THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDECH
A Defence of the Catholic Priesthood
by Michael Davies
1979 AND 1993
Appendix IV
The Apostolic Succession
When during the recitation of the Nicene Creed
we affirm our belief
in the apostolicity of the Church-----Credo
in apostolicam Ecclesiam-----we are referring to
a
threefold apostolicity. We are bound to believe that the powers which
Our Lord bestowed upon the Apostles were in turn conferred upon their
successors through the laying on of hands. These powers have descended
by the same means to our present-day bishops in an unbroken succession.
This has been expressed most recently in the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, issued by the Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in defence of the Catholic
doctrine on the Church against certain errors of the present day. It
was ratified and confirmed by Pope Paul VI on 11 May 1973 and
promulgated on 24 June 1973.
The Declaration states:
Christ, the Head of
the Church, which is His Mystical Body, appointed
as ministers of His priesthood His Apostles and through them their
successors the bishops, that they might act in His person within the
Church and also in turn legitimately hand over to priests in a
subordinate degree the sacred ministry which they had received.
1
This is de fide teaching
reiterated by Popes and Councils on numerous occasions, and it should
be remembered that teaching which is presented to us as de fide
definita is infallible and anyone rejecting it automatically
ceases to
be a Catholic. The essential point here is that this method of
transmitting office is not a practice which developed within the Church
during the first centuries. It was directly instituted by Christ
Himself. This, then, covers two of the threefold aspects of apostolicity-----apostolicity
of origin (apostolicitas originis),
and apostolicity of succession in office (apostolicitas successionis). The
third aspect is apostolicitas
doctrinae, apostolicity in doctrine. The Church has always
adhered to the teaching which she received from the Apostles; the
apostolicity of succession guarantees the unfalsified transmission of
doctrine. The original deposit of faith has naturally developed through
the centuries, but always in fidelity to the original Gospel, the good
news preached by the Apostles, not all of which is explicitly included
in the New Testament. The deposit of faith, which it is the Church's
duty to preserve intact and to preach to all men, has been formulated
from two sources, written and unwritten.
In his pamphlet, Anglican Orders-----A Way Forward?, Fr. Edward Yarnold,
S.J., states that
. . . it seems that
apostolic succession has more than one strand. One of these strands is
ordination by a bishop in the apostolic succession, which is a sign
that the Order and the authority conferred come from Christ and are not
matters of human convention, and also a sign that the new priest or
bishop is in communion with other ordained ministers throughout the
world and throughout time.
This statement is an example of Modernism at its most devious. There is
not one word here which could provoke disagreement among Lutherans or
Anglicans, who do not believe that ordination is a Sacrament instituted
by Christ, and which therefore conveys grace ex opere operato [that
the Sacrament works independent
of the spiritual worthiness of the minister
-----Note added by
Web Master]
. The grace in this case is the sacred
character of the priesthood, which distinguishes a man who has received
the Sacrament of Order not simply in degree but in essence from the
laity. Lutherans and Evangelical Anglicans will accept that ordination
is a sign of a person's appointment to the office of minister, even an
appropriate sign. They will not accept that it is a Sacrament and that
it was directly instituted by Christ.
Fr. Yarnold might well argue that a Sacrament is a sign-----and
he would be correct. But not every sign is a Sacrament-----every
car is a vehicle, but not every vehicle is a car. Fr. Yarnold might
even protest that I have no right to presume that by the word "sign" he
didn't mean "Sacrament"-----this
is the way the Modernist mind operates. I would reply that if he meant
"Sacrament", then he should have said "Sacrament". However, there is
more to it than this. Father Yarnold cites a source for the explanation
of apostolic succession which he has given-----and
it is none other than the Canterbury Statement on the Ministry and
Ordination, which will certainly take its place among the classic
formulations of Modernism, as Chapter VI makes clear. Father Yarnold
continues:
But there is a
second strand, namely a call coming from a community which seeks to be
faithful to the teaching and commission of Christ handed down through
the apostles to the whole Church. The first strand runs unbroken
through time; the second strand does not necessarily consist of an
unbroken succession in
history, but of a conformity of mind and heart and life to Christ, a
conformity which is the work of the Holy Spirit whom Christ bequeathed
to His Church. If the first strand is broken it needs to be repaired by
ordination conferred by bishops in valid Orders; if the second is
broken it is repaired by a change of heart, mind and life towards
Christ. Catholic teaching is that the first strand is necessary. But is
it possible that its absence, though a grave defect, is not sufficient
to invalidate Orders if the second
strand holds? 2
The statements by Father Yarnold which have been cited
above are contained in one paragraph in the original-----and
it must surely be the most deplorable paragraph ever to appear in a
Catholic Truth Society publication. The reasons for this are not hard
to discern.
