Transcription
If you are a Protestant, one of the most common objections that you're going to face is this. You're not in line of apostolic succession. So, your church has no true authority. Your pastors were not validly ordained. And your sacraments don't really count. And that claim has unsettled many sincere believers. But it shouldn't. And in this video, I'm going to show you why.
Now, heads up, this is going to be one of those more dense videos for those that love to really dig deep. It's just the nature of this subject requires it. We're going to walk through numerous historical primary sources, sometimes in full, sometimes summarized, but the full citations are linked in the description box down below. So, don't just take my word for it, and don't take Byzantine Crusader 49 in the comments word for it either. Check the sources for yourself.
Now, I'll be focusing specifically on Roman Catholic claims in this area, and that is intentional. It is not to pick on their tradition, but because most of the voices that we're going to be examining are coming from the Western tradition where these hierarchical models developed and were codified more clearly. While Orthodox and Anglican models differ, the Roman Catholic view asserts not just apostolic continuity, but exclusive hierarchical authority through bishops. It's also important to note that this video is not trying to tackle every possible question about apostolic succession, sacramental theology, or ecclesial authority across the board. Those topics deserve their own deep dives, and that will come.
In this video, we're focusing on one very specific historical question that has massive implications. Is prespitial succession apostolic and valid? In other words, did the apostles establish a model where presbbiters or pastors can ordain? Was that model practiced in the early churches? And has Presbyterial succession always been a valid and apostolic means of ordination?
Now, I won't be pretending that all of history affirms the reformers. But neither can it be claimed that the church has always practiced the current episcopal structure. And it isn't my contention that episcopal succession isn't valid, but rather that Presbyterial succession cannot be dismissed as invalid without administering a self-inflicting wound, as I will demonstrate. So, let's test the claim on its own terms, not against Protestant assumptions, but against historical reality.
Here's what the video rundown will look like. First, we're going to steal man the Roman Catholic view from their own sources. Then we will examine how bishops and presbbiters functioned in the early church. Then we will trace out how the three-fold hierarchy developed historically. Followed by highlighting medieval Catholic voices who acknowledge that development. And finally demonstrate why Presbyterial succession is not only valid but apostolic. And by the end, if you are a Protestant, you're going to see that this claim against us is far from disqualifying. and it actually rests on a version of history that's much more complicated than you've probably been told.
But before we dive into it, welcome to Canon and Creed. My name is Miles and this is the channel where we are bullish on recovering classical Protestant faith practice and piety all in a digestible manner. So if that sort of thing fancies you, subscribe to the channel and let me know in the comments which Christian tradition you are listening from.
So let's begin with charity and clarity by presenting the Roman Catholic view not as a straw man but in their own words at their strongest. In paragraph 1576 of the Catholic catechism we read since the sacrament of holy orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry. It is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the gift of the spirit the apostolic line. Validly ordained bishops i.e. Those who are in the line of apostolic succession validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of holy orders. So succession in this framework is not exclusively about doctrine or mission. It's about an unbroken line of consecrated bishops. Break the line and the ordination is invalid.
Paragraph 21 of lumenentium, one of the core documents from Vatican 2, states that in the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, our Lord Jesus Christ, the supreme high priest, is present in the midst of those who believe. They have been sent to preach the gospel to all men and to administer the sacraments of the new covenant. Among the principal duties of bishops, the preaching of the gospel occupies an imminent place. So here, bishops are not just leaders. They are understood as Christ's own presence in apostolic continuity. While priests assist, bishops succeed.
The code of canon law, specifically canon 375, paragraph 1, reinforces this where we read, "Bishops who by divine institution succeed to the place of the apostles through the Holy Spirit who has been given to them are constituted pastors in the church so that they are teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship, and ministers of governance." So notice the language divine institution. Apostolic succession is defined not merely by heritage but by hierarchy. Bishop over presbiter by design.
