Validity of holy orders: The case for Presbyteral succession

Apostolic succession, is the doctrine that for a church to be considered a true church, that is, one with true and saving sacraments. The sacraments need to be administered by a pastor who has been ordained by a bishop that can trace his ordination back to someone ordained by the Apostles. Essentially apostles like Paul, ordained bishops like Timothy and eventually Timothy ordained other men and those men ordained other men and so on and so forth. This forms an unbroken and physical line of laying on of hands. The present day Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Assyrian, Oriental and Anglican churches all claim that they can list the ordinations of their bishops back to one of the original Apostles ordained by Jesus Christ our Lord. I will be presenting the case that Lutherans, the Reformed and other protestants have a type of presbyteral succession which should also be seen as valid.

Should you even care?

Lets quickly read what some of the early church fathers thought: 

Saint Clement, bishop of Rome a direct disciple of the Apostles Peter and Paul writing around the year 96 says in '1st Clement' :

"Our Apostles, too, by the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that strife would arise concerning the dignity of a bishop; and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry."

 

Saint Irenaeus, bishop of  Lyons a disciple of Polycarp a disciple of the Apostle John, writing in the 180s says in his work 'Against Heresies': 

"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times."

Tertullian of Carthage writing in the 200s says in his work 'On the Prescription of Heretics': 

"Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning." 

We see that to the earliest fathers the issue of being able to trace back the succession of your bishops was vital.

Bishop and Presbyter are the same office!

At the time of the 16th century reformation most of the Reformers and their fellow clergy were all former Roman Catholic Priests and hence had valid ordinations from a bishop in Apostolic succession. Then the reformers ordained other pastors as well. The Roman Catholic church claims that the reformers had no authority to ordain others because none of them were bishops hence all the pastors who were ordained by them have invalid ordinations breaking apostolic succession at the 1st generations of reformers. Biblically however we only see 2 clerical offices in the church not 3, Deacons and Pastor/Bishops. presbyteros is the Greek word that is translated Presbyter, Pastor or Elder in the new testament and episkopos is the Greek word in the new testament translated Bishop or Overseer. I will demonstrate that presbyteros and episkopous is used interchangeably in the new testament for the same office. 

Scripture 

Titus 1:5–7 [5] This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders (presbuterous) in every town as I directed you—[6] if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. [7] For an overseer(episkopon), as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, (ESV). 

Notice how the qualification for the elder being chosen is someone being beyond reproach and Paul then says that this is because an overseer is to be beyond reproach.

Acts 20:[17] Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders(presbuterous)  of the church to come to him. (ESV). Notice how Paul calls the Ephesian elders Presbyters and in the very same chapter in the same conversation addressing the same group of people he calls them 11 verses later episkopous, bishops. 

Acts 20:[28] Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers(episkopous), to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (ESV)

Now consider this, if the Apostles really did establish the episcopate as a separate and greater office form the presbyterate and if only bishops can ordain valid presbyters. Then who would we expect to be the first bishops? The Apostles! They went around ordaining people and rightly have the most authority in the Christian church. Yet Peter calls the office that he holds as one of Presbyter. 

1 Peter 5: [1] So I exhort the elders(presbuterous) among you, as a fellow-elder(sumpresbuterous) and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: [2] shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight(episkopountes), not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; (ESV)

Paul when addressing the leadership of the church in Philippi only addresses 2 offices, bishops and deacons. Philippians 1:[1] Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,

To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers(episkopois) and deacons: (ESV) 

If presbyter and bishop were separate offices. One could imagine a congregation with presbyters and deacons and no bishops but it is certainly impossible for one with bishops and deacons and no presbyter, how does that work? I personally think this last one is the nail in the coffin, Saint Timothy who the catholic church considers to be a bishop was ordained by presbyters! Yet Lutheran orders are invalid because we allow presbyters to ordain? 1 Timothy 4:[14] Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders(presbuteriou) laid their hands on you. (ESV). 