Firstly, it will be noted that in true Modernist style Father Yarnold
does not commit himself-----he does not state a position, he simply
asks a question. And how can it be unorthodox to ask a question?
Secondly, he is treating two distinct aspects of apostolicity as if
they were one and the same. His
two strand theory has no basis at all in Catholic theology, it is a
novelty and, as is almost invariably the case with novelties, it is
unorthodox. Apostolicity of succession can be conveyed in one
way and one way only, through the Sacrament of Order instituted by
Christ. This apostolicity of succession guarantees the apostolicity of
the doctrine taught by the successors of the Apostles. We know that the
doctrine is true precisely because it is being taught by those who, in
virtue of the Sacrament of Order, are the successors of the Apostles in
communion with the successor of Peter. It is ludicrous to attempt to transpose
the terms and claim that because the doctrine is true those teaching it
must have valid Orders within the apostolic succession. Once the
authority of the Catholic Church is rejected no criterion for
distinguishing between truth or falsehood remains beyond the private
judgment of the individual Christian.
Thirdly, once the logic of Fr. Yarnold's position is accepted,
we are bound to accept not only the validity of Anglican Orders but
those of any and every Protestant sect. Presumably every Protestant
denomination "seeks to be faithful to the teaching and commission of
Christ handed down through the apostles to the Church", and so they
must therefore have valid orders if a positive answer is returned to
Father Yarnold's question.
The true position is that to be in
total conformity with the teaching of the Apostles it is necessary to
be in communion with the successors of the Apostles. Our Lord
founded one Church and one Church only, and it is His will that all men
should belong to that Church. This is an essential, perhaps the
essential, message of the Apostles. Those who belong to bodies which
were originally constituted in opposition to the one, true Church of
Christ (no matter how sincere they might be) cannot in truth be held to
be "of a conformity of mind and heart and life to Christ", Who willed
that there should be one flock and one shepherd.
In addition to this, the Church of
England is not only constituted in the state of schism, as are the
various Orthodox Churches, but it embraces a virtual compendium of
heresies. Ironically, it is in the Orthodox Churches at present
that most of the basic Christian truths are upheld and proclaimed
without the least trace of ambiguity. Within the Catholic Church,
orthodoxy is proclaimed by the Vatican while every form of heresy is
permitted to rage unchecked throughout the Church. Indeed, it is with
some embarrassment that I shall quote Cardinal Newman to make it clear
that the theory that the Church of England has a doctrine in conformity
with the teaching of the Apostles is quite untenable. It is
embarrassing because his critique of Anglicanism in the
eighteen-seventies is now applicable to Catholicism in the
nineteen-seventies. In 1879 Cardinal Newman wrote to an Anglican lady
who had questioned the role of the Catholic Church as the one, true
Church founded by Jesus Christ. The Cardinal pointed out that God
Himself has founded a Church in which we are to find salvation; that
the word Ecclesia means an
assembly, and that Luke taught: "The Lord added daily to the Church
such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47). The Cardinal then cited Scripture
to show that the Church is a body which teaches authoritatively, and
added:
One note of the
Church then is this clear authoritative teaching. There may be many
opinions among its members on points which it does not teach, but not on those points
which it teaches as the truth revealed. It teaches and its theologians believe
only one and the same
doctrine. There must be no differences as to the way of salvation.
Now can I trust my soul to the Church of England? Is
it a teaching Church, considering hardly any two adjacent pulpits will
proclaim the same doctrine, and that not in minor points, but in the
way to be saved. This way of salvation is distinctly different in the Low
Church, High Church, and Broad Church. Considering without faith we
cannot be saved, have I not a right to ask, who in the Church can tell
me what that saving faith is? Do clergymen even so agree in their
belief of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as to give it the same sense
or attach the same importance to the . . . Athanasian Creed? or attach
the same idea to baptismal regeneration, etc., etc.