As Roman Catholic theologian Eves Congar described it, the ecclesial hierarchy of the diacinate, presbbiterate, and episcopacy is a divinely instituted means of grace that has both ontological and temporal precedence to the faithful and mediates the authority and salvific power of Jesus Christ. So let's be clear, the Roman Catholic view is not that presbitters are unimportant or that they aren't ordained. It is that their ordination is only valid because it comes from a bishop who himself is part of an unbroken episcopal line going back to the apostles. That's where the spiritual authority is believed to reside.
But there's one more critical element that we have to include here because the Roman Catholic view isn't just about succession. It's also about communion. As the Catholic Catechism makes clear in paragraph 883, the college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head. So, it's not enough to have a bishop. He also must be in communion with the bishop of Rome. Apostolicity in this view requires vertical succession and horizontal communion with the pope.
So, that's the Roman Catholic view in their own words. Now that we've laid out our steel man, we need to ask a simple but critical question. Is that actually how things worked with the apostles themselves? Because if this model of succession is truly apostolic where bishops are distinct from presbittors, consecrated by other bishops and can transmit spiritual authority, then we should see that exact pattern in the New Testament and earliest church structures. not appearing later, not evolving, but embedded in how the apostles themselves handed down ministry.
And here's the pivot point. If in the apostolic age, the offices of bishop and presbiter were functionally synonymous with no ontological authoritative differences, then this creates serious problems because no distinct higher office would have existed to carry out exclusive succession.
I want to start with what might be the most cited source in this discussion and it's for good reason and that's St. Jerome writing in the 4th century. The prespter is the same as the bishop and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the senate of the presbytors. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presitterers elected by his colleagues should be set over all the others and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. Without doubt, it is the duty of the prespbitters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the church, they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head. But it is fitting that the bishops on their side do not forget that if they are set over the presitters, it is the result of tradition and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord.
So Jerome was no marginal figure. He translated the Bible into Latin. He is a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church. And he's deeply respected in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions alike. And according to him, one, bishops and presitors were originally the same order. Two, churches were governed by a Senate of prestors, a plurality of elders. Three, the elevation of one presitter over the others was a later decision made because of division, not by apostolic command. And four, most critically, Jerome says explicitly that this hierarchy is the result of tradition, not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord. And that final line really undermines the entire claim of exclusive episcopal succession. Because if the hierarchy wasn't instituted by Christ or the apostles, it cannot be the exclusive conduit of apostolic authority. And that's the key, exclusively.
But it's at this point you can expect to hear the argument. Whoa, buddy, not so fast. Jerome is saying that one of the presitterers was chosen as a bishop in the city. and the structure of placing a bishop to oversee a city. That was the custom that developed, not a distinction between the offices of presbiter and bishop. Therefore, Protestants are reading Jerome wrong. And this sounds reasonable until you read Jerome comprehensively. In both epistles, commandment is given that only monogamists should be chosen for the clerical office, whether as bishops or as prestors. Indeed, with the ancients, these names were synonymous. One alluding to the office, the other to the age of the clergy. And as we're about to see, this is the consistent testimony found throughout the centuries, which is why this common objection doesn't hold water.
Now, I'm citing Jerome here not to make him a Protestant, but because he distinguishes between the apostolic church and the postappostolic church. In other words, I'm citing him as a historical source. And he tells us plainly, the churches were originally led by a senate of presbittors. The bishop's distinction came later and was a pragmatic tradition, not a divine institution. And that distinction matters because the only verifiable apostolic records that we have of succession are found in the New Testament. And it matches exactly what Jerome describes, such as in Titus 15, for example, where Paul writes, "This is why I left you in Cree, so that you might put what remained in order and appoint elders in every town as I directed you."