Church History

1st century 

The New testament, an entirely first century document is clear on the episcopate however it is not just the New testament. All the extra-biblical writings we have from 1st century say the same thing 

Saint Clement of Rome says: 

"So preaching everywhere in country and town, they [the apostles] appointed their first fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto those that should believe." 

Saint Clement of Rome only believes in 2 offices which means when he said earlier that the apostles appointed successors through the bishopric. He sees this as sanamous with the presbyterate hence Saint Clement believes that Apostolic succession is passed down through the presbyterate. 

The Didache (50-100 AD) says: 

"Appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, and true and approved."

 We see that absolutely no one in the first century believes that bishops and presbyters are separate offices, not the apostles and not the 1st century apostolic fathers. 

Other Fathers 

Remember the quote I gave earlier from Saint Irenaeus on the succession of bishops. He says in his earlier chapter of Against Heresies: 

" But again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the churches, they object to the tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even then the apostles". 

This would have been a perfect time for Irenaeus to mention the bishop as the next step before the apostles but he doesn't. Not only that but this shows that before he even mentions the apostolic succession through bishops, he says in literally the previous chapter that the presbyters are the ones who sit in the seat of apostolic succession.

Saint Jerome laments to the deacons attempting to overthrow the presbyters at a certain church saying: 

" I am told that someone has been mad enough to put deacons before presbyters, that is before bishops. For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops, must not a mere server of tables and of widows be insane to set himself up arrogantly over men through whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are produced?"

 

It is not just Jerome who recognizes that the Apostle "clearly" teaches that the episcopacy is the 2nd office in the church but so do Saints John Chrysostom and Theodoret in their homilies on Phillipians. Saint Jerome, in Commentary on Titus (1:5–7) says:

"A presbyter is the same as a bishop, and before there were, by the devil’s prompting, parties in religion, and it was said among the people, 'I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas,' the churches were governed by the joint counsel of the presbyters. But after each one began to consider those whom he had baptized as his own and not Christ’s, it was decreed throughout the whole world that one presbyter should be elected and placed over the others, and that the whole care of the Church should be entrusted to him, so that the seeds of schism should be removed."

Addressing Saint Ignatius 

The Roman Catholics will point to St. Ignatius, a student of the apostle John, who in the 2nd century writes to churches on his way to be martyred in Rome. Saint Ignatius is big on the distinction between the bishop and the presbyter and clearly advocates for a 3 office view and he says that the episcopate is universal in the church. Here is where I will distinguish between the ontology of the office and the authority of the office. Ontologically (by nature) the bishop and the presbyter are the same office. Meaning that the presbyterate and the episcopate have the same authority vested in them to do the same things (like consecrate the Eucharist into the body and blood of Christ). It is not that the deacon isn't given the authority to do this but rather that they do not have the ability at all, such that it is an impossibility that a deacon can consecrate a Eucharist. Even if St. Ignatius is correct, that wouldn't follow that Apostolic succession cannot be bestowed through the presbyterate because Ignatius says that the bishop sits in the place of God and the presbyters in the seats of the Apostles. Dismissing Ignatius however cannot be done easily because he was taught by the apostle John so lets perhaps consider why Ignatius separates the episcopate from the presbyterate so early on. 