In consequence who
has faith in the Church of England? Have you? You can have faith in the word
of the Catholic Church. Can you in any other Church? 3
To sum up Father Yarnold' s
position, he has confused apostolicity of doctrine, which is a mark or
characteristic of the Apostolic Church, with the means ordained by Our
Lord to perpetuate the apostolic succession itself through the
Sacrament of Order. Furthermore, he does not even posit
apostolicity of teaching itself as a second means of imparting valid
orders-----all
that is needed is to seek to
be faithful to the apostolic teaching.
The logic of his position is that
any group, however small, can come together, state that it is seeking
to adhere to the apostolic teaching (which all sects do), and the
Catholic Church will then be bound to recognize the validity of the
Orders of those whom the sect choose to appoint as ministers. Let those
who support the Catholic Truth Society in any way note that, by
promoting heretical opinions of this kind, it has departed radically
from the principles of Catholic Truth which its own name pledges it to
uphold.
Father Yarnold makes no attempt to claim personal credit for this
absurd theory of apostolic succession. He refers us to Structures of the Church by Hans Küng.
4 However, those who refer to this book
will find that Dr. Küng himself
is simply citing a theory advanced by a Lutheran theologian, E.
Schlink, in a book entitled: Die
Apostolische Sukzession.
In his explanation of the theory,
Hans Küng adopts a very cautious tone. Like
his disciple, Father Yarnold, he insists that he is simply trying to
raise questions, not to answer them. He assures us that the
procedure laid down for the admission to ecclesiastical office by the
Council of Trent must be accepted as valid for normal cases; all that
he is asking is that the possibility of extraordinary routes to valid
Orders must be examined afresh.
Will the door some
day be opened to the possibilities of reaching an extraordinary route
to ecclesiastical office? That cannot be predicted at the present time.
What is certain, however, is that the definitions of the Trent decrees
are completely valid for the normal case; normally admission to office
occurs as it was laid down at Trent; namely, through the ordination of
the office holder. Schlink too considers that to be the ordinary
procedure. In regard to eventual extraordinary ways, on the Catholic
side, no more can be said at present than this: the question must be
examined afresh in the light of the present state of the problems.
5
However, the thinking of Dr. Küng has now
developed in a most striking manner and it is hardly surprising that
Father Yarnold did not quote from some of his subsequent works such as Infallible? In this book Dr.
Küng informs us that the traditional teaching on apostolic
succession is unhistorical; that Catholic teaching on infallibility is
untenable as it is based on this unhistorical theory of apostolic
succession; that there is no essential distinction between priest and
layman, it is simply an accident of history; and that the way to
discover the true Gospel message is not for us all to listen to the
Pope and the bishops but for us all, Pope and bishops included, to
listen to the theologians. And how do we know that what the theologians
are teaching is true? Why, it is true because they are teaching it. Let
Dr. Küng speak for himself, taking note of the fact that where he
refers to "prophets" or "teachers" in the early Church he means the
equivalent of the present day theologians. It will be noted that he
claims that the Church was founded on the twin pillars of apostles and
prophets, and that the office of apostle has not been perpetuated while
that of prophet has.
The Church "has the
apostles (and the prophets) for its foundations", but there is no
mention of any kind of personal or collegial infallibility or inability
to fall into error.
Similarly, it is impossible to show that the bishops
are in any direct and exclusive sense the successors of the apostles
(or of the college of the twelve) . . . As the direct primary witnesses
and messengers of Christ, the apostles are a priori irreplaceable and
unrepresentable by any successors; it is they (and the prophets) and
not the bishops who are and remain the founders of the Church . . .
from the "collegiality" of an the faithful there emerged a collegiality
of certain groups of ministries over against the congregation,
resulting in the emergence of a distinction between clergy and laity. 6
. . . the attribution of infallibility to the
college of bishops, based on the traditional, unhistorical theory of
the bishops' direct and exclusive apostolic succession, stands
exegetically, historically and theologically, on feet of clay. 7
As we have
previously pointed out, it cannot be shown either is often claimed for
them, the successors of the apostles (and still less of the college of
the twelve): the modern order of three offices-----bishops,
presbyters and deacons-----is
a later historical development, and in itself a perfectly reasonable
one. The apostolic succession applies primarily to the universal Ecclesia apostolica, in as much as
every Christian should strive for agreement with the fundamental
apostolic testimony (Scripture, succession in apostolic faith and
confession) and for connection with the apostolic service (missionary
progress in the world and the building up of the Christian community,
succession in apostolic service and life). 8
However, the mission of "Church leaders or pastors" is a special one
and "they enjoy a special authority and, when they fulfill their
service in the spirit of the Gospel, they are entitled to count on
cooperation and recognition of their authority." 9
What exactly does Dr. Küng
mean by Church leaders fulfilling their service with that degree of
conformity to the spirit of the Gospel which entitles them to our
cooperation? (Note that we do not owe the bishops obedience in virtue
of their office, they must earn our cooperation by the manner in which
they exercise it). Dr. Küng
is ready with an answer, but first emphasizes that he is not trying to
abolish authority and leadership-----he
just wants it exercised properly:
It is not no Church
leadership that we need, but Church leadership in accordance with the
Gospel. We do not need less authority, but more qualified authority:
authority based on service, and capable of subordinating itself to the
subordinate if the latter has the Gospel and reason on its side.