Now, I know some are going to point to 2 Corinthians and other texts where Titus and Timothy are called apostles or messengers, and they will argue that this proves they held a unique apostolic office distinct from a presitter. And that's an important point, but I will tackle it more fully in a part two where we do a deep dive into the biblical material. But for now, just note Paul doesn't tell Titus to find a bishop, to do the ordaining. And Paul isn't even present when these appointments are to happen. He simply tells Titus, a presbbiter and apostolic delegate, to go do it. There's no mention of a bishop only power to ordain. No requirement for episcopal consecration. What we see instead is apostolic delegates, often prespits themselves, appointing leaders with no third tier in view. That's not Protestant theory. It's just an apostolic fact. And that matters because it shows us that one, apostolic authority could be delegated and exercised without physical apostolic presence. Two, presbbiters could appoint other presitters under apostolic direction. And three, none of it required episcopal consecration in a hierarchical chain. This case is not built on one verse or clever spin. It is actually built on the only apostolic evidence we actually possess and a consistent stream of both early and medieval church witnesses who confirm it as we're now about to see.
Next, we turn to Ambrose, a pseudonymous commentator and contemporary of Jerome. His commentaries were circulated widely in the Latin West, even receiving endorsement from later popes and councils. In his commentary on Ephesians 4:12, he reinforces and expands what Jerome had already observed, stating that the episcopal structure wasn't there from the beginning. He writes, "The writings of the apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the church because they were written at the very beginning." He even calls Timothy whom he himself made a prespter the bishop because first presptors were being called bishops because when a bishop passed away a prespter succeeded him. In Egypt presptors even do confirm if the bishop is absent but because the prespirators who followed begun to be found unworthy to hold primacies. Upon some reflection the rule was changed. A merit, not a rank, should make one a bishop by a judgment of many priests, so that no one unworthy usurp daringly and scandalize many.
So this is historically loaded. Let's break it down without overexlaining. He says, one, prespits and bishops functioned interchangeably in the apostolic age, ruling together as successors of the apostles. Two, he states that the elevation of a singular leader, what we now call a bishop, was a response to abuse, not an apostolic ordinance. And three, he places the origin of the episcopacy after the apostles as a remedy for emerging schisms. This echoes Jerome only from a separate theological voice, further evidencing that it isn't Protestants that are reading Jerome wrong. But most importantly, Ambrose affirms that the original mode of succession was collegial, not hierarchical preser sharing in the governance and apostolic ministry of the church. So if the foundation was plural egalitarian and rooted in the presitterate, then episcopal distinction by his own words was a pastoral development, not a divine prescription.
Moving eastward for a moment, we encounter Seis of Antioch, a fifth century patriarch and one of the most theologically influential writers of the non-calcedonian tradition. Writing in exile, he reflects on how bishops were appointed in one of the most respected Christian centers, Alexandria. Here's what he says. and the bishop also of the city renowned for its orthodox faith. The city of the Alexandrians used in former days to be appointed by prespbittors, but in later times in accordance with the canon which has prevailed everywhere. The solemn institution of their bishop has come to be performed by the hand of bishops. And no one condemns the strictness which prevails in the holy churches and has recourse to the former practices which have yielded to the later clear, strict, approved and spiritual ordinance.
And historically speaking, this is critical because Seis directly confirms three key points that support the Protestant case. One, in the early church, even in Alexandria, bishops were appointed by presitterers, not bishops. Two, that system changed later, not by apostolic command, but by emerging canonical custom. And three, he says the church remembered the shift even as it adapted. In other words, Seis admits that the original structure was prespitial and that episcopal ordination replaced it over time. But here's where he parts ways with the reformers. And we must recognize this. Seis says this newer episcopal model should be followed. Not because it was apostolic, but because it became universal. And this is where the fault line becomes clear. Seis aligns with the tradition once it takes root. The reformers align with the apostles. even if that means standing against later consensus. Both acknowledge the historical facts, but the difference is where they place final authority. And that's what makes Seis's witness actually so valuable. He doesn't argue that Presbyterial ordination was illegitimate. He simply submitted to the structure that came later. Protestants, by contrast, choose to follow what the apostles practiced.
