THEOS prōtos

What is Apostolic Succession?

The teaching that bishops represent a direct, uninterrupted line of continuity from the first Apostles of Jesus Christ. According to this teaching, bishops possess certain special authoritative powers handed down to them from the Apostles; these consist primarily of the right to confirm church members, to ordain priests, to consecrate other bishops, and to rule over the clergy and church members in their diocese (an area made up of several congregations).  Both the Roman Catholic Church and The Orthodox Church adamantly claim. 

The focus is on the claim to succession of authority and power of the position (“Apostolic Supremacy”).  The counter point is that there is an Apostolic Succession of Doctrine, but not the authority of the Office of Apostle or their powers transferred.  We are attempted to determine the support for the later, if it does exist. 

Internal accuracy and reliability

Since it is claimed to come directly from the Apostles, who do we know this?  The assumption that it is true simply because they say it is does not prove, justify, or validate anything.  Thus, we must search through that which is objectively made known through the actual writings of the Apostles and then later the external writings of the earliest church writings outside of scripture.

Where in Holy Scripture does it provide evidence of this concept?

The closest recorded event related to this concept is when Barnabas was “elected” by the other 11 Apostles to replace Judas in Acts 1.  But there are some serious issues with using this as an example:  

1) There is no mention that God transferred any power and authority, just keeping a warm body in the 12th spot for the time being (Acts 1:12-26).  The Apostles prayed and casted lots, but no where does Holy Scripture state that God transferred anything to him.  In fact, God himself chose Paul to be the 12th Apostle, not Barnabas, and gave HIM that authority and power.  Acts 13:2 does show that God did choose Barnabas and Paul to do mission work, but God calls every single missionary like that, in fact, all Christians are called to do some sort of mission work in their own local communities and lives; so, no special Apostolic Authority and Power was transferred, just called to preach and evangelize with Paul.  In Acts 13:9-12 it is Paul who speaks with the authority, not Barnabas.  Then, Barnabas disagreed with Paul and left him (Acts 15:38-39).  The Prophecy in Psalms about filling Juda’s spot is just that, filling an open slot, but it didn’t say WHO, HOW or WHEN.  The WHO, HOW and WHEN is Paul, Jesus revealing himself personally and physically to Paul, on the road to Damascus.  It may be argued that the Apostles were prematurely trying to satisfy that coming event of their own will.  Regardless, the prophecy identified in Acts is satisfied in Paul’s conversion and appointment as an Apostle.

2)  This (Acts 1:12-26) is a better example of the need to replace ungodly unfaithful leaders and maintain stability and consistency within the foundational group.  

3)  No where does it state that any special power or authority was passed on to Barnabas (Acts 1:12-26).  He is called an “apostle” along with Paul in Acts 14:14, but so was Judas, who had no authority and power.  He was an apostle by the seat he sat in and proximity to Jesus, not in authority and power.  This appears to be the case for Barnabas as well.

4)  The qualifications for Apostle (Acts 1:21-22) seemed to be legitimate in their rational, but, would exclude all other people in the future from filling their role and having their authority and power; since everyone else in modern times can not meet this qualification: “accompanied us [the other Apostles] during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”  That requirement “MUST be a witness to” Jesus’ resurrection and have been with the other apostles from the time of Jesus’ baptism.  No other human for the rest of human history can meet that requirement, thus, the Office of Apostle is currently closed.

5)  When the Apostles did lay hands and transmit their spiritual power to others, the Apostles and those chosen were the only ones who could utilize them.  Those who received the powers were never recorded having the authority or power to pass it on like the Apostles did.  In Holy Scripture, only the Apostles could.  There are no RCC or OC patriarchs raising people from the dead, thus, they do not have the same power and authority as the Apostles did.  

6)  The modern patriarchs authority to be the official voice to interpret Holy Scripture is not supported in Holy Scripture; Jesus rebuked people for not already understanding Scripture (Matt 21:42; 22:29; Mark 12:10,24) and who were they supposed to let “interpret”, the unsaved, self-righteous, legalistic Pharisees?  Nope.  Jesus expected the common person to understand Scriptural truths, regardless of who was in the driver seat teaching the in the Synagogues (the sheep will recognize his voice, not be told what his voice sounds like). Paul praised the Bereans for testing what he taught against Scripture (Acts 17:10-11) and even “reasoned” with others with Scripture (Acts 17:2).  Peter’s Pentecost sermon appealed to everyone to remember what they know already in Scripture (Acts 2:14-41).  Apollos, not an Apostle, is stated to be competent in Scripture (Acts 18:24).  Paul and the Apostles themselves keep pointing their readers back to Scripture and what Holy Scripture teaches (Rom 1:2; 15:4; 16:26; 1 Cor. 15:3-4), and even Timothy knew Holy Scripture at a young age (2 Tim 3:15-16).  Needing a Patriarch to correctly interpret the Scripture was not assumed.

7)  Paul planted churches and appointed elders and deacons, not identifying any future apostolic successors.  There is no mention of this whatsoever in Holy Scripture.  The church in Rome had already been in existence before Paul traveled there.  The church in Rome was planted by the “visitors from Rome” who were part of the 3,000 people who heard Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, not planted by Peter or Paul (Acts 2:10).  

It is absolutely and objectively clear that the concept for Apostolic Succession of Authority and Power, or Apostolic Supremacy of Position, is not found in Holy Scripture, only supremacy of what they taught.  But, for the sake of fairness and objectivity, the RCC and OC both claim a dependence on Apostolic Tradition (“Sacred Tradition”), oral traditions that weren’t written down to explain these discrepancies with their claims.  To dig into this concept we must now look outside of Holy Scripture and in the writings of the early church fathers who document and record early church history as well.

Other Scriptural Considerations

There are AMPLE amount of Scripture that could have and should have included the “divine” concept of Apostolic Succession of authority and power, but the authors, under divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did not include those details in Holy Scripture:

• Eph 2:20 “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,”  

Does not mention anything about successors of the Apostles, or Prophets.  Thus, the successors of the apostles are not the foundation, only the Apostles (New Testament) and Prophets (Old Testament) are/were.

• Eph 3:5 “which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.”  

Again, The Holy Spirit choose NOT to mention anything about any successor to the apostles and prophets, or mention anything about their successors revealing more “traditions” in the future.  Also, the “has now been revealed” shows there isn’t anything new to reveal in the future at the time of this writing and after the Apostles (problematic for Sacred Tradition and the later “traditions” the Church injected into Christian dogmatics hundreds of years later).

• 2 Cor. 5:20:  “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. ”  

The “we” Paul is talking about here is the Apostles, and ZERO mention or hint of his successors or anyone who is NOT an Apostle.  Holy Scripture did NOT say “we and our successors are ambassadors for Christ… through us and our successors”  or even “we and all the bishops after us…“. The context is strictly limited to the Apostles.

• 1 John 4:6 “We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”  

Whoever knows God, listens to doctrines of God, which were taught by the Apostles.  Again, the focus is on that which was taught, not simply listen to someone because they sit in a certain seat.  Also, the “us” in context does not include or even allude to any future “successor” of the “us”.  We, you and me, can still listen to the Apostles through reading Holy Scripture. And if you want to hear their voices, read their letters out loud.

• John 20:21-23 “Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” ²² And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. ²³ If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.””  

It is critical to notice here that this authority from Jesus is ONLY given to the Apostles without any mention or idea of it being transferable to anyone after they die.  This shows a sort of authority and power only given to the Apostles.  He “breathed on them” and gifted them with the authority and power only granted TO THEM, the Apostles.  Injecting the notion of “you and your successors” or “you and the bishops of the church” or “you and someone else” is NOT stated, mentioned, or implied; that sort of teaching would be adding to Holy Scripture what is NOT stated or meant.

