Comments on: Refuting the claims made by the Bishop of Rome

By: Erich Heidenreich, DDS

Erich Heidenreich, DDS — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:21:48 +0000

Interesting you should ask about Jerusalem. There was a joint bishopric formed by Anglicans and Lutherans in Jerusalem that lasted from 1841 until 1879. Part of the plan was for the Jerusalem bishop to bestow apostolic succession to Lutherans. Also of note is the fact that this was one of the things which ultimately shattered John Henry Newman’s faith in the Anglican Church, causing him to convert to Rome.
Here is Sasse again:
[Quote]
[The Anglicans were] continually beating on the doors of all other churches, demanding from Rome the recognition of their orders and from Protestants the receiving of their “apostolic succession.” Prussia repeatedly looked with longing eyes at the Church of England, from the first king, mightily impressed by “no bishop, no king,” to romantic Frederick William IV [1840-61] and his failed attempt to found a Jerusalem bishopric under the auspices of Prussia and England. The plans for this bishopric were what finally drove Newman to Rome. They contained the thought that the Church of England would help those churches “less fully organized.”
In our lifetime we have seen a renewal of this friendly offer. It was made – to the dismay of all serious English theologians – by certain English bishops as Hitler’s millennium was breaking upon us. In all seriousness they said to us that our struggle against Ludwig Müller and the other “German Christian” bishops was hopeless. The thing to do was for the German “bishops” to have themselves consecrated from England. That would bring everything into proper order. We were invited to consider the example of certain Nordic churches which enjoyed a good standing with the Church of England.
…the notion that something more is given by them than is given to the ministry of Word and sacrament also runs counter to the Lutheran Reformation, according to the understanding of Article V of the Augsburg Confession.
[Unquote]
The modern notion of apostolic succession in Rome is intimately linked to the idea that what is given in consecration is the ability to effect the “change” in the celebration of the Sacrament of the Altar. To them, succession began with Christ saying “do this in remembrance of me” to the apostles. This ability is then passed on in endless succession by the bishops who were consecrated by bishops … who were consecrated by bishops who were consecrated by the apostles.

By: Jeff Anderson

Jeff Anderson — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:53:21 +0000

Point of information: I’ve always wondered why the Bishop of Jerusalem wasn’t a more logical choice for this claim. Simply politics? I know falling to Islamic forces was no small factor, but sheesh…a rather famous figure in Christianity died there, too.
McCain: Because St. Peter and St. Paul were both martyred in Rome.

By: Erich Heidenreich

Erich Heidenreich — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:17:49 +0000

Sasse does a fine job of responding to the arguments of Rome and others on the whole notion of apostolic succession in his essay on the subject in the We Confess series published by CPH [The Church, p. 84, Apostolic Succession: Letters to Lutheran
Pastors, No. 41, April 1956]. I’ve finished reading it again at the advice of Pr. William Weedon, and will here give my own brief summary of Sasse’s arguments.
Sasse begins by pointing out that there are three aspects of “apostolicity” to debate: apostolicitas originis, successionis, doctrinae.
Then he argues that all churches claim apostolicity of origin, pointing out that: “Whether any church has its origin in the church of the New Testament or not is simply a matter of faith.” Ultimately this is a question of apostolicity of doctrine, because: “The answer has to do with whether I consider the doctrine of my church to be apostolic.”
Next he attacks the idea that any particular apostolicity of succession can be demonstrated, giving a cursory history of the attempts to create lists and the different purposes those lists were created for. He also quotes the Didache (15:1) which gives advice to congregations in case there are no wandering apostles, prophets, or teachers among them: “Elect therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord…” This seriously questions the idea that there is an unbroken succession of consecration of bishops, indicating that it is a relatively modern construct. Rather, what has always been debated in the church is apostolicity of doctrine.
Sasse spends some time on sola Scriptura in which he acknowledges that Paul speaks of the receiving and passing on of a tradition (1 Cor. 11:23 and 15:3):
[Quote]
In the New Testament we do have tradition in the sense of the message of the Gospel, or some particular message, being faithfully kept and handed on (1 Tim. 6:29), without addition or subtraction (Rev. 22:18-19). This “tradition,” however, whether it be the oral proclamation of the apostles or whether it was already written down, has nothing to do with a tradition which was later placed in opposition to Scripture. The apostolic witness cannot be divided into what was preached and what was written down. these are one and the same. The authentic doctrinal tradition of the church in the sense of the New Testament is never anything else that the living transmission of this witness in preaching and instruction. It can never be an independent source of revelation. Authentic apostolic succession, then, is always and only the succession of doctrine. It may be known by its identity with the witness of the apostles in the New Testament. In this way, the content of what is proclaimed by any and every church is to be weighed.
There is indeed also a succession of teachers who have faithfully proclaimed the apostolic message. But who these surely are only God knows, just as He alone “knows those who are His,” who are truly His church [2 Tim 2:19].
[Unquote]
And here is where what I what I have said on this very blog before becomes the first principle from which we know the voice of the Shepherd. That is:
The question of whether or not a pastor and/or church is apostolic is answered rightly only by whether or not one is hearing the true Gospel. The Augsburg Confession states that the “Church” is found where the Word is preached in its purity and the Sacraments are rightly administered. How do we define pure Word and Sacrament? – that taught and practiced according to the one pure fount and source of God’s revelation: SCRIPTURE, interpreted according to the central doctrine of Christianity that separates us from ALL other religions.
What is that central doctrine? That THE ONE TRUE GOD is the God who saved me ALL BY HIMSELF, with no help from me or anybody else. All my sins are imputed to Christ, and all His righteousness is imputed to me. That’s the only God I can have faith in! The One with pure monergistic grace – something ALL the other “Christian” denominations deny.
Lutheranism alone teaches the pure monergistic grace of God in Christ Jesus. This is what sets us apart from all others. How do I know the voice of the Shepherd? When I hear Him tell me my sins are forgiven – unconditionally. Anyone who claims to speak the Word of the Shepherd yet preaches a synergistic salvation is a false shepherd. All Roman Catholic priests preach a synergistic salvation. Therefore they are false shepherds – not members of the apostolic succession. The Apostle Paul preached salvation by faith alone, “and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”