But let's add more voices to the choir. Now we fast forward to the 7th century where we meet Isidor of Seville, Archbishop, educator and one of the most influential figures in shaping the theological and liturggical identity of medieval Spain. And I want to look at two quotes from him in particular. First from his etmology, then from his on the ecclesiastical offices, which was a kind of clerical training manual for the early medieval church, where he gives a historical overview of how ministry in the church developed. Whence among the ancients bishops and priests were the same. For the former name is associated with rank, the latter with seniority. Presbytors are interpreted as elders because the Greeks call those older in age presenters. For to them as to bishops, the dispensation of the mysteries of God has been entrusted. They preside over the church of Christ and share with the bishops in the preparation of the divine body and blood as well as in the teaching of the people and in the duty of preaching. But the ordination and consecration of clerics have been reserved solely for the high priest so that the discipline of the church being claimed by many does not disrupt harmony or generate scandals. For the apostle Paul affirms that these same prespits as true priests are included under the name of bishops. Hence, in writing to Timothy about the ordination of bishops and deacons, he says nothing explicitly about presbytors because he includes them under the name of bishops.
So, for context, this was a pastoral manual that was widely used throughout the western church, a handbook to train clergy on ecclesiology, liturgy, and the offices. Kind of like a seminary curriculum for the 7th century. So this is him instructing future clergy on how the early church actually functioned and he writes that one presitters and bishops were entrusted with the same sacred responsibilities preaching teaching and presiding over the eucharist. Two he affirms that Paul used the word bishop to refer to presbitors not as distinct ranks but interchangeable titles. And three, he states directly that scripture includes preseters under the name of bishops, which is why Paul didn't separately mention them in first Timothy or Philippians. At the same time though, Isidor acknowledges that the power of ordination and consecration had later been reserved for bishops, not as a divine command, but as a practical safeguard so that harmony is not disrupted, just like the other sources that we've seen. In other words, functionally, prespitters were bishops in the apostolic church and structurally a new distinction was later imposed to preserve order. This is the Catholic memory, not Protestant revisionism. And it confirms the core argument that the apostolic foundation was preserial and the episcopal distinction came by pragmatic solution, not by apostolic practice or command.
Next we turn to the second council of Seville, a regional cinnade that was held in the 7th century during a time when episcopal structures were consolidating across the western church. Now this cannon is often cited to reinforce a strict episcopal control. But make sure you catch something else from chapter 7. Presbytors who bear the figure of the sons of Aaron do not presume to usurp. For although many aspects of ministry are held in common with bishops, they know that some things are forbidden to them. For instance, the consecration of presbytors, deacons, and virgins, the establishment, blessing, or anointing of an altar. Nor may they bless the faithful through the laying on of hands, or bestow the Holy Spirit upon them. All these things are prohibited to them alone, because the pinnacle of the pontificate belongs solely to bishops. All these things are known to be prohibited by apostolic faith.
Now, at first glance, this seems like a slam dunk for the Roman Catholic view. Presbyterers are explicitly forbidden from ordaining, anointing, blessing, the very actions that bishops are said to uniquely possess. But let's slow down for a minute and engage our reason. Ask yourself this, why would a council need to list all these prohibitions? unless presbbiters were actively doing them. One, this cannon isn't theoretical, it's reactive. Two, it responds to a living memory of ministerial overlap. And three, it seeks to shut down what had been happening and formalize hierarchy through prohibition. And that really tells us two things. Presbyter shared more functions with bishops than this council was comfortable with. and the push toward exclusive Episcopal control was not yet complete and still being contested. So, while the canon does restrict preser, it also accidentally testifies to a church still in transition where episcopal authority had to be defended because it wasn't yet fully assumed, further evidencing it being a postappostolic custom that developed. And that's the key takeaway. This cannon doesn't disprove the Protestant claim. It proves the process of ecclesiastical development. The very need to legislate these boundaries is a historical witness to their earlier absence.
We now move into the 9th century with the life of St. Ludger written by Altred of Hildashim, a German bishop and close disciple of the saint himself. For context, this work is a firsthand account not only of Ludiger's life, but of how ministry and ordination actually unfolded in the postappostolic church. He writes, "And so, as was his custom with great zeal and care, he labored to benefit the unlearned Saxon people through teaching, uprooting the thorns of idolatry, he diligently swed the word of God in every place, built churches, and in them ordained individual priests whom he himself had raised up as co-workers in the word of God. Yet he humbly sought to avoid episcopal rank. When Bishop Hildeold urged him that he ought to be ordained bishop, he replied with the apostolic saying, "A bishop must be irreroachable." But being humble and a dear friend of God, he said with a sigh that this had not been fulfilled in him."