• John 17:20 ““I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, ” 

This is as explicit as Jesus gets when it comes to Apostolic Succession of Doctrine, not position.  “through their word” (which has been written down) is that which they teach, and that which they teach was given to them by Jesus; thus, Apostolic Succession of Doctrine is the lineage of doctrine sourced from Jesus through the Apostles and thus, it is DOCTRINE that is of Apostolic Supremacy.

• 1 Cor 4:6 is by far the most condemning verses that cause issue for the concept of Apostolic Succession and their authority in proclaiming Sacred Traditions not found articulated in Holy Scripture: “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.”  

First, “learn by us” does NOT state “learned by us and our successors” and secondly, is this: “not to go beyond what is written”  That’s a huge statement.  The anchor of what is Apostolic Doctrine is in what has been written, not what was orally taught.  Paul does NOT say “what is written and orally taught”  Paul makes it clear that everyone must be on the same page was to “not to go beyond what has been written” to prevent division and doctrine perversion.  But if people are not on the same page and DO “go beyond what has been written” than it will lead to people being puffed up in favor against one another and cause drama.  The entire notion of Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession of Authority and Position have caused the greatest division in all of Christendom.

• Galatians 1:8 is a huge issue for oral Sacred Tradition: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”  

The gospel is NOT oral Sacred Tradition, therefore, anything, ANY THING, that is “contrary” or different from the written doctrine, is heresy.  “Even if WE” is huge.  Even if an Apostle taught something different, they’re wrong. Period.  Thus, anyone after them teaching something different are also wrong.  Period.  “the one we preached” is past tense. They are not adding anything new to what they already proclaimed.  An argument can be made that these additional Sacred Traditions, are in fact, contrary to The Gospel Message found in Holy Scripture.

• 1 Cor 14:37 “ If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.” 

Paul’s appeal to authority is “the things I am writing” and not things of oral Sacred Tradition.  This authority as an Apostle comes from the things he TEACHES and not based on his position.  It is critical to note that “oral Sacred Tradition” should be and would have been something Paul would include here.  But, he, and the Holy Spirit purposefully doesn’t.

• 2 John 9 “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.”  

John makes it absolutely clear that it is the DOCTRINES of Christ that matter most and NOT the position of the one who is teaching.  Jesus expected those who were taught by the unsaved Pharisees to know these doctrines still; thus, its not WHO teaches but WHAT they are teaching.  The reason why it is the Apostles that need to be listened to is because THEY alone were made direct witnesses to the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ, not the Pharisees. The argument is made that it is the Patriarchs who ensure that “the teaching of Christ” is accurately interpreted, but this is completely void and willfully ignorant of the fact that The Holy Spirit teaches individuals too (John 14:26; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:12; 1 John 2:27).  Jesus didn’t select the current Scholars of that day to partake in the revelation of divine wisdom, He chose fisherman and tax collectors, not those who were sitting in the seat of religious authority.  

• Luke 24:27+32 “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” 

Jesus, God in the flesh, does not appeal to a single iota of “Sacred Tradition” but instead affirms Sacred Scripture all the way back 2,000 years from Moses.  Since THIS was written down, we are even given direction, all people, as to how we are to properly interpret “the things” in Scripture.  Don’t need a bishop, Pope, or priest for this.  “Moses and all the Prophets” is the Old Testament, which Jesus expected everyone to already be familiar with.  Also, John 5:39 is the guide from Christ in interpreting the Old Testament.

• John 2:22 “When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” 

NOTICE there is ZERO mention of any sort of Sacred Tradition that they needed to believe.  They just believed in Holy Scripture and all the things Jesus said… which is now written down for us.  We, now, have Sacred Scripture of Moses and the Prophets and also the Sacred Scriptures of the words of Jesus and the Apostles.  Nothing else is missing.

In light of the vast amounts of internal statements from Holy Scripture, we can easily see that Holy Scripture does not directly or explicitly support the concept of Apostolic Succession of Authority and Power (“ASAP”).  Apostolic Supremacy is its modern conceptual form is too injected with concepts and assumptions found nowhere in Holy Scripture.  It is clear in Holy Scripture that Apostolic Supremacy is tied to Apostolic Doctrine and the continuation of it, doctrine.  We can say in confidence that the concept of Apostolic Succession of Authority and Power is not biblical (as in, it cannot be justified with Scripture).  

BUT, those who make the ASAP claim will ALSO claim that oral Sacred Tradition (“OST”) is the reason why ASAP is not directly or explicitly stated in Holy Scripture.  For this we can consider the later writings outside of Holy Scripture.

One last verse that holds an extremely high amount of weight is this:

• 2 Timothy 3:15-17 causes a problem the OST claim. “and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶ All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. ” 

Paul didn’t bother to appeal to Timothy’s understanding and knowledge of OST, but only in his knowledge of “Sacred Writings” and he continues to say that it is the “sacred writings” that make people “wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ” and again, not through or with OST.   He goes on to say that it is “All Scripture” and not “sacred tradition” is breathed out by God for training in righteousness.  It is the Scriptures that make men of God complete, equipped for every good work. ZERO reference to any oral traditions at all, whatsoever in these critical verses of the faith.

Rebuttal to the claim that the early church did not have Sacred Scripture.

The idea that the early church didn’t have Sacred Scripture is false and biblically ignorant.    

1. They had the 10 commandments carved in stone in the days of Moses through Joshua (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 5:22; 9:10) and then this: “And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord.” (Ex. 24:4).  
2. Even as far back as Deuteronomy, God states: “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.”  Then in Deuteronomy, again, God makes it clear that his laws, commands, and promises are all written down: “And on the day you cross over the Jordan to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall set up large stones and plaster them with plaster. ³ And you shall write on them all the words of this law, when you cross over to enter the land that the Lord your God is giving you, a land flowing with milk and honey, as the Lord, the God of your fathers, has promised you.”  Even Joshua was compelled to write Holy Scripture, all those centuries ago: “And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. And he took a large stone and set it up there under the terebinth that was by the sanctuary of the Lord.” 
3. 2 Kings 22:13 (also see 2 Chronicles 34:21) states: “Go, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found. For great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.”  Notice, the author says “have not obeyed the words of this book” and not some kind of ancient tradition of Moses or Abraham.  
4. 2 Kings 23:2,3,24 (Also see 2 Chronicles 34:30-31) says “And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant that had been found in the house of the Lord.” and when the people of Israel recommitted themselves to God, it wasn’t a single ounce of dependence on any kind of ancient sacred traditions: “to walk after the Lord and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people joined in the covenant. <…> Moreover, Josiah put away the mediums and the necromancers and the household gods and the idols and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, that he might establish the words of the law that were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord.”  And when they rediscovered God’s written words, they dumped the traditions they had been holding on to.

Notice that in 2 Chronicles 35:6 they say “And slaughter the Passover lamb, and consecrate yourselves, and prepare for your brothers, to do according to the word of the Lord by Moses.”  It is written that “according to the word of the Lord by Moses” but they aren’t talking about some sort of ancient oral tradition from Moses, they are literally referring to His words, written down, Levitical ceremonial worship laws.  So, even in Scripture when it is said to follow someone’s words, this can also mean read what they said, if they are no longer alive and are not there to literally speak them.  When they would teach in the Synagogues, they would read out loud from the scrolls, and this is what they would call hearing the words of the Lord. 

In 2 Samuel 22:1, David’s private personal worship song is even recorded: “And David spoke to the Lord the words of this song on the day when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul.”  David “spoke” but “this song” was written down.  Would seem to be a minor traditional thing to worry about, but even his song is written, thus, ANYTHING sacred, gets written down. 

We can’t disregard the fact that Leviticus is mostly all recorded traditions of the Jewish Nation.  Their ceremonial traditions, cultural traditions, all codified and recorded.  The only times they weren’t reading Scripture and just going off what the patriarchs and prophets orally said, is when God was speaking directly to someone, who then wrote that down as well later.  

