Christian Doctrine & Practice

Apostolic Succession ...

The doctrine of apostolic succession is a cornerstone of Catholic teaching. If it's flawed the whole structure collapses.

The Catholic Church teaches that Catholic bishops of today can trace their ordination in an unbroken chain to the apostles. I'm unconvinced.

The Old Testament nation of Israel was very concerned with lineage and kept detailed records — some fill pages of scripture. Yet I've never heard of such a list of Catholic ordinations. There is a list of pope succeeding pope (ignoring that many times there were multiple popes simultaneously with no easy way to be certain which was the "true" pope and which the imposter. And for the early popes it seems that the list was created after the fact — historical revisionism.)

Consider these factors ...

• Many bishops were chosen by secular rulers with no evidence of their ordination by other bishops.
• At times there were no clear rules regulating the procedure for valid ordination.
• At times the rules of ordination were changed. Shouldn't this invalidate past ordinations which no longer meet the criteria?

Certainly the apostle Paul ordained Timothy who ordained a new batch of bishops. But after that we are never sure if the chain was not broken somewhere, likely many times. Once there is a missing ordination in the chain, apostolic succession is broken and can't be repaired.

Another factor. The purpose of ordination in the apostolic era was to designate bishops with these characteristics ...

• Knew true doctrine and practice.
• Taught it.
• Defended it.
• A pastor to the flock of Christians.

Why would there be any value in ordaining a heretic, or a corrupt person, or a spiritually lukewarm person, or a materialistic aristocrat, or a radical sinner? There is no point at all. Yet the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession includes many such as these as key links in the chain.

In my view, these "bad" bishops should be crossed off the list of valid bishops — a bad bishop is no bishop at all except in name only.

Therefore I conclude that ordination does not need to be via a chain of apsotolic succession. Any person who meets the criteria of a bishop and who dedicates their life to the task is already a valid bishop whether they are ordained or not. It is not the act of ordaining them which makes them a true bishop. There are New Testament examples of people who were great Christian leaders and who were only after the fact recognized as such via ordination.

An example: the Arian heresy. There were so many validly-ordained bishops fully committed to this heresy. Some even executed dissenters when they could get away with it. Was the Christian flock supposed to follow such men as these just as if they were following Christ? Unthinkable. The doctrine of apostolic succession harms Christians and harms the church.

Certainly the church eventually stamped out the Arian heresy but only after many generations of Christians were fooled by it. The whole point of ordination is to guide the flock of Christians into all truth and to advance the kingdom. Ordination by apostolic succession does not do this.

In the first few generations of the church the concept of apostolic succession made some sense. But over time it became less useful and more harmful. Just as the bronze serpent on the pole of Moses became harmful over time, apostolic succession outlived its purpose many, many centuries ago.

Ordination cannot make bad men into valid bishops, they must be virtuous and orthodox ...

Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the offices of teaching and ruling. In fact by the imposition of hands and through the words of the consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is given, and a sacred character is impressed in such wise that bishops, in an eminent and visible manner, take the place of Christ himself, teacher, shepherd, and priest, and act as his representative. By virtue, therefore, of the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, bishops have been constituted true and authentic teachers of the faith and have been made pontiffs and pastors. (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Christian Doctrine & Practice | North Forest | Top of page

Baptism ...

The early church believed, taught, and practiced the following ...

• Sins are remitted during baptism (the New Testament also teaches this).
• A person is joined to the church via baptism (no need for a second membership ceremony).
• A person must have the proper disposition for their baptism to be effective. Thus, a person who has no intention of quitting their sinful habits is not really baptized.

Christian Doctrine & Practice | North Forest | Top of page

Eucharist ...

The early church believed, taught, and practiced the following ...

• The Eucharist is to be a central aspect of public worship celebration.
• After the consecration by the bishop, Christ is truly present in the elements of communion. They were taken to people who could not attend the service.
• Those in mortal sin are not to partake of the elements. Those who do can become sick or die in judgment from God.
• The Eucharistic service has the following parts:
• Scripture readings
• Prayers
• Communion
• The Eucharist is not just a symbol.

Related article ...

Christian Doctrine & Practice | North Forest | Top of page

Bishops ...

The early church emphasized that Christians should unite around their bishop and obey their bishop. They were not to have church services without the bishop being present.

This implies that the bishop was interacting with a small group of people. The church services must have been rather small since they were held in people's homes.

I believe there is an assumption in all of this which is usually never stated, but I will state it. Bishops are only true bishops if they are orthodox in their beliefs and teaching, if they are holy, and if they have a pastor's heart. I can't believe that the various early church fathers who discuss this topic ever intended for Christians to unite around heretical, faithless, or corrupt bishops.

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? (2 Corinthians 13:5)

How can someone who doesn't have Christ in them confect the Euchrist?

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:13)

Therefore, "bad" bishops are not really bishops at all — they should be rejected by Christians as not fit to be their leaders. This is what the Protestant Reformers did.

Some New Testament passages which support this view ...

Because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. (Romans 11:20-22)

The vine is the church, the chosen people of God, which includes Old Testament Israel.

Notice that people are members of the church based on their faith. This includes bishops.

Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. (Revelation 2:5)

The candlestick refers to a local church, diocese, patriarchate, or metropolitan headed-up by a bishop. If the bishop is a "bad" bishop and does not repent, he is removed — he is no longer a valid bishop.

Christian Doctrine & Practice | North Forest | Top of page

Sacraments ...

My views on the sacraments. I don't believe there is such a thing as a sacrament. I do believe that God seeks opportunities to bless us and that he uses our words, gestures, rites, rituals, ceremonies, etc. as occasions for blessing us. In general we must have faith and be living a holy life to receive God's blessings although he can bless anyone anytime.

Therefore, the sacraments are opportunities to receive God's blessings.

My views on each sacrament ...

• Baptism

  God blesses us in baptism and he restores us to fellowship with him for those who have faith and are truly repentant. But baptism is not required for salvation. Examples of exceptions ...

  • Those who are working toward being baptized.
  • Young children who die before they were baptized.
  • Non-Christians who end up in heaven.
  • Non-Catholic Christians who are inadvertantly baptized with the wrong formula.

  I do not believe that temporal sins are necessarily remitted during baptism. Thus, a person who has rejected Christianity for their whole lives and who are baptized right before death will likely end up in purgatory.

• Confirmation

  There is no such sacrament.

• Eucharist (Communion / the Last Supper)

  Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and can be adored and worshipped in the consecrated elements of communion.

• Confession / Reconciliation

  There is no such thing as sacramental confession. Confessing before a priest is not required for any sin. However, I believe that confession is an opportunity to receive great blessing from God for those who have faith and are truly repentant.

• Anointing of the Sick

  There is no such sacrament. The Bible speaks about calling for the elders for healing. Certainly we should pray for one another's healing — physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual.

• Holy Orders

  There is no such sacrament. Ordination is for the purpose of identifying and encouraging orthodox ministers.

• Marriage

  Christians who are married have Christ as the center of their marriage, that is all there is to it.

For more info ...

Statement of Faith | About the author ...

Christian Doctrine & Practice | North Forest | Top of page