So, real quick for this find, I have to give credit to Sha Luke over at Anglican Aesthetics. Bravo, bravo. His work on this is fantastic. By the way, if you haven't, go and check out and subscribe to his channel. I will link to it in the description box down below. But besides being an interesting link in the medieval church, this quote reveals something striking. One, St. Ludger himself, not yet a bishop, was planting churches and ordaining priests before ever receiving episcopal consecration. Two, his episcopal ordination came later and reluctantly. And three, his authority and ministry were recognized fruitful and apostolic long before any bishop laid hands on him. And here's what's even more important. No one questioned the validity of the ordinations he performed. That concern doesn't even enter the conversation. What we're given then is a clear snapshot from within the church itself that prespterial ordinations were not assumed to be invalid. In fact, they were practiced, accepted, and blessed by the broader church. Which means that any claim to apostolic succession that hinges on an exclusive episcopal chain runs into a serious problem because it would invalidate the very ministry the church once affirmed. Hence why I said at the beginning that to reject prespitial succession is to cut off the branch that the episcopacy depends upon. And if we take that logic to its end, it implies that most of us today may not have valid orders at all because we simply can't prove unbroken episcopal chain, especially when history shows us that presbbiters were rightly ordaining long after the apostles. So Ludger's story reinforces what we've seen from Jerome to Isidor that presitters carried the apostolic flame that ordination didn't require episcopal hands and that the church knew and acted on this truth.
From the 9th century we jump to the 11th a time of church reform and growing institutional consolidation. Enter Bernald of Constance a Catholic chronicler and reformer writing during the Gregorian reform era. His tract titled on the office of presbbititors aimed to clarify the role and dignity of presbytors within the life of the church. And here's what he says. From these statements attested by blessed Jerome and Ambrose, it is most clearly proven that preser and bishop were the same. But why did they later begin to differ both in name and in office? So that among the presitterers, one especially held the title of bishop. Jerome explains this clearly in his commentary on the epistle to Titus. It was decreed throughout the world that one of the presbbitters should be elected and set over the others, not by the arrangement of the Lord's truth, but by custom.
So Bernol does not hedge. He's not engaging in pmics or apologetics here. He's drawing on apostolic texts and authoritative commentary to assert four clear things. one bishop and preseritter were originally one office. Notice he said office, not two, which means this defense about Jerome saying that the practice of placing a bishop over the city is what developed, not that the two offices developed into two distinct things. No, Bernold rejects this. Two, this isn't a fringe opinion either. It's backed by both St. Ambrose and St. Jerome. Again, showing that Protestants are not reading him wrong. Three, the distinction came later, not from apostolic deposit, but as a universal ecclesial custom. Four, that custom was instituted to respond to division, not to fulfill an apostolic command. And he even notes that many roles now restricted to bishops, like confirming the faithful or reconciling penitence, were once performed by presitters until canon law reassigned them. So from within the medieval church's own reforming voices, we hear the same refrain. The structure may have changed, but the apostolic foundation was preserial. And the bishop's later authority has to be understood in light of that shared origin, which not only confirms our side's reading of the sources and history on this point, but reinforces that Presbyterial succession is the apostolic precedent.
Moving into the high middle ages now we arrive at Anne Sel of Canterbury, Archbishop, philosopher and doctor of the church. His theological depth is matched by a remarkable historical cander. In his commentary on Philippians 1, he interestingly reflects on Paul's greeting in the first verse and how the reference to preser is noticeably absent. He writes to all the saints who are in Philippi that is to all the faithful along with the bishops and deacons that is with the lesser and greater leaders. Bishops here refer to presbbittors according to his custom. There were not several bishops in one city nor did he omit presbytors to descend to the mention of deacons. But he clarifies the dignity and excellence of presbbiters by manifesting that those who are presbittors are also bishops. However, later one was chosen to be set over the others as a remedy against schism lest anyone should draw followers to himself and thus destroy the gospel of Christ.