Granted, not everyone had immediate access to the Holy Scriptures like we do today.  They were either just one large document, tablet, stone, papyrus, etc., (but the stones were set up for public display, FYI), or they were huge giant long scrolls that were kept in the Temple.  They didn’t have a printing press like we have now; yet, they still had access and were expected to know it, everyone.  We must put off our modern mindsets and understand that when they would go to the Synagogues, every Sabbath, holiday, and festival, they would hear, read, and discuss Holy Scripture, all day, several days in a row even.  The modern church only hears the bible being read for about 45 minutes on Sunday, once a week, THIS is why modern Christians are ignorant of Scripture and are easily persuaded to trust some sort of Sacred Tradition to make up for their ignorance of the faith.  The Jews and early Christians had AMPLE time to hear, read, and discuss Holy Scripture.  The gospel of Matthew (Papayrus P104 (P. Oxy. 4404)), John (P90 (P. Oxy. 3523), P52), and Revelation (Papyrus P98 (P. IFAO inv. 237b [+a]) ) are 1st/2nd century writings that we have actual hard copies of, they may not be the originals, but they could be within a century of Jesus himself AND within decades from the Apostles, John may have been alive when our hard copy of Revelation was made.  Thus, the early church even had the “Books of Moses and the Prophets” (the Old Testament), AND the Gospels all in the 1st century.  Our hard copy writings could have been the copies read by Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, and or Irenaeus; who were Disciples of the Apostles.

Just do a word search for “scripture” and you’ll see that it is Scripture that is the sole and ultimate authority.  

The Bible does record some oral traditions, but does not elaborate on them (because they weren’t of God in the first place) in Matthew 15:1-6 (Mark 7:3-4,13 provides more details).  The Pharisees, masters of inventing Sacred Traditions, attempted to call out the Apostles for not keeping with their oral Sacred Tradition; and Jesus dumped all over them: “He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.” This invented tradition was not established by Abraham, Moses, Joseph, Joshua or any of the REAL patriarchs. 

EXTERNAL accuracy and reliability

The justification for the claim of Apostolic Succession of Authority and Power is not found within Holy Scripture, we must then turn outside (never a good idea) of Scripture to see where this concept originated from and or what supports and justifies it’s claim.

The limitations of External support

Now, even with any sort of external support for the concept of ASAP, the elephant in the room remains the fact that it’s the Apostolic Doctrine that is supreme, and over the position, Offices, and any sort of tradition or Sacred Tradition claims.  The proof of this is the simple test of a heresy.  If a bishop, pope, patriarch or anyone who teaches a doctrine or tradition that is in direct contradiction to Holy Scripture, it is Holy Scripture that deems that doctrine or tradition to be false, not the heretical bishop, pope, patriarch or teachers.  Thus, Holy Scripture is the final and ultimate authority still.  And there have been Popes and patriarchs who were extremely corrupt; but we’ll get to that later.  First, let’s dig into what the early church fathers, after the apostles, may have said about ASAP.

Early Church Father

Irenaeus (130 – 200 AD) almost made an argument against a claim of ASAP when he addressed one of the gnostic sects making the same sort of claim as the RCC and OC.  Notice Irenaeus appeals to Holy Scripture as his authority for proving their claims wrong (not Sacred Tradition).  The group he is condemning, according to him, allege they got their truths not from written documents but by a teacher/preacher/ someone’s voice: i.e. spoken to them, i.e. oral tradition. The same sort of claim RCC and OC use regarding Sacred Tradition and traditions verbally passed own from the Apostles.  Even Irenaeus recognizes that Sacred Tradition can’t even stand on its own, but that Holy Scripture is ultimate and superior to tradition.

“When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce:” ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book 3:2:1. 

Irenaeus refutes the argument of ASAP and a gnostic claim to Sacred Tradition by only using the authority of Holy Scripture.  An issue with the concept we determined already.  Keeping this in mind, his next quite is in better light to be properly understood:

“When we refer to them that tradition which originated from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of the presbyters in the churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even the Apostles”. – Irenaeaus of Lyons (a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna), “Against the Heresies”, 3.2.2, 180 AD 

Now we can see what he is actually referring to in light of his first quote above.  His argument is for the preservation of apostolic doctrine, not the next but that fills the position, Office, or any succession of power.  Gnosticism and all kinds of heresies were flying all around and the only way to determine what is a heresy and what is apostolic doctrine, is by maintaining that which was taught:  succession of Apostolic Doctrine.  You know it’s an unbroken chain of truth when the presbyters teach the same things all the way from the Apostles; all the way to today.  The “tradition” of what the Apostles taught in writing.  Passing on the writings of the Apostles through history is a tradition too.

And here is a more explicit quote that justifies Apostolic Succession of Doctrine, not position:

“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (Against Heresies, 3.3.3 ANF) 

The focus is on WHAT IS TAUGHT and not WHO IS IN THE SEAT.  The ‘make it or break‘ it as far as what Irenaeus is talking about is the teaching (tradition).  If it is the teaching that is off, the church is off; if the teaching is on point, the church is inline with the Apostles and what they taught.  What matters is WHAT is tied to the Apostles, not WHO.   This is the concept of the Succession of Apostolic Doctrine.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393 – 466 AD) also points out that the Gnostics who follow Simon make extra-scriptural claims as well.  

So how can Irenaeus and Theodoret condemn extra-scriptural Apostolic Succession claims if extra-scriptural Apostolic Succession was practiced in the church?  

“Give a wide berth to those hollow profanities and contradictions in what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have strayed from the faith (vv.20-21). Those who followed in the steps of Simon called themselves Gnostics; what the divine Scripture is silent on (they claim) God revealed to them, but they are full of impiety and licentiousness. He was right to call this knowledge what is falsely called knowledge: the darkness of ignorance is what they have, not the light of the knowledge of God.” Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 230. 

Notice, “what the divine Scripture is silent on…” this was their excuse to create “traditions” and new/different revelations for the Church, oral traditions that are “sacred” because “God revealed” it.  It would be interesting to hear RCC and OC arguments against these Gnostics who make the very same claim.  Holy Scripture IS silent on ASAP and oral Sacred Tradition.

Mentions of The Concept of Apostolic Succession of Divine Authority and Power? 

Polycarp (65 – 155 AD) Tells his audience to be “subject to the presbyters and deacons.”  There is no mention of a patriarchal apostolic succession of some bishop or cardinal or patriarch to be subjected to.  This man may have been a direct disciple of John; you’d think he would appeal to apostolic succession being so close to one of the Apostles.  But, he didn’t.  ASAP claim is foreign to a Disciple of the Apostle John and friend of Peter.

“Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ.” (Polycarp to Philippians V) 

The Shepard of Hermas (90 AD) wrote a vision he claimed to have had.  It was written to possibly Clement of Rome and the author, Hermas, may have been the same one Paul mentioned in Romans 16:14.  This document does contain the heresy of Adoptionism so it’s divine authority is highly doubted.  BUT, the author does write to the church as a whole and mentions the fact that there are only church elders, not bishops or popes, and states that there are multiple elders in local churches, not just one.  No mention what so ever of ASAP.

“Thou shalt therefore say unto the elders of the Church, that they direct their paths in righteousness, that they may receive in full the promises with abundant glory… And afterwards I saw a vision in my house. The aged woman came, and asked me, if I had already given the book to the elders. I said that I had not given it. ‘Thou hast done well,’ she said, ‘for I have words to add. When then I shall have finished all the words, it shall be made known by thy means to all the elect. Thou shalt therefore write two little books, and shalt send one to Clement, and one to Grapte. So Clement shall send to the foreign cities, for this is his duty; while Grapte shall instruct the widows and the orphans. But thou shalt read (the book) to this city along with the elders that preside over the Church.’” (https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html)

Clement of Rome (35 – 99 AD) wrote to the church of Corinth around 90 AD where he generally described how the early church got started. A sort of brief history lesson. Notice how he states that the Apostles only appointed 2 positions, Presbyter (bishop) and Deacon.  That’s it.  And that the presbyters and deacons would be succeeded by other approved men (by that local church) to “succeed to their duties”  The “their duties” is not referring the Apostles.  In it’s proper context, it is referring to the duties of the local presbyters and deacons of that local church.  Again, not an Apostolic Succession of Authority an Power endorsement. Zero mention of a transfer of apostolic power and authority or any illusion to the continuation of apostolic command.  And seeing as how this would have been the very guy to mention such an important “thing” since, he, himself at the time of his writing, HAVE BEEN given Apostolic Authority and Power… but… he never appeals to it or mentions it, as if it is none-existent.

