|
Francis J. Beckwith |
In 2007, when I was prayerfully thinking about returning to the Catholic Church, there were four theological issues that were deal breakers for me: justification, penance, transubstantiation, and apostolic succession. I have already discussed
penance,
transubstantiation, and
justification. Here, I offer a brief account of how I became convinced that the Catholic Church is also right about apostolic succession. Catholicism holds that if a Church claims to be Christian it must be able to show that its leaders – its bishops and its presbyters (or priests) – are successors of the Apostles. This is why the Catholic Church accepts Eastern Orthodox sacraments as legitimate even though the Orthodox are not in full communion with Rome. What amazed me is how uncontroversial apostolic succession was in the Early Church, as Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelley points out in his book
Early Christian Doctrines. I expected to find factions of Christians, including respected Church Fathers, who resisted episcopal ecclesiology. There aren’t any. In fact, a leading argument in the Early Church against heretics was their lack of episcopal lineage and continuity and thus their absence of communion with the visible and universal Church. In his famous apologetic treatise,
Against Heresies (A.D. 182-188), St. Irenaeus (c. A.D. 140-202) makes that very point in several places.
Tertullian (A.D. c. 160-220) offers the same sort of apologetic as well.