So make sure you notice what's happening. One, Ansom explicitly equates presiers with bishops in the apostolic context. Two, he rejects the idea that Paul skipped presitters. Instead, his mention of bishops refers to them. And three, like Jerome and others, he explains that the elevation of one above the others came later, not by apostolic mandate or practice, but to safeguard unity. So, Anelm joins all the others in affirming the same story, one that is both scripturally grounded and historically consistent.
Now, we move into the 12th century and enter the world of canon law. Bartholomew of Britishia was one of its foremost architects, best known for his authoritative commentary on Gracian's decreedum known as the glossa ordinaria. In his gloss on distinction 95 he reinforces Jerome's historical account not just the theology but the actual church structure and governance of the early centuries. We read now Gracian repeats concerning the dignity of priests. Thus the case is as follows. Jerome shows below in this chapter that originally a priest was the same as a bishop and the churches were governed by their common council. But later when a schism arose and one would say, I am of Paul, I am of Cphus. I am of Apollos, as if implying superiority because one was baptized by a superior. It was therefore decreed that one of the priests would preside over all. Just as therefore a priest is made subject to bishops by this constitution, so also should it be that bishops do not prefer to enact anything without the consent of the priests, nor should they govern churches without it.
So this is a legal scholar not an apologist or pmicist and his writing is both theological and procedural and he affirms one Jerome's core claim preser and bishop were once synonymous two the episcopate arose as a solution to schism not by divine institution and three critically bishops are still bound to govern with not above prestors thoughts reflect a deep continuity with Jerome and the others. But he also goes further. He argues, like I've said numerous times, that the current ecclesiastical authority must stay grounded in its prespitial roots. In other words, even if a hierarchy now exists that developed, it must operate in mutual accountability. For a 12th century canonist to make this claim from within the Catholic legal system is no small matter. It shows that one, the historical reality of Presbyterian leadership remained embedded even in the church's own legal tradition and two the validity of prespterial authority was not erased by the episcopacy. It was the foundation upon which it stood.
Next we come to Johannes Totonicus, a 13th century canonist and another one of the key architects behind the glossa. In his gloss on distinction 93 he notes a commonly recognized historical tradition. He writes to this some say that in the earliest church the office of bishops and priests was shared and their titles were common. But in the later primitive church both the titles and the offices began to be distinguished. So even if it's stated as a summary of others views it's preserved in the church's highest legal commentary which means it wasn't fringe. It was a recognized historical memory. So even if he's presenting this as the opinion of some, that opinion was credible enough to be preserved in the most authoritative legal compilation of its time. And what does it say? One, that bishops and presbytors were originally not distinct in office or title. and two that the distinction emerged later not from the apostles but from subsequent development which reinforces our core thesis once again. The presbbiterate was not an auxiliary office beneath the bishop. It was the original governing ministry of the apostolic church that the episcopate grew out of.
Next we come to Richard Fitzraal, 14th century archbishop of Armag and a leading voice in canon law and ecclesial governance. In his sumo, we find where he tackles the contentious question of who may ordain and what distinguishes a bishop from a presbbiter. His conclusion is surprisingly candid. He writes, "It seems possible to say according to the scriptures in the matter of the Armenians whether any priest may confer churches and bless altars and also the vessels and vestments pertaining to the altars as a bishop does. Since a bishop in rank and order has nothing more than any simple priest. However, the church has decided that such things should be performed only by those whom we call bishops or that they should be exercised by them with greater reverence and obedience being shown to them by the subordinates. There is also another obvious reason which arises from the distinction of churches and parishes. No one may rightly perform such acts except in the places where he has the power of governance which is greater. Thus simple priests cannot perform such acts or other sacramental acts unless in these places such power is specially committed to them by those who have it. In this matter, there was no such restriction of priestly power in the primitive church according to sacred scripture, it seems to me."