““The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent from God. So Christ is from God, and the apostles from Christ. Both came to pass regularly by the will of God. So having received their instructions, and having been reassured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, trusting in the word of God they set forth in the convic­tion of the holy Spirit, preaching that the kingdom of God was about to come. So as they preached from country to country and from town to town, they appointed their first converts, after testing them by the Spirit, as Presbyters and Deacons of those who were to believe… And what wonder, if those who in Christ were entrusted with such a task appointed those just mentioned?… Our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be contention for the title of overseer. On this account, as they had received full foreknowledge, they appointed those already mentioned in order that, if they should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their duties.” ” (https://earlychurchfathers.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/apostolic-succession/)

Didache (1st or early 2nd Century) is an early anonymous writing that recorded various teachings and concepts.  Eusebius (324 AD), Athanasius (367 AD) and Rufinus (380 AD) list it as apocrypha… yet, the entire claim of the document is recording Apostolic traditions.  How can it be considered apocrypha by early church fathers, if it contains Sacred Traditions of the Apostles?  It too just records local leadership consisting of presbyters and deacons with no mention of Apostolic authority or power being passed down in any shape or form.

““Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops [elders] and deacons worthy of the Lord”  Didache 15

Tertullian (155 – 220 AD) gives one of the best understandings of the succession of Apostolic Doctrine that the RCC and OC wouldn’t like to hear.  Basically, all the churches who the apostolic “seeds of doctrine” “will be able to deem themselves apostolic” and that even though there are “so many and so great” amount of churches, they are still all “comprised but the one primitive church, founded by the apostles.”  and this quote is gold:  “In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity“.  An Apostolic church is a church that teaches the doctrines of the Apostles. 

“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

Another interesting nugget to point out is that pattern and style of Worship, Baptism, Communion, Prayer, Fasting, Celebrations (Easter, Christmas) are all “traditions.”  To ASSUME when you see that word used, the author is referring to some unwritten oral Sacred Traditions taught by the Apostles.  This would not be accurate.  The PROPER understanding of the word “traditions” when used by an early church father, prior to 300 AD, is NOT the same as defined by Second Vatican Council of 1965.  It can even be argued in light of all that we have looked at thus far is that Sacred Tradition, as it is currently taught, is a tradition itself of the later early church and not of the Apostles.

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in Expository Tresties Against the Jews around 210 AD states this about “tradition”: “For the Holy Spirit, indeed, in the person of the apostles, has testified to this, saying, “And who has believed our report?” Therefore let us not prove ourselves unbelieving, lest the word spoken be fulfilled in us. Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin”  He is QUOTING John 12:37, which is a quote of Isaiah 53:1.  The “tradition of the apostles” are quotes of Holy Scripture and the general gospel message.  ZERO mention of anything that was only taught orally.

Historical Patriarchs and Popes

We can also look at the lives of these Patriarchs, bishops, and Popes to see if they have received the special power and authority.  When we do this it doesn’t take long to find out that there have been godless Patriarchs, bishops, and Popes.  But how can this be if they are gifted supernatural apostolic power and authority?  That’s like justifying Judas as an Apostle Authority simply because he may have said something correct once or twice…  Remember, Satan and Demons know Holy Scripture too.  Satan even quotes scripture to Jesus and Adam. 

Roman Catholic Patriarchal Corruption

Between Pope Nicolas I (858-867) and Pope Gregory VI (1045-1046) is called by historians, the MIDNIGHT OF THE DARK AGES. Bribery, corruption, immorality and bloodshed, make it just about the blackest chapter in the whole history of the Church.  Pope Sergius III (904-911) said to have had a mistress, Marozia. She, her mother Theodora, and her sister, “filled the Papal chair with their paramours and bastard sons, and turned the Papal Palace into a den of robbers!” 

Pope John X (914-928), “was brought to Rome, and made Pope by Theodora for the more convenient gratification of her passion.” He was smothered to death by Marozia, who, then, in succession, raised to the Papacy, Popes Leo VI (928-929), and Stephen VII (929-931), and John XI (931-936) — her own illegitimate son.  

Another of Marozia‘s sons appointed the four following Popes: Leo VII (936-939), Stephen VIII (939-942), Martin III (942-946), and Agapetus II (946-955).  Pope John XII (955-963), a grandson of Marozia, was “guilty of almost every sort of crime. He violated virgins and widows; lived with his father’s mistress; made the Papal Palace a brothel; and was killed while in the act of adultery by the woman’s enraged husband” 

Pope Benedict VIII (1012-1024), bought the office of Pope with open bribery. This was called SIMONY, that is, the purchase or sale of Church Office with money. 

Pope John XII was pope from 955 until his apparently untimely death in 964, and had a rather foul reputation. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, he was “a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium.” He was eventually accused of perjury, simony and other crimes and was briefly deposed before sweeping back to power in a bloody purge. John’s death was curious: He was apparently killed by a man who had found the pope in bed with his wife, in midst of committing adultery. 

Pope Urban VI presided over a major schism in the Roman Catholic Church in 1378, which saw the emergence of parallel feuding papacies that lasted nearly four decades. Urban was supposedly prone to violent outbursts; later on, he caught wind of a conspiracy to depose him and had six cardinals arrested, tortured and ultimately executed. Legend has it he complained to the torturers that the cardinals’ screams were not loud enough. 

Pope Benedict IX was a remarkably cynical pope, Benedict held the position on three separate occasions in the 11th century; in one instance, he actually resigned and sold the papacy to another priest. Known for his supposedly licentious behavior, Benedict was described by a later 11th century pope as having a life “so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.” 

Pope Leo X was a scion of the powerful Medici family of Florence, Leo had his talents and was a patron of the arts, but is remembered most for his lavish, spendthrift habits in the years he was pope, between 1513 and 1521. His emptying of the Vatican’s coffers led to various measures to create more revenue, which included the sale of indulgences — in effect, guarantees of relief from damnation in the afterlife. 

How could all this be if they were divinely ordained, appointed, and endowed with supernatural apostolic power and authority?  In The Faith of Our Fathers, pg. 54, we read an odd new (not found anywhere in the Bible or taught by any ancient church father, ever) claim by the RCC: “they must also have handed down to them the no less essential gift of infallibility.” (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 54).   Clearly, this is a lie.  This is NOT supported by Holy Scripture and history itself has disproven this.  

Not only does the RCC have its fair share of corrupt Popes, bishops, and clergy, but the Orthodox Church does too.

