judas was merely the negotiator in a prearranged prisoner exchange (following the money-changer riot in the Temple) that gave Jesus to the Roman authorities by mutual agreement, and that Judas's later portrayal as "traitor" was a historical distortion.
In his book The Passover Plot the British theologian Hugh J. Schonfield argued that the crucifixion of Christ was a conscious re-enactment of Biblical prophecy and Judas acted with Jesus' full knowledge and consent in "betraying" his master to the authorities.
Theologian Aaron Saari contends in his work The Many Deaths of Judas Iscariot that Judas Iscariot was the literary invention of the Markan community. As Judas does not appear in the Epistles of Paul, nor in the Q Gospel, Saari argues that the language indicates a split between Pauline Christians, who saw no reason for the establishment of an organized Church, and the followers of Peter. Saari contends that the denigration of Judas in Matthew and Luke-Acts has a direct correlation to the elevation of Peter.
and state that following his resurrection Jesus appeared to "the eleven". Who was missing? After all that had transpired one would just naturally think it was Judas. Apparently not, because in we learn that the one missing was Thomas. Therefore the eleven had to include Judas. Furthermore, Paul says in that following his resurrection Jesus was seen by “the twelve”. This had to include Judas because it wasn't until after the ascension, some forty days after the resurrection (), that another person, Matthias, was voted in to replace Judas ().
Another clue confirming the absence of the Judas story in the earliest Christian documents occurs in and . Here Jesus tells his disciples that they will “sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” No exception is made for Judas even though Jesus was aware of his impending act of betrayal. The answer may lie in the fact that the source of these verses could be the hypothetical Q document (QS 62). Q is thought to predate the gospels and would be one of the earliest Christian documents. Given that possibility, the betrayal story could have been invented by the writer of Mark.
The book The Sins of the Scripture, by John Shelby Spong, investigates the possibility that early Christians compiled the Judas story from three Old Testament Jewish betrayal stories. He writes, "...the act of betrayal by a member of the twelve disciples is not found in the earliest Christian writings. Judas is first placed into the Christian story by Gospel of Mark (3:19), who wrote in the early years of the eighth decade of the Common Era." He points out that some of Gospels, after the Crucifixion, refer to the number of Disciples as "Twelve", as if Judas were still among them. He compares the three conflicting descriptions of Judas's death - hanging, leaping into a pit, and disemboweling, with three Old Testament betrayals followed by similar suicides.
Spong's conclusion is that early Bible authors, after the First Jewish-Roman War, sought to distance themselves from Rome's enemies. They augmented the Gospels with a story of a disciple, personified in Judas as the Jewish state, who either betrayed or handed-over Jesus to his Roman crucifiers. Spong identifies this augmentation with the origin of modern Anti-Semitism.
Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, espousing a purely mythological view of Jesus, suggests that in the New Testament, the name "Judas" was constructed as an attack on the Judaeans or on the Judaean religious establishment held responsible for executing Christ. The English word "Jew" is derived from the Latin Iudaeus, which, like the Greek Ιουδαίος (Ioudaios), could also mean "Judaean".
"Judas The Beloved Disciple Remembered" by William E. McClintic portrays Judas in a positive light. McClintic not only presents Judas as the "beloved disciple", but also as a scribe and author of the "Q" document, the "Apostles Creed" and true writer of the "John Gospel". McClintic presents Judas as the source of most of the stories about Jesus in the Gospels from the birth of Jesus, his education, his teachings and ministry to the trial, Crucifixion and Resurrection.
The discovery was given dramatic international exposure in April 2006 when the US National Geographic magazine (for its May edition) published a feature article entitled The Gospel of Judas with images of the fragile codex and analytical commentary by relevant experts and interested observers (but not a comprehensive translation). The article's introduction stated: "An ancient text lost for 1,700 years says Christ's betrayer was his truest disciple". The article points to some evidence that the original document was extant in the 2nd century: "Around A.D. 180, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in what was then Roman Gaul, wrote a massive treatise called Against Heresies [in which he attacked] a 'fictitious history,' which 'they style the Gospel of Judas.'"
Before the magazine's edition was circulated, other news media gave exposure to the story, abridging and selectively reporting it. The National Geographic Society responded that "Virtually all issues April D. DeConick raises about translation choices are addressed in footnotes in both the popular and critical editions". In a later review of the issues and relevant publications, critic Joan Acocella questioned whether ulterior intentions had not begun to supersede historical analysis, e.g., whether publication of The Gospel of Judas could be an attempt to roll back ancient anti-semitic imputations. She concluded that the ongoing clash between scriptural fundamentalism and attempts at revision were childish because of the unreliability of the sources. Therefore, she argued, "People interpret, and cheat. The answer is not to fix the Bible but to fix ourselves." Other scholars such as Louis Painchaud (Laval University, Quebec City) and André Gagné (Concordia University, Montreal) and by William Shakespeare. The practice is comparable to the Renaissance portrayal of Jews with red hair, which was then regarded as a negative trait and which may have been used to correlate Judas Iscariot with contemporary Jews.
Category:Ancient people who committed suicide Category:Christianity and antisemitism Category:Twelve apostles Category:Religious people who committed suicide Category:1st-century deaths *Main Category:Biblical apostles
This text is licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA License. This text was originally published on Wikipedia and was developed by the Wikipedia community.
| Name | Darryl Scott |
|---|---|
| Position | Pitcher |
| Birthdate | August 06, 1968 |
| Birthplace | Fresno, California |
| Bats | Right |
| Throws | Right |
| Debutdate | May 31 |
| Debutyear | 1993 |
| Debutteam | California Angels |
| Finaldate | October 1 |
| Finalyear | 1993 |
| Finalteam | California Angels |
| Stat1label | Win-loss record |
| Stat1value | 1-2 |
| Stat2label | Earned run average |
| Stat2value | 5.85 |
| Stat3label | Strikeouts |
| Stat3value | 13 |
| Teams |
He is currently the pitching coach for the Modesto Nuts, a minor league team for the Rockies.
Category:1968 births Category:Living people Category:Baseball players from California Category:California Angels players Category:Edmonton Trappers players Category:Loyola Marymount University alumni Category:Major League Baseball pitchers
This text is licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA License. This text was originally published on Wikipedia and was developed by the Wikipedia community.