So let's zero in here. One, Fitzro affirms that in both scripture and the early church, bishops and presbbiters had essentially the same authority. Two, the exclusive rights of bishops to ordain, bless, and govern were ecclesiastical decisions, not apostolic in practice. And three, those limitations were added later for reasons of order and reverence, not because presbbiters were unqualified by nature or by apostolic precedent. So in Fitz Ralph's own words, bishops were not a separate class of clergy by divine order. They were simply assigned exclusive tasks by the evolving church.
Now we turn to Georgius Cassander, a Roman Catholic humanist and theologian known for his attempts at peaceful theological reconciliation during the Reformation. In article 14 of his on the articles of religion among Catholics, he engages the question of holy orders and apostolic structure with striking clarity. He writes, "The church desired this only to be clarified in which orders the laying on of hands should be applied, namely in the diiacinate, the presbbiterate and the episcopet, although there is no agreement among theologians and canonists as to whether the episcopate should be placed among the orders. However, it is established that in the times of the apostles, there was no distinction between bishops and prespits. But later for the sake of maintaining order and avoiding schism a bishop was placed over the presitters and the power of ordination that is the laying on of hands was reserved to him alone. It is also established that sacred orders properly refer to the diacinate and presbbiterate as these are the only ones that the primitive church is said to have used." And this is critical not just because of what Cassander says, but when and where he says it during the very age of reformation conflict. One, he affirms that no original distinction existed between bishops and presiers. Two, he admits that the exclusive power of bishops to ordain was a later development created to maintain unity not grounded in apostolic command. And three, most significantly, he acknowledges that only two orders, deacon and preseritter, can be clearly traced back to the primitive church. And this statement from a Roman Catholic scholar directly supports what the reformers were arguing that returning to presbyterial governance wasn't a break from the church. It was a call to return to the apostolic foundations.
And if anyone still doubts whether presbbititors actually ordained, not just in theory, but in practice, here's the historical hammer blow. In 1400, Pope Bonaface I 9th authorized a priest, not a bishop, to ordain all three major orders: deacon, subdeacon, and priest. The Vatican language was clear freely and lawfully. And it wasn't a one-off either. Other bulls followed. Rome knew and permitted it. So let's not pretend the chain has always been exclusive.
So from Jerome to Ambrose, from Isidor to Anselm and Fitzro to Cassander, we find a shared witness. Presbyter and bishop were one office. Hierarchy came later and succession through presbittors is not a novel Protestant innovation. It's apostolic tradition. We've seen beyond question that prespterial succession was practiced, affirmed, and apostolic. But even that isn't the highest standard because the true test of apostolicity isn't a paper trail of hands laid. It's the faithful transmission of apostolic doctrine. As reform scholastic Jerome Zanki notes, we acknowledge that a specific church can be shown to be properly apostolic by a perpetual succession of bishops. But not just any kind of succession. Rather, proper apostolic succession is the kind that is accompanied by continuation of apostolic doctrine, as was the case for the Roman church and her bishops once upon a time. That's the real succession, not just of persons, but of the gospel itself. And by that standard, the churches of the Reformation don't stand as rebels, they stand as rightful heirs. And if our position reflects what the apostles actually practiced, then no one can seriously claim that we lack apostolic succession.
When the reformers challenged the exclusivity of episcopal succession, they weren't inventing a new model. They were recovering the old one, which leaves you with a choice. One, you can accept the later model as being spirit-led because it became widespread, even if it departed from apostolic practice. or two, you can recognize it for what it was, a well-meaning human solution that didn't solve the problem that it was meant to fix. And my conviction lies with the apostolic practice. So, if you're a Protestant and someone tells you that your pastors are not valid, your sacraments aren't efficacious, or your church has no authority because you lack bishops, now you know better. We stand not in rebellion but in continuity with the apostles, with the early church, and with the very church tradition that now seeks to discredit it. Which is why if you're a Protestant who has been wrestling with this issue, you don't need to convert. You just need to remember.
[Music]