Orthodox Church Patriarchal Corruption

Patriarch Alexy I  the 13th Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus’, Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church consecrated by Gregory IV of Antioch appointed Archbishop of Khutyn, that is, the vicar of the Diocese of Novgorod.  A leading critic of Patriarch Alexei’s leadership was Father Gleb Yakunin who claimed in his books and articles that the postwar hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church was controlled by KGB informants.  Patriarch Alexius joined the World Peace Council, “a Soviet front organization,” when it was founded in 1949. According to Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, both Patriarch Alexius and Metropolitan Nicholas “were highly valued by the KGB as agents of influence.”  Patriarch Alexius was permitted by the KGB to enroll the Russian Orthodox Church into the Christian Peace Conference in 1958 and the World Council of Churches in 1961. On February 2, 1945, with Stalin’s approval, Alexius I was elected Patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia and enthroned on February 4, 1945. In 1965, Fathers Gleb Yakunin and Nikolai Eshilman wrote an open letter to Patriarch Alexius. According to Evgeny Barabanov, “They showed convincingly how a significant part of the governing episcopate, with voluntary silence or cunning connivance, had assisted the Atheists to close churches, monasteries, and religious schools, to liquidate religious communities, to establish the illegal practice of registering christenings, and had yielded to them control over the assignment and transfer of priests.” 

beginning in the 1990s, that Patriarch Alexy II had been a KGB agent. These reports originate with Gleb Yakunin, a member of the committee created for the investigation of the Soviet coup attempt of 1991 and chaired by Lev Ponomaryov, who thereby gained the access to secret KGB archives. In March 1992 he published materials alleging cooperation between the Moscow Patriarchate and the KGB. He published code names of several KGB agents who held high-rank positions in the Russian Orthodox Church including Patriarch Alexius II. The Russian church defrocked Yakunin in 1993. The allegation was repeated by Yevgenia Albats in 1994. Western media reported on these allegations in 1999 and again in 2007/8. The Patriarch was also named as a “KGB collaborator” in a 2015 interview with defected former KGB general and suspected double agent Oleg Kalugin.  Patriarch Alexy II acknowledged that compromises were made with the Soviet government by bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate, himself included, and publicly repented of these compromises 

Patriarch Filaret is a Ukrainian religious leader, currently serving as the primate and Patriarch of the unrecognized Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine, that he left in 2019, views him as the Honorary Patriarch emeritus, while the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople recognises him as former Metropolitan of Kyiv. He was formerly the Metropolitan of Kiev and the Exarch of Ukraine in the Patriarchate of Moscow (1966–1992). After joining the Kyiv Patriarchate, he was defrocked and in 1997 excommunicated by the ROC. On 11 October 2018, the Patriarchate of Constantinople reinstated him in church communion. However, while restored to the episcopate, the Ecumenical Patriarchate never recognized him as Patriarch and views him as the former Metropolitan of Kyiv. On 15 December 2018, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate united with the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and some members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP) into the Orthodox Church of Ukraine; the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate thus ceased to exist.  Filaret was then anathemized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997. ROC officials stated that the anathematization of Filaret was “recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches including the Church of Constantinople” The synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate did indeed recognize, in a July 1992 letter to Patriarch Alexy II, the defrocking of Filaret by the ROC, and the Ecumenical Patriarch recognized the anathemization of Filaret in a letter of April 1997 to Patriarch Alexy II. 

An issue that has haunted the OC is Caesaropapism which is the idea of combining the social and political power of secular government with religious power, or of making secular authority superior to the spiritual authority of the Church. The Byzantine Emperor would typically protect the Eastern Church and manage its administration by presiding over ecumenical councils and appointing Patriarchs and setting territorial boundaries for their jurisdiction. The Emperor exercised a strong control over the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and the Patriarch of Constantinople could not hold office if he did not have the Emperor’s approval. Such Emperors as Basiliscus, Zeno, Justinian I, Heraclius, and Constans II published several strictly ecclesiastical edicts either on their own without the mediation of church councils, or they exercised their own political influence on the councils to issue the edicts. Following the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Sultans of the Ottoman Empire took control of appointing the Patriarch of Constantinople and all Byzantine Rite Bishops within their dominions. Seeking to convince Soviet authorities to stop the campaign of terror and persecution against the Church, Metropolitan Sergius, acting as patriarchal locum tenens, tried to look for ways of peaceful reconciliation with the government. On July 29, 1927, he issued his famous declaration: an encyclical letter where he professed the absolute loyalty of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Soviet Union and to its government’s interests. 

Esphigmenou along with other Mt. Athos monasteries, sketes and monks, had been involved in a long dispute with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The dispute continues since a new “Esphigmenou brotherhood”, was established. The monastic community of Mount Athos is under the direct spiritual jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch and all Athonite monks are canonically required to commemorate the Patriarch. However, since the 1970s, Esphigmenou, along with other Mt. Athos monasteries, had accused the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras of being ecumenist and had refused to commemorate him. These complaints mainly consist of canon law prohibiting Orthodox from praying with heretics.  The relationship between the current occupant monks of Esphigmenou Monastery and the Ecumenical Patriarchate has greatly deteriorated since 2002, when Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople declared them as being in schism from the Orthodox Church 

Then schisms in the Orthodox Church also calls into question their accuracy and reliability of their own belief being in the direct succession of the Apostles.  The True Orthodox Church is a group of traditionalist EOC that severed communion with “mainstream” EOC.   The objection were to “Sacred Traditions” claimed by the patriarchs who are supposed to be holding to “traditions” from the Apostles.  They split because of calendar reform and ecumenism.  In 1971 the ROC attempted to reunite with the splintered OC but failed.  Yes, there is denominationalism within the OC.  So the question becomes, which church is directly in line with the Apostolic Succession of Authority and Power?

Every church has had its share of scandals.  After all, all churches are organized by sinful humans, including the OC.  But their claim to Apostolic Authority and Power along with oral Sacred Tradition is suppose to prevent church error.  Yet, with just a few examples noted above and others, such as the Financial scandal in the Orthodox Church in America in 2007, the Hesychast controversy in the 14th century that gradually became accepted as doctrine, and the Filioque controversy.  Vasilije Kačavenda is a retired Serbian Orthodox bishop and a former government minister from Bosnia and Herzegovina who served as the head of the Eparchy of Zvornik and Tuzla until his dismissal in 2013 due to a torrent of sex with an underage boy abuse claims. Artemije Radosavljević was a Serbian Orthodox bishop who served as the head of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren from 1991 until his removal in 2010. He was removed from his position due to alleged embezzlement of funds. These are just a few notable examples of problems in the claim of Apostolic Authority and Power.

The Succession Lists

The succession lineage of the Office itself is questionable in the fact that the RCC, Coptic OC and Greek OC all have their own lists of succession and they are not all the same.  Hermannus Contractus may have been the first historian to number the popes continuously. His list ends in 1049 with Pope Leo IX as number 154. Several changes were made to the list during the 20th century.  If they know the chain has been unbroken since the Apostles, why have they needed to revise the list over and over again?

Pope-elect Stephen was considered legitimate under the name Stephen II until the 1961 edition, when his name was erased.  A number of modern lists still include this «first Pope Stephen II». It is probable that this is because they are based on the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is in the public domain. The First Greek pope was once erroneously split into Cletus and Anacletus.  How could this be if they knew the chain of succession?   Regarding Papa Electus STEPHANUS, sometimes known as Stephen II who died three days after his election; never receiving episcopal consecration. Some lists still include him. The Vatican sanctioned his addition in the sixteenth century; removed in 1961. He is no longer considered a pope by the Catholic Church.  Why?  I thought the list was known?  Antipope Christopher was considered a legitimate pope for a long time but was removed due to how he obtained the papacy. The decisions of the Council of Pisa (1409) were reversed in 1963 in a reinterpretation of the Western Schism, extending Gregory XII‘s pontificate to 1415 and classifying rival claimants Alexander V and John XXIII as antipopes.  This was decided 400 years later.  What changes to the list are they going to make time and time again in the future?  Which Apostolic Successor will be changed, removed, and or added?  If the chain is known and is known to be “unbroken”… how are they adding and removing names?

The RCC Pope list has been such a jumbled mess for centuries, the simple fact of Eusebius, Jerome, and other early church fathers giving different counts, dates, names of the various possible Popes, a hundred years before even their time, causes a reliability issue for the RCC claim to Papal succession from St. Peter.  Different counts, dates, and names, adding and subtracting, all proves the unreliableness of the list and prove the actual chain of succession is still not fully known.