One must admit that although Peter calls himself a fellow presbyter he evidently has immensely more authority then the other presbyters being an apostle of Jesus Christ. So to say that the church functioned with only 2 offices in the 1st century is true ontologically in the first century but for all intents and purposes that is not how they functioned authoritatively. So there were presbyters (the Apostles) who had immensely more authority then the other presbyters though they held the same office with other presbyters in addition to their office as apostles. So functionally, not ontologically but functionally there were 3 tiers of authority in the church in the first century. The church saw fit to keep this structure and naturally the presbyters whom the apostles discipled personally like a Timothy, Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement, as the apostles were dying, filled their vacant seats of authority. Not with the authority of Apostles but that of bishops and they were naturally elevated above their fellow presbyters such that without any delay the church started reserving the word bishop for just these men. I believe this view allows the episcopate to be in seed form in the apostolic period and blossoms shortly after the apostles die. So in some sense one can say that the episcopate is apostolic however we are perpetually reminded by the new testament and by the 1st century fathers not to forget that these offices are the same, everything a presbyter can do so can a bishop. It is by human rite alone that we reserve certain activates only for the bishop and not by apostolic constitution. This view is the only via media to harmonize the explicit statements of the new testament and the 1st century fathers and Ignatius' testimony to how quickly the episcopate separated from the mere office of presbyter

Examples of Presbyteral ordination

To put the icing on the cake we will now look at examples of licitly ordained presbyters ordained by other presbyters in the church prior to the reformation. The most notable and significant example is from once again, Saint Jerome in his letter to Evangelus: 

"In Alexandria, from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always chose one of their own number and, having placed him in a higher rank, called him bishop. Just as if an army were to make an emperor, or the deacons were to elect one of themselves and call him archdeacon."

We are told by Saint Jerome that from the time of Mark (the gospel writer) to the time of bishop Heraclas the custom of the ordination of bishops in Alexandria was done by the council of presbyters. Now an objection to this is that the presbyters at Alexandria selected a presbyter to be given the bishopric and the ordination was done by another bishop from a different Jurisdiction. However this begs the question, there is no need for this bishop to be ordained because that assumes that he is being "ordained" to a separate office. Jerome rejects that these offices were separate in this time period hence he need only be elected. Is the bishop from the other jurisdiction according to St. Jerome not just another ordinary presbyter? He is, and Jerome says that in the early days the 2 offices were the same. Now tell me, is not the "time of Mark the Evangelist" the earliest of times of the church? Appreciate for a second how this is presbyters ordaining a licit bishop for more than 100 years this was the custom of the apostolic see of Alexandria. That's right one of the 4 original Apostolic sees was established according to St. Jerome by the election of presbyters to the episcopate by other presbyters. So if Lutheran Orders are invalid because we use presbyters to ordain other presbyters how much more null and void is the Apostolic see of Alexandria that dares to use presbyters to ordain bishops! Now a Roman Catholic or Orthodox can simply say that St. Jerome was wrong but let me remind you that saint Jerome is writing in the 300s about something that happened in the 100s however you my friend are disputing Jerome and you live in the 2000s. You are disputing a Saint that lived much, much closer to the times of the events and not even his fellow priests or his bishops or anyone (to my awareness) corrected him on the early ordination practices of Alexandria, surely Augustine had read all of Jerome's writings yet he never disputed or corrected him, yet you attempt to. 

Now finding licitly ordained presbyters by other presbyters is child's play. Blessed John Cassian says in his conferences that Abbot (presbyter) Paphnutius ordained his successor Daniel to both the deaconate and the presbyterate. Maybe you can Say Abbot Paphnutius was wrong for doing this but the Abbot later became a bishop and was present at the Holy synod of Nicaea (325). We also have explicit Papal bulls from Popes in the medieval period allowing Abbots to ordain priests. Pope Boniface IX writes in his Papal bull "Sacrae Religionis": 

"We, by the apostolic authority, grant to these abbots of the mentioned monasteries the power and faculty to confer the orders of subdeacon, deacon, and priest upon the religious of their monasteries, as well as others who may be fit, in places where, by reason of distance or some other reasonable cause, it is not easy for them to be ordained by a bishop."

Its not just Pope Boniface who gave this permission to Abbots (who are presbyters) but also Pope Martin X and Pope Innocent XIII and they all did this in Papal bulls. Now one can say they have permission from the Pope, then I ask can the Pope grant a deacon the ability to ordain a presbyter ? Abbot Paphnutius also likely didn't get permission from the Pope to do this.