10
Thus the bishops are entitled to cooperation and recognition of their
authority providing they subordinate themselves to "the teachers" in
the Church. Bishops and deacons were only chosen in the event of an
insufficiency of prophets and teachers within the congregation. 11 The successors of those teachers are
among us today and woe betide the Church if she fails to heed them!
What becomes of a
Church in which the teachers are silent? The question will be better
understood if, in accordance with present-day terminology, we speak of
theologians instead of teachers. What becomes of a Church in which
scholarly reflection on and interpretation of the original Christian
message, the true transmission, the true translation of that message
into the terms of the present day, have ceased? A Church in which the
theologians had to be silent would become an untruthful Church. Its
teaching might be very correct and unchanged and conscientiously handed
on. Its faith might seem secure from doubt, and its teaching might seem
to present no serious problems. Yet it would often be evading men's
real problems, and would fail to notice that it was bogged down in an
outdated theological system, that it was handing on
superannuated ideas and the empty husks of
traditional concepts as truth, and that both in teaching and in life it
had departed from the original message. Meanwhile the leaders who did
not want to listen to the theologians in the Church, having little
interest or time for well-based theology because, perhaps through fear,
they did not want to be disturbed in their faith, or naively believed
that they already knew everything that mattered-----those leaders would
in their ignorance the more confidently seek to impose their personal
teaching as the teaching of the Church, confuse their antiquated ideas
with genuine tradition, close their minds to learning anything and,
though unqualified themselves, claim the privilege of judging the
qualified. Then, though gifts are diverse, they would claim to be
successors, not only of the apostles, but also of the teachers . . .
how fruitful it can be for them and for the Church if they
listen-----as the best of them have always done-----to the theologians
who try to help the Church by critical examination of current teaching
and by reference to the original message; who exercise their
theological skill, not for their own sake, but for humanity, the Church
and the world. 12
And so on.
Such is the enthusiasm of Dr. Küng for the virtues of theologians
that once launched upon the topic he finds it necessary to express
himself at very great length. It would be possible, but tedious, to
cite expositions of this theory of apostolic succession from other
works by Hans Küng and his fellow prophets. Hans Küng himself
has now provided us with Why Priests?,
which completes the task of "proving" that the ordained priest has no
powers not shared by the universal priesthood of the faithful. A number
of theologians have been active in expounding the theory that to be in
the apostolic succession means to be faithful to the apostolic
teaching, including Yves Congar, Raymond Brown, and Avery Dunes. Like
Hans Küng, they are all permitted to propagate their heterodox
theories without fear of sanctions from either the Vatican or their
bishops.
NOTE: we removed the original footnote 2 as it referred to an
appendix in Cranmer's Godly Order that we did not include since that
work is excerpted only; thus we had to renumber the subsequent notes,
having 12 footnotes rather than 13.
1. Mysterium
Ecclesiae is
available from the Apostolate of Catholic Truth, 52 Moorcroft Crescent,
Ribbleton, Preston, PR2 6DP, England.
2. AOWF, p. 11
3. The Letters and
Diaries of John
Henry Newman, vol. XXIX (Clarendon Press, 1976), p. 166.
4. Structures of the
Church
(London, 1965), p. 180.
5. Ibid., p.
184.
6. Infallible? (London,
1972), pp. 66/7.
7. Ibid., p.
70.
8. Ibid., p.
187.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.,
p. 188.
11. Ibid.,
p. 190.
12. Ibid.,
pp. 190/1.
BACK
-------Contact Us-------NEXT
www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/
melchisedech-appx4.htm