Stachys the Apostle is claimed to be the second bishop of Byzantium, from AD 38 to AD 54 according to tradition. Stachys is mentioned just one time in the New Testament as a person loved by Apostle Paul (Rom. 16:9).  But not everyone Paul mentions became elders and deacons.  Eusebius quotes Origen as saying that Andrew had preached in Asia Minor and in Scythia, along the Black Sea as far as the Volga and Kiev.  But this is already 3rd hand and Origen isn’t the most reliable source either.  Stachys as the 2nd bishop of Byzantium only find support hundreds of years later.

Onesimus, the 3rd bishop of Byzantium, they don’t even know when he died.  It ranges from 68 AD or between 98 AD and 117 AD.  That’s a huge range and would interfere with the of time in office of the bishops after him.

Polycarpus II was the 10th bishop of Byzantium from around 141 until his death in 144. According to OC tradition, he remained in office for seventeen years, but Church historian Nikiforos Kallistos mentions that Polycarpus II was the bishop of Byzantium for three years (141–144 AD).  IF he was in office for 17 years, that would impact all the bishop of Byzantium after him and call into question those who were bishops during that 14 years in question.

Alypius or Olympius was the 14th bishop of Byzantium during the second half of the 2nd century AD. The date when he became the bishop of Byzantium is not known for certain. Additionally, the length of his term is not known, but it is believed to be three years (166–169).  This is, again, a huge problem for all the other claims of bishop before him and after him.

Church historian Frederick George Holweck wrote A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints: With a General Introduction on Hagiology in 1924 and he says that there were no bishops at Byzantium in the third century.  And interestingly, most of the 3rd century claims to bishop of Byzantium are primarily based on the churches “tradition” later in church history and not on objective supporting historical evidence.  Because then, around the turn of the 4th century, we start seeing objective supporting historical evidence again.

According to Kiminas (The Ecumenical Patriarchate. Wildside Press LLC. pp. 30–51. ISBN 978-1-4344-5876-6; 2009) Laurent (“Les premiers patriarches de Constantinople sous la domination turque (1454-1476). Revue des études byzantines (26): 229–263; 1968) and Gemanos of Sardeis (Σαρδεων Γερμανος (1933–38). “Συµβολή εις τους πατριαρχικούς καταλόγους Κωνσταντινουπόλεως από της αλώσεως και εξής”. Ορθοδοξια (8–13) (in Greek) ; 1933–38) they each list a different Byzantium bishops from 1462 to 1466.  How is this possible if the unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession is known?

A Georgian homily preserved in a single manuscript (Iviron 11) is presented as a treatise by Barsabeus bishop of Jerusalem. No bishop of this name is attested in the usual lists, and it is certainly a pseudonym relating to “Joseph dit Barsabbas, nicknamed Justus”, the unlucky candidate for the succession of the traitor Judas (namely Matthias) in Ac. 1, 23. The editor proposes to compare this pseudepigraph to the Just Bishop of Jerusalem fourth (and not third as in the list of Eusebius) successor of James. So much early uncertainty.

Senecas, Justus II, and Levis of Jerusalem are claimed to be the 9th and 10th bishop of Jerusalem, but this only comes from Eusebius of Caesarea around 300 or so AD.  But in light of more modern findings, some scholars (Richard Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Bloomsbury Publishing, 29 Jan. 2015) p 73-74.) have suggested that he was not a bishop but rather a presbyter assisting James the first Bishop.

Baldassare Cossa, aka John XXIII, there is an enscription of him at Santa Maria del Fiore (the Duomo). Besides the Doors of Paradise by Ghiberti and the sprawling, fantastic Last Judgement on the ceiling, there is one small detail that should noticed: on one of the walls there is a marble tomb between two granite columns with the effigy of a dead pope on the top: the Latin inscription says that the remains are those of Pope John XXIII.  When he was elected Pope he was not even a priest, yet, all those bishops and “Holy Fathers” of the church felt he should be for some reason.  He was later removed from the list of Popes.  So, was he in Apostolic Succession and endowed with Apostolic Authority and Power?  

The Papal name numbering is also been an obvious failure.  The official list of Popes has a Boniface VI and a Boniface VIII, but Boniface VII is lost to history. By the same logic, there’s an Alexander IV and an Alexander VI, but no Alexander V.   The numbering of popes named Felix has been amended to omit antipope Felix II; however, most lists still call the last two Felixes, Felix III and Felix IV.   So the official list includes a mess of entries like “St Felix III (Felix II)”, or, to give him his Latin name: “Papa FELIX Tertius (Secundus)”. He ruled for nine years in the late 5th century; 30 years later came “St Felix IV”, who is also known as Felix III.  Additionally, there was an antipope Felix V. So, for those keeping count, there have been five Pope Felixes, only three of whom were actually Pope. There’s never been a Pope John XX. That’s not because he was later labelled an anti-pope, it’s “as a result of confusion of the number system” – which is a way of saying that they literally lost count. To balance this out, there are in fact two different John XXIIIs – an antipope in the early 15th century, who hovered around the edge of the lists for four centuries, before finally getting bumped off by a different Pope John XXIII in 1958.  In 1281 someone named Simon decided to be Pope Martin, and when someone checked the lists for Martins past they found three. But the time someone noticed that two of them were actually called Marinus, it was too late. So there’s a Martin I, a Martin IV, and even a Martin V, but Martins II and III never existed and are actually called Marinus I and II.  Thus, the “unbroken chain of apostolic succession” is highly questionable. 

The above are just a handful of examples that show the absolute certainty of direct Apostolic Succession is disingenuous.  From the Church in Rome, Jerusalem, Byzantium and Russia, all over the Christian world, dates and names have been constantly revised and can’t escape from the fact that the earliest church historians give different dates, names, and lists.  And as more and more ancient writings have been discovered, they have only raised more questions as to the reliability of current lists.

Simply trusting the bishops and patriarchs of the Church just because “they says so” is extremely unwise and is what led people into Gnosticism, mormonism, Jehovahs witnesses, Islam, and cultism.  The Apostles were worthy to be believed because of the authority and power they were actually GIVEN to perform undeniable miracles that validated their claims, like raising the dead, healing those who had been blind, deaf, crippled since birth.   None of the current popes and patriarchs, all the way back to Clement of Rome, are performing the same sort of miracles as the Apostles.  Why is that?  They don’t have the same authority and power.

Saints and Patriarchs That Never Existed

Besides some of the listed fake patriarchs above, there are persons declared to be Saints, that never existed too.  How is this possible of the RCC and OC know who previously served in the church and were later discussed by ordained bishops and priests there they decided these fake persons were Saints.  This proves bishops, popes, patriarchs, and priests to be fallible, even in divine matters where they claim to have the Apostolic authority to identify “saints” of the faith.  The existence of fake saints proves they do not have Apostolic Authority and Power either.  In their divine authority, they determined someone fake to be a Saint; and their divine power, they failed to know that person even existed and couldn’t even be a saint.  Then, they instruct all their following to pray to and venerate someone who never existed.  The RCC and OC claim they can never error in matters of faith and morals, but, declaring Sainthood and determining a feast date of remembrance and then declaring that Saint the patron Saint over something… is literally a matter of faith… and an error.  

In 1947, the Vatican made changes regarding 74 popes. It removed “the little man who never was.” Pope Donus had been listed as a pope in 973. But in 1947 the Vatican dropped him from its “unbroken line” Why? Because they finally determined he had never even existed.  In addition, the Vatican dropped six “popes,” and removed the “sainthood” of four others.

In The Faith of Millions, author, John A. O’Brien, Ph.D, Copyright 1938, published by Our Sunday Visitor (Roman Catholic newspaper), Nihil Obstat Rev. T. E. Dillon, Censor Librorum; Imprimatur, John Francis Noll, DD, Bishop of Fort Wayne.  List of popes, pages 67-70. Total number of popes, starting with Peter, ending with Pius XII, 261.  Pope #137, John XIV; Pope #207, Martin V.  Statement on page 70: “of the 261 popes from St. Peter to Pius XII, 83 are honored as saints, 7 as blessed and 33 were martyred; they constitute a distinguished list of holy and saintly men, linking the Church with Christ and constituting the Title Deed of the Catholic Church—the one true Church of Jesus Christ on earth.”  But then, in  What’s The Truth About Catholics? author, Rev. John A. O’Brien, Copyright 1950, published by Our Sunday Visitor, Nihil Obstat Rev. Msgr. T. E. Dillon, Censor Librorum; Imprimatur John Francis Noll, DD, Bishop of Fort Wayne.  List of popes, pages 66-67. Total number of Popes from Peter to Pius XII, 262. Pope #137, Donus II; Pope #207, John XXII or XXIII or XXIV. Pope #5 is shown as Anacletus, whereas in Faith of Millions, #5 is Evaristus!  A Jan. 18, 1947 news report from the Vatican states that “Pope Donus” was found to be “a person who never existed” In addition, designation of sainthood was removed from Felix II, Liberius, Anastasio, Stephen III, Stephen V.  Roman Catholic people had been praying to these non-existent “saints” for centuries with the official approval of the same Roman Catholic Church that now says it was all a mistake.  In The Story of The Pope, Dell publication, copyright 1957; Nihil obstat, John A. Goddwine, JCD, censory librorum, Imprimatur Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York.  List of popes, pages 64-65. Total number of popes from Peter to Pius XII, 258.  A copy of the Jan. 18, 1947 news article from Vatican City can be obtained from any Public Library. It was carried on the front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer, and in the New York Times. It was titles, “VATICAN DROPS 6 NAMES FROM LIST OF POPES.”  This is just a modern example of the unreliability of their continually revised “unbroken chain” and is not even considering the conflicting and differing lists from the early church fathers themselves.  

Saint Christopher is/was a patron saint and protector of travelers, Saint Christopher has long been popular. However, he was taken off the Church’s liturgical calendar due to the lack of evidence of his existence. 

Saint Euphrosyne of Alexandria Euphrosyne earned a reputation for her piety and wisdom, revealing her true identity only at the end of her life. However, modern scholars dismiss her story as mere fiction because there is no actual evidence to support her existence aside from stories hundreds of years later.

Saint Catherine of Alexandria; her existence of Catherine has been a subject of debate due to lack of evidence. In 1969, she was removed from the Church’s liturgical calendar but later restored by Pope John Paul II in 2002. 

Saint Veronica is what happens when church tradition goes wrong.  St. Veronica is often depicted in Catholic churches with a cloth containing the face of Jesus, as it was believed that she wiped his face with it. Some believed that she remained in Rome during the mission of Paul and Peter. Others claimed that she traveled to France, where she married and participated in apostolic preaching. However, none of these legends is substantiated, not even that she wiped Jesus’ face. The final representation of her is likely a misinterpretation of language. In Rome, just after Jesus’ passing, his followers worshiped a cloth bearing his face. This cloth was referred to as ‘vera icon,’ which translates to ‘true image.’ Over time, the term was distorted into Veronica, ultimately evolving into a female name. 

Saint George is said to have been born in the 3rd century in Cappadocia. Very little is known about Saint George, as stated by Pope Gelasius in the 5th century, who acknowledged that George is among those saints whose actions are only known by God. Saint George remains a mysterious and legendary figure.  If only God knows if this guy even existed, how and why did the church declare him to be a saint?

Saint Philomena There are no ancient sources that provide clear evidence of Philomena’s existence. She was invented by rector Francis Di Lucia and a Dominican Tertiary nun in Mungano, Italy, near Naples. 

Saint Alexius of Rome There were no traces of his name in martyrologies or liturgical books in the West before the end of the 10th century. 

Saint Eustace; the Emperor wanted him to sacrifice to the pagan gods. When Eustace refused, the Emperor had him and his family executed. A popular saint during the Middle Ages, the authenticity of his story has long been debated. 

Saint Barbara Once considered to be one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers (believed to help against various diseases), the Catholic Church admitted her non-existence and removed her from the General Roman Calendar in 1969. 

Invention of New Doctrines

Because Holy Scripture doesn’t support the concept and the concept itself isn’t articulated until closer to 300 AD, and there are issues, errors, and variants to the lists of succession, they then invent another, new, extra-biblical, unbiblical, concept called the “divine institution” and that you must have faith in them and trust them that they are right.  Even a notable priest, Father Sullivan has famously stated: “Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish”  It’s not easy to establish because its not there.  And because its not there, they have to add new traditions, reinterpret their own writings, and invent new doctrines such as the “divine institution”

As noted previously, the doctrine of Patriarchal Infallibility, again, is a later and “new” Doctrine not articulated in Scripture or by all ancient church father writings.  Thus, it can’t have come from the Apostles because of how foreign this teaching is to the Apostles, their disciples, and the ancient church.  RCC has the same sort of doctrine but only for the Pope, it’s known as Papal Infallibility.

Hesychasm is the doctrine which amounts to new age spiritualism and similar to Gnosticism’s belief of inner prayer.  The shear amount of extra-biblical assumptions and concepts completely outside of the orthodox Christian faith in the 1st to 4th centuries renders this “tradition” well out of the scope of being sourced from the Apostles. 

Pope John Paul II announced in 1999 that hell was “the ultimate consequence of sin itself … rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”.   Is he infallible?  Is this a doctrine passed down from the Apostles? Nope.  The New Testament, written by the Apostles, clearly states that Jesus himself declared Hell as an actual place FOR the consequence of sin.

For the RCC,  the title “pope” wasn’t accepted until Boniface in 606 A.D., no there were no popes prior to this time. Even the Roman Catholics admit that the early so-called popes were the names of bishops in Rome.  Considering that this designation was revealed or made official 570 years AFTER the church was founded, it is EXTREMELY unlikely this tradition came from the Apostles.

The abrogation of Doctrines shows that these doctrines are invented and later trashed when they become too contraversial as times and cultures change.  This renders Papal and Patriarchally declared doctrines subjective.  Apostolic Doctrines are for the whole church, in the whole, for all time; if it can be abrogated, it wasn’t from the Apostles.  On May 4, 1493, Pope Alexander VI issued the papal bull known as “Inter Caetera” that provided Portugal and Spain the religious backing to expand their territories in Africa and the Americas for the sake of spreading Christianity. The papal bull said that land not inhabited by Christians could be claimed, while “barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself.” This is part of the teaching known as the Doctrine of Discovery.  The Vatican did address the doctrine in a statement to the United Nations Ninth Session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in April 2010.  The Vatican argued, had been abrogated as early as 1494 and that “circumstances have changed so much that to attribute any juridical value to such a document seems completely out of place.” and “The Holy See confirms that Inter Caetera has already been abrogated and considers it without any legal or doctrinal value.”  So an Apostolic Sacred Tradition is “without any legal or doctrinal value“?  OR does this prove that Popes and patriarchs invent doctrines not sourced from Apostolic tradition?  The later is most accurate.  

And let us not forget the Inquisition that took place under the direction of Popes and patriarchs in France and Italy where hundreds of people were accused of heresy and then killed by the church.  Jesus didn’t kill off the Pharisees who were heretical.  The early church didn’t murder the Gnostics who were some of the most heretical of all.  Why isn’t the RCC going after Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses?  Why did this judicial doctrine stop?  Where did this judicial doctrine come from in the first place?  The purpose was to fight heresy, but if the heretics didn’t bend to the doctrines of the church, they would be executed, brutally.  The 1578 edition of the Directorium Inquisitorum (a standard Inquisitorial manual) spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: “… for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit“).  Nowhere, anywhere, in Holy Scripture is the doctrine of causing terror in your parishioners to get them to avoid sin.  This is a 13th century invented doctrine of the RCC and not sourced to apostolic tradition.

The Tsarebozhiye Doctrine in the ROC is an extreme extra-biblical concept that believes Nicholas II is the redeemer of the sins of the Russian people, that for this reason he possessed a special nature, pure of sin, that Russia is the Kingdom of God on earth, and that his death was a collective sin of the Russian people that they must atone for, however, in keeping with the Christ analogy, it is also believed that his death prevented the emergence of the Antichrist.  Some churches have stated that this is heretical.  Followers of Tsarebozhiye are united in a small non-canonical “Royal Orthodox Church”, which arose in 2008 on the basis of the “Brotherhood of the Tsar-Redeemer”, headed by Vadim Kuznetsov. The “Holy Government Synod” of the TsPTs is headed under the name of Bishop Alexy by the former archpriest of the Russian Orthodox Church Alexander Ivannikov, who was defrocked in 2010.  Metropolitan Anastasius (Gribanovsky) gave a sermon in a memorial church in Brussels in 1949, he stated: “The murder of the defenseless Russian monarch left by everyone, together with his wife and young children, will always stand as a heavy reproach to the conscience of the whole world… The time will come when mankind will finally understand that our royal martyrs and all who followed their path, being put to death for witnessing the Truth of God, sacrificed themselves as a sacrifice of purification for the sins of the entire modern world, mired in lies and untruth”.  How is this doctrine derived from the Apostles?  Clearly this won’t be found in Holy Scripture and logically it can not have derived from the Apostles orally either.  Thus, this would be an extra-biblical, non-apostolic doctrine.  If the ROC are in the lineage of Apostolic Succession, how could this doctrine come about?

The legality of chapels in private houses was a controversial issue in the Byzantine law for centuries. In order to ensure that private eukteria remained separate and did not overburden the church’s structure, as well as to prevent the dissemination of heresy, the emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565) introduced several preconditions for their construction and ordered some restrictions, including a ban on celebrating the liturgy in the oratories of private houses. The Council in Trullo in 692 extended the prohibition to baptism. Under Leo VI (r. 886–912), the restrictions were lifted, but the later patriarch Alexios Stoudites decided that this relaxation had led to many abuses and deprived bishops of much of control over the clergy and diocesan properties; in 1028, he forbade the use of eukteria for any service apart from the liturgy. Theodore Balsamon, the leading 12th-century Byzantine canonist, upheld the right of patrons to have regular liturgies and baptisms in their eukteria 

The Doctrines of Mary are filled with all sorts of teachings that are in no way even alluded to in Holy Scripture and NOT mentioned by the Apostles in their own writings.  Mary is the second Eve (Mystici Corpois Christ, par. 110) is no where hinted at in Scripture.  Mary sits at the right hand of Christ (Pope Pius X, 1835-1914, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 14) is no where hinted at in Scripture.; Mary is Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix (CCC 969) is flat out heresy in that it explicitly contradicts Holy Scripture (1 Tim 2:5); Mary Queen over all things (CCC 966) only Christ Jesus, God the Son, The Word is over all things and ZERO hint or mention of anyone else, even Mary; Mary brings eternal life by her intercession (CCC 969) this is heresy in that only Jesus Christ brings eternal life and intercedes for us along with the Holy Spirit; No man goeth to Christ but by His Mother,” (Vatican Website: Encyclical of Pope Leo 13th on the Rosary, Octobri Mense, Pope Leo 13th, 1903-1914); this is another flat out heretical claim: John 6.  For all this weight and favor the RCC and OC place on Mary, it is interesting to note that God, author of the Bible, placed Sarah higher than Mary.  Sarah is the only woman in the entire bible that recorded her death, funeral ceremony, and location of where she was buried.  God didn’t even do this for Mary.  The invention and INJECTION of the Doctrines of Mary is absolutely foreign to Holy Scripture. The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, The First Epistle of Clement, 2nd Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, The Epistle of Polycarp, The Epistle To Diognetus, The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, and Apologist, The Octavius of Minucius Felix, Dionysius of Corinth, Athenagoras of Athens, Fragments of Rhodon, Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, Theophilus of Antioch, Fragments of Maximus of Jerusalem, Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, Fragments of Pantaenus The Alexandrian Philosopher, Fragments of Serapion of Antioch, Apollonius, and fragments of Caius; none of these early church fathers mention anything about Mary in any significant manner.  

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans only states: “was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary; was baptized by John“;  The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians mentions Mary only 3 times for the purpose of explaining how Jesus was actually, and physical in the world.  Mary was not the subject, Jesus was. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians mentions Mary 1 time to just express that she was a virgin when she had Jesus.  Ignatius to the Ephesians mentions Mary’s miraculous birth, nothing more.  Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho mentions Mary 11 times but only in telling of the Nativity story.  Of all of his writings, which there are a lot, that’s all he has to say about her.  Fragments of Melito of Sardis only mention her name twice in talking about the lineage of Jesus.  Hegesippus only mentions her as in who Joseph was married to. 

In light of all known moderately authenticated writings from the first to the 3rd century, we see no real importance placed on Mary, until later centuries. 

In fairness, there is an interesting statement made by Ireneaus in Book III, Ch XXII(4) which reads:  

“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, “instead of fathers, children have been born unto thee.” For the Lord, having been born “the First-begotten of the dead,” and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.”  

This can lead down the road to developing and evolving doctrines of Mary, but when we consider the fact that Paul, when talking about the Second Adam, NEVER mentioned ANYTHING about the idea of a second Eve.  The idea of a Mary being a second Eve came from here, Ireneaus around 180 AD, almost 100 years AFTER the Apostles.  Also, it can just be argued that he is making a simple analogy and comparison and not revealing new extra-biblical divine truths. He is also making a rather large assumption as well.  The Bible doesn’t say if Eve was still a virgin when they sinned.  In fact, God brought them together first and then later they sinned.

But I am fairly confident this element of the Doctrine of Mary, calling her the Second Eve and “patroness” can be sourced, no earlier than this writing of Ireneaus:  “by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience.” – Book V, Ch XIX(1)

It CAN be granted that some of the Doctrines of Mary are sourced to older teachings and concepts, but not sourced to Apostolic tradition.  ALWAYS keep in mind, The Apostles writings are divinely inspired, the writings of Irenaeus are not.  It can also be argued that the invention and development of the Doctrines of Mary started here, with Irenaeus, and not the apostles.

Tertullian wrote On The Flesh of Christ, Ch V, para. 4 where he made the argument that Mary was just a normal fleshly person.  So if we are to incorporate what all the early church fathers taught, this must be reconciled too.  

Considering the reason for their writings about Mary, we must also keep in mind that they are writing things and creating arguments against the Gnostic sects that taught Jesus was just a normal person because he had a normal mother and father, as they deny the virgin birth.  So, their arguments are not crafted to create Doctrines of Mary, but to help express how Jesus was GOD and MAN through a virgin birth.  Tertullian writes a lot about prayer and salvation, but doesn’t mention any of the doctrines of Mary taught today.  Even when Ireneaus and Tertullian (Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, Ch1, para.1) discuss “the rule of faith” neither one of them appeal to any kind of traditions.

We must be careful when considering extra biblical, non-divinely inspired writings as having the same weight and authority of what is stated in Holy Scripture.  An example here is Clement of Alexandria states in Book VII: “But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin. ”  Nowhere in Scripture does it state she was examined after giving birth to Jesus and they determined that she was a virgin.  We don’t even need that.  That is a moot statement.  Holy Scripture has already stated that she was before Jesus’ birth, but then Jesus had half-brothers (and that’s a historical fact with discoveries of “James, the Son of Jesus” bone box inscription and other early church writings such as Eusebeus who comments on Jesus having half brothers, James and Jude, for example).  This extra-biblical statement isn’t even necessary. 

In light of Ireneaus’ over-reaching argument and Clement of Alexandria’s injection of extra-biblical non-sense we see that they are only reliable and accurate when they are proclaiming things that ARE found in Holy Scripture.  Again, Holy Scripture is the only standard that exposes heresy, not subjective, distant, evolved traditions injected into the faith by later bishops.